LAW 2410 COMP TEST MCQ/ HIM 2410 with complete solutions

LAW 2410 COMP TEST MCQ/ HIM 2410 with complete solutions Question 1 Debbie is jogging, when a chartered bus swerves onto the sidewalk where she is jogging and heads straight for her. The bus driver is so preoccupied wi ...

LAW 2410 COMP TEST MCQ/ HIM 2410 with complete solutions Question 1 Debbie is jogging, when a chartered bus swerves onto the sidewalk where she is jogging and heads straight for her. The bus driver is so preoccupied with the passengers in the bus that he did not realize that the bus has gone off the road. Debbie tried her best to get out of the way in time and at the last minute she jumped into her neighbor Pam's yard. Once she landed on the ground, Debbie realized that she was lying in a patch of Pam's prize-winning pumpkins, and had essentially killed an entire section of the pumpkin patch. Pam asserts an action against Debbie for damages to her pumpkins. How will the court likely rule? Debbie is liable as she had no privilege to enter Pam's yard. Debbie is liable because she failed to act with due care. Debbie was privileged to enter Pam's land, therefore she is not liable. Debbie is liable for the damaged pumpkins. {{Ans- Answer: D is the correct answer. The privilege of necessity states that a person can interfere with the property of another to reasonably avoid threatened serious injury from a natural act or the act of another if the threatened act is substantially more serious than the invasion of the party. When dealing with private necessity (i.e., an act that only benefits one person) the actor remains liable for any damage they cause, even though they may be privileged to enter. A is partly right, as it does correctly state that Debbie is liable for the damage. It incorrectly states, however, that she was not privileged to enter Pam's yard. B is incorrect. Exercise of due care is meaningless since the claim against Debbie will be one of intentional tort, such as a trespass or conversion. C is wrong. The fact that Debbie has privilege does not mean that she is not liable, as set forth in the correct answer. Question 2 Bob works for as a police detective. He has received numerous awards and given TV interviews. He decides to retire and leaves the force to play golf. One day he is watching television and he comes across "LA Law" a docu-drama about the detective trade in LA. After the initial credits, Bob sees the following: "Based on the trials and tribulations of detective Bob's life while serving on the LAPD police force. Please be aware that this is a stylized documentary and things may appear in a manner slightly different than they actually occurred." Bob watches the show and becomes angry, as the plot includes a sordid inter-office affair with a dispatcher that never occurred in his real life. If Bob brings an action against the broadcasting company for invasion of privacy, who will likely prevail? Bob, since they used his name for a commercial purpose. Bob, since his retirement and the associated right to seclusion has been upset. Bob, as he was portrayed in a false light. The broadcasting company, as the show when taken as a whole, was complimentary to Bob's life. {{Ans- Answer: C is the best answer. Invasion of privacy based on a publication of facts that place the plaintiff is a false light, requires a showing of the following elements: 1) publication of facts about the plaintiff by the defendant placing the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye; 2) the "false light" must be something objectionable to a reasonable person under the circumstances; and 3) malice on the defendant's part where the published matter is in the public interest. Facts will be found to place a plaintiff in a false light if they showcase: 1) views that the he does not hold, or 2) actions that he did not take. The alleged sexual affair with a dispatcher did not take place and would be objectionable to a reasonable person under the circumstances. This meets the requirement for false light invasion of privacy (A) is incorrect. The case for invasion of privacy based on the use of a person's name, requires a showing of unauthorized use by the defendant of their picture or name for commercial advantage. Typically, this is the use of a name or image in the sale of a product by the defendant. Here, Bob's name is only in the credits and no facts indicate that it was used to boost sales etc. (B) is incorrect. The case for invasion of privacy based on an intrusion upon the plaintiffs affairs or seclusion needs proof of one the following: 1) the act of prying or intruding upon the affairs or seclusion of the plaintiff by the defendant; 2) the intrusion must be something that would be objectionable to a reasonable person; or 3) the thing to which there is an intrusion or prying must be "private." Here, there are no facts indicating that the broadcasting channel invaded Bob's private affairs by creating sex scenes that he objected to. (D) is incorrect because if Bob's privacy has been invaded, then the defense that the program as a whole was complimentary is not valid. Question 3 Lance manufactures ladders. Each ladder is labeled with a warning: "If over 200 pounds, do not use this ladder." Federal regulations require that ladders of this type be tested to support at least 200 pounds. Barbara, who is redecorating her house, has been dieting for years and weighs 210. She borrowed a ladder made by Lance from her neighbor, Nell. When Barbara climbed up on the ladder, it collapsed and she was badly injured. If Barbara sues Lance for her injuries, who will prevail? Lance, because Barbara assumed the risk by using the ladder despite the warning. Lance, because the ladder was unavoidably unsafe. Barbara, because her misuse of the ladder was foreseeable Barbara, because Lance's warning was not adequate {{Ans- A is the best answer. There is a duty to warn of non-obvious dangers, which could include the weight limit for a ladder. The warning gives notice to Barbara who is over the weight limit and therefore used the ladder knowing of the risk. B is incorrect because the product was not unavoidably unsafe when labeled with the appropriate warning. C is incorrect because there is no assumption that a person will violate a written warning and if they do so, it is at their own risk. D is incorrect because the warning was adequate. Question 4 Tools, Inc. manufactured a chainsaw for domestic gardening use. The chainsaw had a 'tip protector' to protect users from injuries cause by kickback of the saw. The chainsaw was sold at Lowell's Hardware, where Patrick, an avid gardener, had purchased it. Patrick was injured from kickback when using the chainsaw manufactured by Tools, Inc. The tip protector for the chainsaw had not been properly secured to the housing of the chainsaw and had fallen off after Patrick had purchased it. Patrick sued both Tools, Inc. and Lowell's Hardware for damages. Patrick can: Recover his entire damages from either Tools, Inc. or from Lowell's Hardware. Recover from Lowell's Hardware on a theory of vicariously liability. Recover from Tools, Inc., but not from Lowell's Hardware. Recover from Tools, Inc. only on a negligence theory. {{Ans- A is the best answer, based on joint and several liability and based on strict liability of both the manufacturer and retailer for the harm. B is incorrect because vicarious liability is not a proper basis for Lowell's liability, and Lowell's is directly liable, not just derivatively liable. C is incorrect because Lowell's can be directly liable for strict liability even if it had no opportunity to inspect the product and was not negligent. D is incorrect because the retailer Lowell's would also have liability, and because Tools, Inc. is also liable to Patrick on a strict liability theory, not just a negligence theory. Question 5 Maria agreed to bring a cake to Tammy's apartment for a bake sale to be held the following day at their church. Tammy leased the apartment from the landlord and owner, Lyle. Tammy gave Maria directions to Tammy's apartment and asked her to come at 9:00 a.m. with the cake. Maria went to Tammy's apartment right around 9:00 a.m. When Maria got to Tammy's apartment complex, a moving van was blocking part of the sidewalk. Maria navigated around the van and took the cake to Tammy's apartment. On her way back to her car, Maria again had to navigate around the sidewalk and stepped onto the grass, sunk into the grass and lost her balance, falling to the ground. She hit a pipe improperly protruding from grass, which was part of the sprinkler system, and broke her knee. If Maria sues Lyle, who is likely to prevail? Maria, but only if Lyle knew of the protruding pipe. Maria, because Lyle has a duty to guests of his tenants. Lyle, because he only has a duty to Tammy, not to Maria. Lyle, if Tammy never advised him of the protruding pipe.