Mr. and Mrs. Hampton went to a restaurant and ordered the roast duck dinner for two. When they began their dinners, they found that the duck was frozen in the middle. They ate what they could of the dinner but complained to the waiter. The waiter listened but merely gave them the bill for the entire cost of the dinner. Mr. Hampton put half of that amount on the table and began to leave. The waiter and the manager caught up to him before he reached the front door, and although they allowed Mrs. Hampton to leave, they restrained Mr. Hampton. Furthermore, the manager called the police, who, after listening to the waiter and Mr. Hampton explain just what happened, arrested Hampton and took him to jail. Mrs. Hampton bailed him out within three hours. On these facts, which one of the following is true?
A) The Hamptons could sue the employer of the waiter for the tort of nuisance.
B) Mr. Hampton could sue the waiter and the employer for the tort of false imprisonment.
C) Mr. Hampton could sue only the waiter.
D) Mr. Hampton could not sue the police who arrested him.
E) Mr. Hampton could also sue for defamation.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q23: Although nothing at all had been stolen,
Q24: Which of the following statements is correct?
A)
Q25: Which of the following is an intentional
Q26: The plaintiff, M, quit her job because
Q27: Malicious prosecution occurs when a person
A) initiates
Q29: In Braintech v. Kostiuk, the Court confirmed
Q30: Which of the following actions would not
Q31: Intentionally appropriating the goods of another can
Q32: In Carley v. Willow Park Golf Course
Q33: After the MCLeans filled their swimming pool,
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents