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.