TORTS PRACTICE QUESTIONS
Practice Question 1
Housewive purchased a dishwasher manufactured by Company from Dealer, who was in the retail of electrical appliance business. The dishwasher was sold by Dealer with only the Company’s warranty and with no warranty by Dealer. Housewive hired Contractor (whom she got to know through an advertisement in the newspaper) to install the dishwasher for her. Two months later Housewive was talking to Friend in her home when she noticed that the dishwasher was operating strangely, repeatedly stopping and starting. At Housewive’s request, Friend gave it a cursory inspection and, while inspecting it, received a violent electrical shock which did him extensive harm. The dishwasher had an internal wiring defect that allowed electrical current to be carried into the framework and caused the machine to malfunction. The machine had not been adequately grounded by Contractor during installation; if it had been, the current would have been led harmlessly away. The machine carried instructions for correct grounding, which Contractor had not followed.
If Friend asserts a claim based on strict liability against Company for damages, the probable result is that Friend will:
(A) Recover, because the dishwasher was defectively made.
(B) Recover, because Company is vicariously liable for the improper installation.
(C) Not recover, because he assumed the risk by inspecting the machine.
(D) Not recover, because he was not the purchaser.
Practice Question 2
Housewive recently purchased a kitchen stove from Retailer. The stove has a wide oven with a large oven door. The box in which the manufacturing Company shipped the stove carried a warning label that the stove would tip over with a weight of 25 pounds or more on the oven door. While Housewive was heating water on the stove and shortly left the kitchen to answer the phone, her three-year old Child opened the oven door and climbed on it. Child’s weight (25 pounds) on the door caused the stove to tip forward. Child fell to the floor and the hot water spilled over, burning Child severely.
If Child asserts a claim based on strict liability against Company, Child must establish that:
(A) Company negligently designed the stove.
(B) Stoves made by other manufacturers do not turn over with a 25-pound weight on the oven door.
1
(C) Company failed to warn that the stove would turn over easily.
(D) The stove was defective and unreasonably dangerous.
Practice Question 3
Parents purchased a new mobile home from Seller. The mobile home was manufactured by Company and had a ventilating system designed by Company with both a heating unit and an air conditioner.
Company installed a heater manufactured by Heatco and an air conditioning unit manufactured by Coolco. Each was controlled by an independent thermostat installed by company. Because of the manner in which Company designed the ventilating system, the first time the ventilating system was operated by Parents, cold air was vented into Parents’ bedroom to keep the temperature at 20 degrees Celsius. The cold air then activated the heater thermostat, and hot air was bumped into Child’s bedroom. The temperature in Child’s room reached more than 77 degrees Celsius before Child’s mother became aware of the condition and shut the system off manually. As a result, Child suffered permanent physical injury.
If Child’s claims against Company, Heatco, and Coolco are based on strict liability in tort, child will probably recover against:
(A) Company only, because the ventilating system was defectively designed by Company.
(B) Heatco only, because it was the excessive heat from the furnace that caused Child’s injuries.
(C) Company and Heatco only, because the combination of company’s design and Heatco’s furnace caused Child’s injuries.
(D) Company, Heatco, and Coolco, because the combination of Company’s design, Heatco’s furnace, and Coolco’s air conditions unit caused Child’s injuries.
Practice Question 4
Gasco owns a storage facility where flammable gases are stored in liquefied form under high pressure in large spherical tanks. The facility was constructed for Gasco by Company, a firm that specializes in the construction of such facilities. After the facility had been in use for five years, an explosion in the facility started a large fire that covered the surrounding countryside with a high concentration of oily smoke and soot. Farmer owns a large farm near the facility. His entire lettuce crop was destroyed by oily deposits left by the smoke. If Farmer asserts a claim against Gasco for the loss of his lettuce crop and is unable to show any negligence on the part of Gasco, will Farmer prevail?
(A) Yes, because the operation of the storage facility was an abnormally dangerous activity.
2
(B) Yes, because the intrusion of the smoke into Farmer’s farm amounted to a trespass.
(C) No, if the explosion was caused by internal corrosion that reasonable inspection procedures would not have disclosed.
(D) No, if the explosion was caused by negligent construction on Company’s part.
Practice Question 5
If Farmer asserts a claim against Company for the loss of his lettuce crop, will Farmer prevail?
(A) No, if Company did not design the storage facility.
(B) No, because Company was an independent contractor.
(C) Yes, because the operation of the storage facility was an abnormally dangerous activity.
(D) Yes, if the explosion resulted from a defect of which Company was aware.
Practice Question 6:
Si was in the act of siphoning gasoline from Neighbor’s car, in Neighbor’s garage and without his consent, when the gasoline exploded and a fire followed. Rescuer, seeing the fire, grabbed a fire extinguisher from his car and put out the fire, saving Si’s life and Neighbor’s car in garage. In doing so, Rescuer was badly burned.
If Rescuer asserts a claim against Neighbor for personal injuries, Rescuer will:
(A) Prevail, because he saved Neighbor’s property.
(B) Prevail, because he acted reasonably in an emergency.
(C) Not prevail, because Neighbor was not at fault.
(D) Not prevail, because Rescuer knowingly assumed the risk.
Question 7:
Dave is a six-year-old boy who has a well-deserved reputation for bullying younger and smaller children. His parents still keep encouraging him to be aggressive and tough. During his younger brother’
s birthday party, Dave, for no reason, knocked down, kicked, and severely injured Pete, a four-year-old.
A claim has been asserted by Pete’s parents for their medical costs and for Pete’s injuries.
If the claim is asserted against Dave, the most likely result is Dave will be:
(A) Liable, because he intentionally harmed Pete.
(B) Liable, because, as a six-year-old, he should have known his conduct was wrongful.
3
(C) Not liable, because a child under seven is not liable in tort.
(D) Not liable, because he is presumed to be under parent’s control and they have the sole responsibility.
Question 8:
Peter was rowing a boat on a mountain lake when a heavy storm suddenly arose. Fearful that the boat might sink, Peter rowed to a boat dock on shore and tied the boat to the dock. The shore property and dock were the private property of Owner.
While the boat was tied at the dock, Owner came down and ordered Peter to remove the boat because the action of the waves was causing the boat to rub against a bumper on the dock. When Peter refused, Owner untied the boat and cast it adrift. The boat sank.
If Peter asserts a claim against Owner for loss of the boat, the most likely result is that Owner will:
(A)Have no defense under the circumstances.
(B) Prevail, because Peter was a trespasser ab initio.
(C) Prevail, because the boat might have damaged the dock.
(D)Prevail, because Peter became a trespasser when he refused to remove the boat.
4
