Question 1

A national magazine published an article about a famous television star.The television personality is upset because the information contained in the story is not correct.If the actress sues the magazine:

Accepted Answer

In order to successfully sue the magazine for defamation, the actress will need to prove that the magazine either knew that the information they published about her was false or acted with reckless disregard of the facts. This is the standard for proving actual malice in defamation cases involving public figures. The other options may factor into the case, but proving actual malice is the key to a successful lawsuit in this situation.

Question 2

Most states recognize some form of comparative negligence.

Accepted Answer

Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that allows the percentage of fault to be allocated between the plaintiff and defendant in a case. Most states in the US recognize some form of comparative negligence.

Question 3

Lori works for Big Corporation as an "at will" employee.Richard,owner of a small store,offers to pay Lori much more money if she will leave Big Corp and work for his store.When Lori starts to work for Richard,Big Corp correctly claims Richard is liable for tortious interference with a contract.

Accepted Answer

False

Question 4

In a strict liability case,the courts still consider if the defendant acted in a reasonable and prudent manner.

Accepted Answer

In a strict liability case, the focus is on the act itself rather than the defendant's intent or conduct; therefore, the courts do not consider if the defendant acted in a reasonable and prudent manner.

Question 5

Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,Internet service providers are held responsible for defamatory postings by their members or users.

Accepted Answer

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act specifically provides immunity to internet service providers for content provided by their users. ISPs cannot be held liable for the defamatory or harmful content posted by their users.

Question 6

While hunting,Roger enters Adele's property without permission and is injured by falling into a ditch that was obscured by the underbrush.Under the common law,Adele is liable for Roger's injuries.

Accepted Answer

Adele is not liable for Roger's injuries because he entered her property without permission, which is considered trespassing. Adele did not create the dangerous condition that caused Roger's injury and therefore has no legal duty to ensure his safety.

Question 7

A salesclerk at Braybon's Department Store observed a customer remove a ring from a display case and put it in her purse.In most states,Braybon's would be able to detain the customer for suspicion of shoplifting.

Accepted Answer

The salesclerk observed the customer steal the ring, so Braybon's would have a legally justifiable reason to detain the customer for suspicion of shoplifting. However, the specific laws regarding detention vary by state, so it is possible that in some states Braybon's may not have the legal authority to detain the customer.

Question 8

Dewayne sold a space heater to Vivian,telling her it would heat a 200-square-foot area,even though he knew it would effectively heat only about one third of that space.Dewayne is liable for the intentional tort of fraud.

Accepted Answer

Dewayne intentionally misled Vivian by false advertising the heater's capabilities, therefore committing fraud.

Question 9

Opinion is generally a valid defense in a defamation lawsuit because it is not meant to be a factual statement.

Accepted Answer

This is because opinions are subjective and are not intended to be statements of fact that can be proven true or false, unlike factual statements which may be defamatory if they are false and harm the reputation of the subject. However, there are certain cases where an opinion may be defamatory if it implies a false statement of fact or if it is presented as an objective fact rather than a subjective opinion.

Question 10

In order for a plaintiff to win a case involving intentional infliction of emotional distress,she must prove the defendant acted in an extreme and outrageous manner.

Accepted Answer

This statement is true. In addition to proving that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous, the plaintiff must also show that the conduct caused her severe emotional distress.

Question 11

Which of the following statements about torts is correct?

Accepted Answer

A tortious act may also be a criminal act, but not all tortious acts are necessarily criminal acts. For example, causing harm to someone through negligence would likely be a tort, but not a crime. On the other hand, intentionally causing harm to someone would be both a tort and a crime. Therefore, statement A and B are incorrect, and statement C is correct.

Question 12

If Gloria threw a rock which hit Merle,she is liable for an intentional tort of battery only if she intended to injure or harm Merle.

Accepted Answer

The answer of If Gloria threw a rock which hit...

Question 13

The tort of exploitation prohibits someone from peeping through your window or wiretapping your telephone.

Accepted Answer

The tort of exploitation typically refers to the unauthorized use of someone's name, likeness, or identity for personal gain, not privacy invasions like peeping or wiretapping.

Question 14

Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant for conduct that is extreme and outrageous.

Accepted Answer

Punitive damages are designed to punish the defendant for their egregious behavior.

Question 15

Theft is to the criminal law as ____ is to the civil law.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Theft is to the criminal law as...

Question 16

Jim told his manager,Lana,that a co-worker,Diane,had been in prison for theft.Lana checked into the matter and,when she learned that Diane had served time in prison for theft,fired her.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Jim told his manager,Lana,that a co-worker,Diane,had been...

Question 17

Public officials and public figures receive less protection from defamation than ordinary people.

Accepted Answer

Public officials and public figures are considered to have voluntarily entered into the public debate and thus have a higher burden to prove defamation. They must show that the statement was made with "actual malice," meaning that the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Ordinary people do not have this burden and only need to prove that the statement was false and caused harm to their reputation.

Question 18

A defendant who engages in setting off fireworks at a fully licensed Fourth of July show is liable for harm that results from the activity only if the plaintiff proves the harm was foreseeable.

Accepted Answer

The answer of A defendant who engages in setting off...

Question 19

Which of the following elements is not necessary to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?

Accepted Answer

An ultra-hazardous activity is not necessary to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The other three elements are necessary: that the defendant had exclusive control of the thing that caused the harm, that the harm would normally not have occurred without negligence, and that the plaintiff had no role in causing the harm.

Question 20

A sports fan,injured by a hockey puck that flew into the stands during an NHL game,would be subject to the defense of assumption of the risk in a suit to recover for her injuries.

Accepted Answer

Assumption of the risk is a defense invoked in personal injury cases where the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risks associated with a certain activity, such as attending a hockey game where flying pucks are a known hazard. Therefore, a sports fan injured by a hockey puck would likely be subject to the defense of assumption of the risk in a lawsuit to recover for their injuries.

Quiz 6: Torts and Product Liability