Torts: Cases, Problems, and Policy Choices

  • Asaf Lubin (Indiana University Maurer School of Law)

7 End Matter 7 End Matter

7.1 Multiple Choice Answer Key 7.1 Multiple Choice Answer Key

Intentional Torts

Foundations of Tort Law

  • Vosburg v. Putney: Answer 1 is correct.

The Concept of Intent

  • Garratt v. Dailey: Answer 2 is correct.
  • Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.: Answer 2 is correct.
    • This is supported by Fricke v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 571 So. 2d 130 (La. 1990).
  • Ranson v. Kitner: Answer 3 is correct.
    • This is an adaptation of the facts in Dexter v. Cole, 6 Wis. 319 (1858).
  • In re White: Answer 3 is correct.

Battery

  • Wallace v. Rosen: Answer 2 is correct.
  • Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Comm'cs, Inc.: Answer 1 is correct.
  • Eichenwald v. Rivello: Answer 2 is correct.

Assault

  • Brooker v. Silverthorne: Answer 3 is correct.
  • W. Union Tel. Co. v. Hill: Answer 1 is correct.

False Imprisonment

  • Hardy v. LaBelle's Dist. Co.: Answer 3 is correct.
  • Shen v. Leo A. Daly Co.: Answer 4 is correct.
  • Louisville & Nashville Ry. Co. v. Vinson: Answer 4 is correct.
    • This is supported by Enright v. Groves, 560 P.2d 851 (Colo. App. 1977).

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

  • Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Fla., Inc.: Answer 2 is correct.
    • This is from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, illus. 13 (1965).
  • Korbin v. Berlin: Answer 1 is correct.
  • Taylor v. Vallelunga: Answer 3 is correct.

Trespass to Land

  • Herrin v. Sutherland: Answer 4 is correct.
    • This is from Davis v. Bennison, (1927) 22 Tas. L.R. 52 (Austl.).
  • Rogers v. Kent Bd. of Cnty. Road Comm'rs: Answer 2 is correct.

Trespass to Chattels

  • Glidden v. Szybiak: Answer 3 is correct.
  • CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc.: Answer 3 is correct.
  • Intel Corp. v. Hamidi: Answer 4 is correct.

Conversion

  • Midwestern Helicopter, LLC v. Coolbaugh: Answer 3 is correct.
    • This is an adaptation of the facts in La Porte v. Assoc. Indeps., Inc., 163 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1964).
  • Narragansett Elec. Co. v. Carbone: Answer 2 is correct.
    • The facts are based on a similar prank by engineering students at the University of Cambridge in 1958. See Freddie Lynne, How Cambridge University pranksters managed to put a car on the roof of Senate House... and in other unexpected places, CambridgeShire Live (Mar. 1, 2020), https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/how-cambridge-university-pranksters-managed-17836295.

Defenses to Intentional Torts

  • Katko v. Briney: Answer 4 is correct.
  • Monize v. Begaso: Answer 1 is correct.
    • This is from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 63, illus. 2 (1965); Trogdon v. State, 32 N.E. 725 (Ind. 1892).
  • Surocco v. Geary: Answer 1 is correct.
    • This is from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 262, illus. 3 (1965).
  • Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co.: Answer 3 is correct.
    • This is from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 197, illus. 3 (1965).
  • Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Resendez: Answer 2 is correct.
    • This is supported by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Mitchell, 877 S.W.2d 616 (Ky. Ct. App. 1994).
  • O'Brien v. Cunard S.S. Co.: Answer 2 is correct.
  • Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.: Answer 3 is correct.
    • This is supported by Holmes v. Warren, 126 So. 529 (La. Ct. App. 1930).
  • Koffman v. Garnett: Answer 1 is correct.
    • This is supported by Wheelock v. Noonan, 15 N.E. 67 (N.Y. 1888).

Negligence

Introduction to Negligence

  • United States v. Carroll Towing Co.: Answer 4 is correct.
  • Davison v. Snohomish Cnty.: Answer 3 is correct.

Essence of a Duty of Care

  • Buchanan v. Rose: Answer 1 is correct.
    • This is supported by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314, illus. 1 (1965).
  • Lubitz v. Wells: Answer 1 is correct.

The Standard of Reasonable Care and Its Variations

  • Vaughan v. Menlove: Answer 3 is correct.
  • Roberts v. State ex rel. LHHRA: Answer 4 is correct.
    • This is supported by Smith v. Sneller, 24 A.2d 61 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1942).
  • Robinson v. Lindsay: Answer 4 is correct.
    • This is supported by Dellwo v. Pearson, 107 N.W.2d 859 (Minn. 1961).
  • Heath v. Swift Wings, Inc.: Answer 3 is correct.
  • Andrews v. United Airlines, Inc.: Answer 4 is correct.

The Birth and Death of Duties

  • Boyd v. Racine Currency Exch., Inc.: Answer 1 is correct.

Special Duties: Off-Premises Liability

  • Taylor v. Olsen: Answer 4 is correct.
    • This is supported by Turner v. Ridley, 144 A.2d 269 (D.C. 1958).
  • Salevan v. Wilmington Park, Inc.: Answer 2 is correct.

Special Duties: On-Premises Liability

  • Rowland v. Christian: Answer 4 is correct.
  • Wolf v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.: Answer 1 is correct.

Special Duties: Duties Concerning Third Parties

  • L.S. Ayres & Co. v. Hicks: Answer 1 is correct.
  • Tarasoff v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.: Answer 2 is correct.
  • Hegel v. Langsam: Answer 2 is correct.
  • Keener v. Hribal: Answer 1 is correct.

Proving Breach: Knowledge, Capacity, and Custom

  • Baker v. Fenneman & Brown Props., LLC: Answer 3 is correct.
  • Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.: Answer 2 is correct.
  • Corthell v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co.: Answer 2 is correct.

Proving Breach: Res Ipsa Loquitur

  • Larson v. St. Francis Hotel: Answer 2 is correct.
    • This is supported by Betts v. Crawshaw, 618 N.E.2d 1262 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993).
  • McDougald v. Perry: Answer 3 is correct.
  • Ybarra v. Spangard: Answer 3 is correct.
    • This is supported by Anderson v. Serv. Merchandise Co., 485 N.W.2d 170 (Neb. 1992).

Proving Breach: Negligence Per Se

  • Osborne v. McMasters: Answer 2 is correct.
    • This is supported by Kan. O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Keirsey, 266 P.2d 617 (Okla. 1954).
  • Stachniewicz v. Mar-Cam Corp.: Answer 3 is correct. 
  • Platz v. City of Cohoes: Answer 1 is correct.

Cause in Fact

  • Howard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.: Answer 2 is correct.
  • Brown ex rel. Brown v. Wal-Mart Discount Cities: Answer 3 is correct.
  • Perkins v. Tex. & New Orleans R.R.: Answer 3 is correct.

Concurrent Causes and Attribution Problems

  • Anderson v. Minneapolis: Answer 2 is correct.
  • Summers v. Tice: Answer 1 is correct.
  • Stubbs v. City of Rochester: Answer 4 is correct. 

Proximate Cause

  • Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad: Answer 1 is correct.

Advanced Causation: Intervening/Superseding Causes

  • United Novelty Co. v. Daniels: Answer 3 is correct.
  • Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp: Answer 3 is correct.

Advanced Causation: Social Host Liability

  • Kelly v. Gwinnell: Answer 3 is correct.

Advanced Causation: NIED

  • Robb v. Pennsylvania Railroad: Answer 2 is correct.
  • Dillon v. Legg: Answer 4 is correct.
  • Boyles v. Kerr: Answer 3 is correct.

Damages

  • Kenton v. Hyatt Hotels Corp.: Answer 4 is correct.
  • Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging: Answer 1 is correct.
  • Aikens v. Debow: Answer 3 is correct.

Defenses: Contributory Negligence

  • Butterfield v. Forrester: Answer 2 is correct.
  • Davies v. Mann: Answer 1 is correct.
    • This is supported by Cates v. Beauregard Elec. Co-op., Inc., 328 So. 2d 367 (La. 1976).
  • Freeman v. United States: Answer 1 is correct.

Defenses: Comparative Negligence

  • McIntyre v. Balentine: Answer 5 is correct.

Defenses: Assumption of the Risk

  • Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute, Inc.: Answer 3 is correct.
  • Rush v. Comm. Realty Co.: Answer 4 is correct.
    • This is supported by Wyly v. Burlington Indus., Inc., 452 F.2d 807 (5th Cir. 1971) (applying Texas law).

Liability and Responsibility

Vicarious Liability

  • Bussard v. Minimed, Inc.: Answer 2 is correct.
  • O'Shea v. Welch: Answer 3 is correct.
  • Murrell v. Goetz: Answer 4 is correct.
  • Maloney v. Rath: Answer 1 is correct.
  • Christensen v. Swenson: Answer 3 is correct.
  • Jones v. HealthSouth Treasure Valley Hosp.: Answer 4 is correct.

Joint and Several Liability

  • Ravo v. Rogatnick: Answer 3 is correct.
  • Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood: Answer 6 is correct.
  • Bencivenga v. J.J.A.M.M., Inc.: Answer 4 is correct.

Strict Liability and Products Liability

Strict Liability: Dangerous Activities

  • Miller v. Civil Constr., Inc.: Answer 1 is correct.
  • Foster v. Preston Mill Co.: Answer 2 is correct.

Strict Liability: Animals

  • Marshall v. Ranne: Answer 1 is correct.

Product Liability: Manufacturing Defects

  • Welge v. Planters Lifesavers Co.: Answer 2 is correct.

Product Liability: Design Defects

  • Voss v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.: Answer 3 is correct.
  • Ford Motor v. Trejo: Answer 2 is correct.

Product Liability: Warning Defects

  • Hood v. Ryobi American Corp.: Answer 3 is correct.

Products Liability: Defenses

  • Daly v. General Motors Co.: Answer 4 is correct.
  • Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews: Answer 3 is correct.

Products Liability in the Digital Age

  • Rodgers v. Christie: Answer 3 is correct.