TORTS – EXAM KEYS
Please note that there are no warranties either express or implied regarding these keys.
There may be other issues for which I gave students credit but which are not on these
keys. There may be variations in the way I gave credit, despite the numbers on the key.
My procedure for grading is to grade all of a particular question for all exams together so
that I use the exam key consistently with all students.
TORTS SPRING 2004 EXAM v.3
PROBLEM ONE
Did Green breach duty to Bashirah?
Duty to B? (Palzgraph)
Discuss
Violation of Statute - substance
Class of persons
Patient only?
Discuss
Type of injury
Emot Distress?
Discuss
Viol of Statute – procedural
Negl per se – negligence unless excuse
Jury can decide – some ev
Can go to jury – some ev
Pharm Malpract?
Strandard of Reas. Pharm
Discuss
NIED
No impact
Zone of Danger – discuss
Dillon type Closeness
Observation
Died in hospital
Gradual?
Serriousness of distress
Phys manifestation
Other grounds – wrong death – surviv – if crrct
EXAM _____________________________
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
2
2
2
PROBLEM THREE
MMC: Res Ipsa Loquitor
No theory of breach
Control or right to control
Discuss MMC & Lum riding
Lack of explanation – unless power
failure
Ordinarily does not happen w/o neglig
Note inapplicability of expert
Discuss
Use of policy to resolve
Prox Cause
Unexpected injury
Some inury forseable
Scope of risk
5
5
5
7
3
Abner: Duty to Aid
Special relationship?
On a common mission
Not favored
Begin aid
Leaving – give impression of
seeking help?
Leave Lum in worse position?
Unable to get meds?
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
12
5
7
5
3
3
2
4
3
PROBLEM FOUR
PROBLEM TWO
Abnormally Dangerous Activity
Extent of Harm & Likelihood factors
Nuclear weapons
Can’t avoid by reas care
Note use of great care
Value to community
Discuss
Appropriateness to community
Residential
Common Usage
Discuss
Lost Chance
Problem with cause
New Damage – if substantial 40%
Relax Cause –if substantial -100%
Some – 0%
Chance of Future Harm
Some – 40%
Some – 0%
Fear
Medical monitoring
Trespass
Radiation? = entry
Intent
Knew there would be escape
SCORE____________________________
5
2
8
2
8
2
8
2
3
1
4
5
10
10
10
5
5
10
5
10
10
5
8
7
10
Conversion
Had intent to exert control
Exerted control –
Destruction of property
Resltulting injury
7
5
5
5
3
Negligence
Contrib - unlikely
CIF
Would he have been injured anyway
If not – no CIF
If increased injury - CIF
Proximate Cause
Intervening criminal act
Discuss
4
5
2
3
2
3
6
5
5
TORTS FALL 2003
PROBLEM ONE
Idoncare v. Who
Assumption of Risk
Knowledge of Risk
Rules
Saw Prior Player
Facts = some competitiveness
Appreciation of Risk
Saw Prior Player
Voluntarines
OK
Neligence
Was Conduct Unreasonable
Contributory Negligence – IF Discuss Negl
Is it unreasonable - discuss
LCC – IF DISCUSS CONTRIB
Did he see shortstop (I) at risk
POLICY – if discussed for any above – value
Job v Crowd
Negligence?
Can identify negligent parties?
RIL type case? – Ybarra?
Causation
Concurrent Sufficient – accurate descrip
Discuss
Alternative Liability – accurate descrip
Discuss – all parties? Mrkt Share type Liability – accurate
descrip
Not type of damages
Policy
All would be equal? Weight?
TOTAL
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
4
0
2
2
3
5
4
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
70
PROBLEM THREE
Job v Shale
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distree
Zone of Danger?
Discuss
His fear of police – reaonsable?
Dillon
Severity of Distress
Family Member
Cousin
Witness of Severe Injury
He thought it was injury
Discuss
Intentional Infliction of Emot DIstress
Outrageousness
Knowledge of his susceptibility?
Conduct - Discuss
Severity of Harm
Intent
Burlington v. Diamond
Trespass
She had intent to enter
Did Shale have right to invite
Her knowledge irrelevant
Diamond v. Marriott
Conversion
She had intent to take
Amount of deprivation
Marriott v. Salmon
Battery
Intrent to touch
Contact was harmful
TOTAL
6
5
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
6
6
5
5
5
5
0
6
4
4
4
0
5
5
4
0
5
7
3
131
EXAM NO ___________________________
TOTAL______
PROBLEM TWO
JOB v Construction Management - Negligence
Res Ipsa Loquitor
Why Needed
For Breach
Occurrence without Negligence
Discuss - pro
Discuss -con
Control
Exclusive or Right to Control
Discuss - pro
Discuss - con
Contrib
Facts not clear
Shifting Burden
Job v Erickson
Licensee or trespasser
Just social
Are gifts payments
If licensee – warn of known dangers
Was danger known as result of alarm
If invitee – reasonable care
Discuss
Contrib?
Job v Alertcom – product liability
Not mfg defect - discuss
Design Defect
Consumer Expectation
Discuss
Risk Utility
Risk: Use data re # of accidents
Utility: Cost P’s estimate – P wins
D’s estimate – D wins
Warning
Booklet
On device
Lucy v. CM
Duty – Unforeseen P
Prox Cause
Criminal Superceding?
Type of Harm
Extent of harm = eggshell
TOTAL
5
6
5
5
3
2
2
8
4
8
8
4
3
4
0
6
4
8
5
3
4
2
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
0
6
6
8
6
6
200
FALL 1999
O J v RD
N
E
Viol of Stat
Was there viol of stat
Car was already rented
Person in class - yes
Type of risk
Hit by car not crime
Discuss
Injury by T
Discuss - yes
If state is per se - RD breached duty
Could be some ev of negl
Discuss - Cost of recalling cars
Cause in fact - discuss - probably yes
Prox Cause
Unexpected Manner
Injury by Burns - negl - so OK
Injury by T - crim - but type designed for - prob OK
Injury from Gun - mfg? - discuss
Damages
Injury from Burs - just RD & Burns
Injury from T - RD B & T
Injury from Gun - RD B T & Boil
Contrib negl - deduct for AR
Gun injury
If Boil SL no If negl maybe
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Viol of stat - class of person - maybe not
Duty (Prox cause) - unexpected P - discuss
Damages - Emot Distress
Z of D? - seems like gun poited at B - if not - discuss
Seriousness - Phys Manifestation
Legit other grounds
Battery
Intent? transferred intent
Assault
Intended to shoot B
Product
Mfg defect - facts not clear
Design
Cons Expect - discuss
Apoprporiate - discuss
R/U -discuss
January 19, 2001iscuss
2
2
1
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
Burns v RD
JvT
BvT
JvB
T duty - if see connection to invtee issue
invitee,licensee, tresspaser
W
O
Invitee - Paying - but reimburse
- reas care
discuss
3
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
Licensee
hidden?
Warning
2
2
2
3
2
2
Usually no - no aff act
2
Spec Relationship
1
Specificity of victim
2
Prediction of harm
2
Ability to predict
Distinguish psych - possibly yes
2
2
Policy
2
2
2
Press Freedom?
Discuss
T factors - if see for extend duty - identify / discuss
Causation
Battery
1
Tresspass - Told not to go in room
intent to enter enough
unless consent - but maybe wrong room
but sign - but not clear
Tresspass
discuss - and pts from above
T Duty to warn?
H
R
E
E
2
6
2
Problem with but for
2
Alternative Liab
2
All before court
1
All negl (intentional)
1
Policy
1
But not at same time
1
No concert action
1
procedural consequence
2
DES type liability - discuss
2
4