1. Passenger entered a subway car at the 42nd Street station.
Since all of the seats were occupied, Passenger stood in the subway
car and grabbed a pole to secure his balance. As the subway car was
proceeding cross-town, Passenger glanced at a voloptuous blonde
girl standing next to him. Suddenly, the subway car made an
unexpected stop. Rider momentarily lost his balance, and grabbed
the blonde girl around the waist (to avoid falling). Once Passenger
regained his balance, he removed his hands from the girl’s waist
and grasped the pole again.
In a civil action instituted by the blonde girl against
Passenger, he will most likely be found
A. liable for battery
B. liable, if Rider mistakenly believed that the girl
consented to the contact
C. not liable, since Rider’s conduct was socially acceptable
under the circumstances
D. not liable, since the girl was not harmed by the contact
2. While relaxing poolside one Sunday afternoon, Dickie was
struck by a golf ball driven by Marty, a 14-year-old boy, who was
playing the 9th hole at the Pike Creek Golf Club. The fairway for
the 9th hole was 65 feet wide and 437 yards long, with a dog-leg in
an easterly direction. Between the fairway and Dickie’s property
was a “rough” containing brush and low lying trees. As Marty
was approaching the green, he hit a towering shot which deflected
off a tree, struck Dickie, bounced off his head and knocked a straw
hat off of his girlfriend Patty’s head. Although the ball did not
strike Patty herself, she became startled and fell from her beach
chair, thus breaking her arm.
At trial plaintiff offered uncontested evidence that golf
balls from the Club’s links regularly traversed onto his property
two to three times a day. Which of the following statements is most
accurate regarding the liability of the Pike Creek Golf Club/Marty
for trespass?
A. Defendants are not liable, since they did not
intentionally cause the golf ball(s) to traverse onto the
plaintiff’s property.
B. Defendants would remain liable for the unpermitted
intrusion of the golf ball(s) onto the plaintiff’s property.
C. Since the plaintiff should have reasonably anticipated
that living next to a golf course would result in stray golf balls
landing on his property, defendants would not be held liable.
D. Since the golf balls did not substantially interfere with
the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his land, defendants would not
be held liable.
3. Which of the following would be Dickie’s proper cause of
action against Marty as a result of the golf ball hitting his head?
A. Assault but not battery
B. Battery but not assault
C. Assault and battery
D. Neither assault nor battery, since Marty did not
intentionally cause Dickie to be struck
4. If Patty initiates a suit against Marty to recover damages
for her broken arm, Patty will
A. recover for assault only
B. recover for battery only
C. recover for assault and battery
D. not recover












Other samples, services and questions:
When you use PaperHelp, you save one valuable — TIME
You can spend it for more important things than paper writing.