Torts 612 Assignment #2, Tran, 9266

.docx

School

Taft Law School *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

612

Subject

Business

Date

May 7, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

4

Uploaded by ChancellorWombatMaster979 on coursehero.com

1 Tran 9266 Torts Assignment #2 Al, a salesman, and his ten-year-old son, Bob, moved to a new neighborhood. Carl, Dave, and Ed, neighborhood children of Bob's age, saw Bob riding his skateboard down the street and stopped him to see if he would be a "good sport.” They began to call him names and when Bob tried to leave, Carl put his foot on the skateboard, preventing him from leaving. Bob began to run home and Dave threw a stick at Bob which hit Frank, Al’s neighbor, and fell onto Al’s hedge. The three boys then threw rocks at Bob and one stone grazed Bob's shoulder but did not injure him. Al came out and the children taunted him by calling "pig, pig, pig, pig." 1. As to the stopping of the skateboard, for which of the following intentional torts is Carl most likely liable? A. Assault B. Battery C. False imprisonment D. Infliction of emotional distress 2. If Frank sues Dave for battery he will: A. recover. B. not recover, because Dave was aiming at Bob. C. not recover, because Dave as a ten-year-old is not liable for his torts. D. not recover, because Dave did not intend to hurt anyone. 3. If Bob sues Carl, Dave, and Ed for battery due to being hit by the rock he will: A. recover. B. not recover, because he does not know who threw the stone that hit him. C. not recover, because he suffered no injury. D. not recover, because he is presumed to have consented. 4. Tye and Carl were students at Culver Junior High School. In Latin class one morning, Carl decided to play a practical joke on Tye. As Tye was about to sit down at his desk, Carl pulled Tye’s chair from behind. As a result, Tye fell on his rump. Although he was not injured, Tye was embarrassed by the incident. If Tye asserts a claim against Carl, Tye will most likely A. recover for assault B. recover for battery C. recover for intentional infliction of mental distress D. recover for trespass to chattels
2 Tran 9266 5. Passenger entered a subway car at the 42nd Street station. Since all of the seats were occupied, Passenger stood in the subway car and grabbed a pole to secure his balance. As the subway car was proceeding cross-town, Passenger glanced at a voloptuous blonde girl standing next to him. Suddenly, the subway car made an unexpected stop. Passenger momentarily lost his balance, and grabbed the blonde girl around the waist (to avoid falling). Once Passenger regained his balance, he removed his hands from the girl’s waist and grasped the pole again. In a civil action instituted by the blonde girl against Passenger, he will most likely be found A. liable for battery B. liable, if Passenger mistakenly believed that the girl consented to the contact C. not liable, since Passenger’s conduct was socially acceptable under the circumstances D. not liable, since the girl was not harmed by the contact Questions 6-8 are based on the following facts: While relaxing poolside one Sunday afternoon, Dickie was struck by a golf ball driven by Marty, a 14-year-old boy, who was playing the 9th hole at the Pike Creek Golf Club. The fairway for the 9th hole was 65 feet wide and 437 yards long, with a dog-leg in an easterly direction. Between the fairway and Dickie’s property was a “rough” containing brush and low lying trees. As Marty was approaching the green, he hit a towering shot which deflected off a tree, struck Dickie, bounced off his head and knocked a straw hat off of his girlfriend Patty’s head. Although the ball did not strike Patty herself, she became startled and fell from her beach chair, thus breaking her arm. 6. At trial plaintiff offered uncontested evidence that golf balls from the Club’s links regularly traversed onto his property two to three times a day. Which of the following statements is most accurate regarding the liability of the Pike Creek Golf Club/Marty for trespass? A. Defendants are not liable, since they did not intentionally cause the golf ball(s) to traverse onto the plaintiff’s property. B. Defendants would remain liable for the unpermitted intrusion of the golf ball(s) onto the plaintiff’s property. C. Since the plaintiff should have reasonably anticipated that living next to a golf course would result in stray golf balls landing on his property, defendants would not be held liable. D. Since the golf balls did not substantially interfere with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his land, defendants would not be held liable.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help