Multiple choice

1. Whether a plaintiff assumed a risk is determined by

A. whether he or she is a fiduciary.

B. what a “reasonable person” would know about the risks.

C. whether the risk meets the objective standard.

D. what the plaintiff actually knew about the risks.

2. How does assault differ from battery?

A. Battery is an injury to person; assault an injury to property.

B. Battery requires only the expectation of contact; assault requires contact.

C. Assault requires only the expectation of contact; battery requires contact.

D. Assault doesn’t differ from battery; they’re the same tort.

3. Every autumn, apples from your tree fall onto your neighbor’s grass. “In my opinion those

are great apples—you’re lucky,” you tell him when he complains. You refuse to remove

them. The fruit attracts trespassing boys, then rots and brings yellowjackets. What torts

might your apple-hating neighbor successfully sue you for?

A. Public nuisance.

B. Trespass to land and private nuisance.

C. Strict product liability for slippery, dangerous, rotting apples.

D. Misrepresentation for your opinion about the apples’ greatness.

4. In the case described in the preceding question, what defense(s) could you reasonably

raise?

A. Failure to mitigate—the neighbor could have raked the apples up with minimal burden.

B. Charitable immunity—you’ve charitably donated the apples to him.

C. Consent—there’s an implied consent when buying a house to living with natural events such as falling apples, dogs trampling your flower garden, and the occasional rotten egg thrown at your house on Halloween.

D. Lack of intent—you didn’t place the apples in his yard. Examination 75