Question 1

Taking pictures on an all-phone camera in a men's or women's locker room of a celebrity and then selling them may give rise to a cause of action based on appropriation.

Accepted Answer

Taking pictures without someone's consent and then selling them for profit is a violation of their right to privacy, specifically the right to control how their image is used or distributed. This is known as appropriation, and it can lead to legal action if the person's privacy has been invaded. In this case, taking pictures in a locker room without permission is also likely illegal and could result in criminal charges.

Question 2

Punitive damages can be recovered in strict liability and intentional tort cases.

Accepted Answer

Punitive damages may be awarded in cases where the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly, or in cases of strict liability where the conduct was particularly egregious.

Question 3

Physical contact is not necessary to be liable for the tort of assault.

Accepted Answer

Assault is the act of causing reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Physical contact is not necessary for an action to be considered assault. It is the perception of the victim that matters, and if they reasonably believe that they are about to be harmed or touched offensively, the person causing the apprehension can be held liable for assault.

Question 4

Comparative negligence bars all recovery to a plaintiff who is even 10 percent at fault.

Accepted Answer

Comparative negligence allows the plaintiff to recover damages in proportion to their degree of fault. In some states, even if the plaintiff is found to be partially at fault, they can still recover damages, but the amount may be reduced based on their degree of fault. It is rare for comparative negligence to completely bar recovery for a plaintiff.

Question 5

Good Samaritan laws do not generally protect persons who are not medical professionals and who have not had training in CPR.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Good Samaritan laws do not generally protect...

Question 6

Assumption of the risk,if present,prevents a plaintiff from recovering for negligence even if the plaintiff has proven all the required elements of negligence.

Accepted Answer

Assumption of the risk is a legal doctrine that operates as a defense to a negligence claim. It typically arises when a plaintiff voluntarily participates in an activity that is known to involve certain risks, and the plaintiff is injured as a result of those risks. If the defense of assumption of the risk is established, it can prevent the plaintiff from recovering for negligence, even if all the required elements of negligence are proven.

Question 7

In all defamation of character cases,the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew that the statement was false.

Accepted Answer

In some defamation cases, known as defamation per se, the statement is considered so damaging that it is presumed to have been made with actual malice. In these cases, the plaintiff does not have to prove that the defendant knew the statement was false. Additionally, in cases where the plaintiff is a public figure, they must prove that not only did the defendant make a false statement, but that the defendant made the statement with actual malice, meaning they knew the statement was false or made it with reckless disregard for the truth.

Question 8

A tort claim of unfair competition seldom succeeds because of the policy of encouraging open and vigorous competition.

Accepted Answer

A tort claim of unfair competition can succeed depending on the specific facts of the case. While there is a policy of encouraging open and vigorous competition, there are also laws and regulations in place to prevent unfair business practices such as false advertising, trade secret misappropriation, and intentional interference with contracts. Therefore, it is possible for a claim of unfair competition to be successful if it can be shown that the defendant engaged in such prohibited behavior.

Question 9

Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires that the conduct be outrageous.

Accepted Answer

Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires that the conduct be extreme and outrageous.

Question 10

Injuries suffered as a result of a tort may include past and future medical expenses.

Accepted Answer

Injuries suffered as a result of a tort may include past medical expenses, such as hospital bills, and future medical expenses, such as ongoing treatments or rehabilitation. These can be included in the compensation sought by the victim in a legal case against the person or entity responsible for the tort.

Question 11

Transferred intent occurs when someone attempts to injure someone but actually injures someone else.

Accepted Answer

Transferred intent is the legal term used when someone intends to cause harm to one person, but ends up causing harm to someone else instead. It is a real phenomenon that can occur in various situations, such as when someone tries to shoot at one person but hits another person instead. This concept is important in criminal law and can affect the level of intent and culpability assigned to the perpetrator.

Question 12

Strict liability is liability without fault.

Accepted Answer

Strict liability holds a person or company responsible for their actions, regardless of intent or fault.

Question 13

True statements can be the basis for commission of the tort of invasion of the right to privacy.

Accepted Answer

Even if a statement is true, it may still violate someone's right to privacy if it is disclosed in an inappropriate manner or without their consent. For example, revealing someone's medical history or personal finances, even if it is true, can be a violation of their privacy.

Question 14

Which of the following is not one of the general categories of torts?

Accepted Answer

The other three choices (strict liability, negligence, intentional) are the three general categories of torts recognized in the legal system. "Rational" is not a recognized category of torts.

Question 15

A plaintiff can generally recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress for any unintentional conduct of the defendant that causes the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress.

Accepted Answer

While a plaintiff may be able to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress in some circumstances, it is not true that any unintentional conduct of the defendant will necessarily give rise to such a claim. There are certain elements that must be met, such as a showing of proximate causation and the existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Question 16

Once a duty and a breach of that duty is shown,all that need be proven to prevail in a negligence cause of action is that the defendant was the proximate cause of a plaintiff's injuries.

Accepted Answer

In a negligence cause of action, the plaintiff must prove four elements: duty, breach, causation (both actual and proximate), and damages. Proving proximate cause alone is not sufficient; actual damages must also be demonstrated.

Question 17

Truth is an absolute defense in a cause of action for defamation.

Accepted Answer

If a statement is true, it cannot be considered defamatory because it is based on fact. Truth is a complete defense in a defamation lawsuit.

Question 18

Intent is required for a product disparagement claim.

Accepted Answer

Intent is a necessary element for a product disparagement claim. The plaintiff must show that the defendant made false or misleading statements about the plaintiff's product with the intention of causing harm or damage to its reputation. Without intent, there can be no product disparagement claim.

Question 19

The violation of a statute that proximately causes an injury is negligence per se.

Accepted Answer

Negligence per se is a legal doctrine that can apply when a defendant violates a statute or regulation that was intended to protect a certain class of people, and the violation causes the plaintiff's injury. In such cases, the plaintiff does not need to prove the defendant's breach of duty or the standard of care owed. Rather, the violation of the statute establishes a breach of duty, and the plaintiff only needs to prove that the violation was the proximate cause of their injury. Therefore, if a defendant violates a statute and causes an injury, it may be considered negligence per se in some jurisdictions.

Question 20

The reasonable person standard is used in determining the duty of care in a negligence case.

Accepted Answer

The reasonable person standard is a key concept in negligence law and is used to determine what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances to establish whether or not the defendant breached their duty of care.

Quiz 5: Intentional Torts and Negligence