FYLSX Intentional Torts Against Persons 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A defendant shouts 'I'll kill you!' at the plaintiff from across a busy intersection. The plaintiff is not certain the defendant can reach her. Is there assault?
- Yes, because the defendant clearly intended to threaten
- No, because the plaintiff did not reasonably apprehend imminent contact (Correct answer)
- Yes, because words alone are sufficient for assault
- No, because no physical movement accompanied the words
Correct answer: No, because the plaintiff did not reasonably apprehend imminent contact
Assault requires reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact; distance and uncertainty about the defendant's ability to act negate imminence.
Question 2: An employer tells an employee 'You can leave when your shift ends' after the employee asks to go home early during a crisis situation. Has false imprisonment occurred?
- Yes, because the employee is being forced to stay
- No, because the employer has a reasonable condition for the employee's departure (Correct answer)
- Yes, because any restriction on movement is imprisonment
- No, because employment contracts allow such conditions
Correct answer: No, because the employer has a reasonable condition for the employee's departure
False imprisonment does not occur when the defendant provides a reasonable means or condition for the plaintiff's release.
Question 3: A defendant intends to commit assault against Person A but instead shoots Person B with a bullet. Under what doctrine can Person B sue for battery?
- Respondeat superior
- Transferred intent (Correct answer)
- Vicarious liability
- Negligence per se
Correct answer: Transferred intent
Transferred intent allows the intent directed at Person A to transfer to Person B, making the defendant liable for battery to the actual victim.
Question 4: A hypnotist places a subject in a trance and causes her to slap a third party. Who is liable for battery on the third party?
- The hypnotic subject, because she performed the act
- The hypnotist, because he directed the act with intent (Correct answer)
- Both equally under joint and several liability
- Neither, because hypnosis negates intent
Correct answer: The hypnotist, because he directed the act with intent
The hypnotist had the requisite intent and directed the act; the subject lacked volitional control and therefore lacked the intent element.
Question 5: A college student pranks a roommate by hiding in a closet and jumping out. The roommate suffers a heart attack from fright. The prankster did not intend bodily harm. Can the roommate recover for IIED?
- No, because the defendant only intended a prank, not distress
- Yes, if the conduct was extreme, outrageous, and caused severe emotional distress (Correct answer)
- No, because a prank cannot satisfy the outrageous conduct element
- Yes, because any intentional fright creates liability
Correct answer: Yes, if the conduct was extreme, outrageous, and caused severe emotional distress
IIED can be satisfied if the conduct, even if meant as a prank, is extreme and outrageous and causes severe emotional distress.
Question 6: A plaintiff is confined in a room with an unlocked window as the only exit. The window is on the 20th floor. Is the plaintiff falsely imprisoned?
- No, because there is a means of escape
- Yes, because the only escape requires unreasonable risk of harm (Correct answer)
- No, because the defendant did not physically block all exits
- Yes, because any confinement with a single exit qualifies
Correct answer: Yes, because the only escape requires unreasonable risk of harm
False imprisonment exists when the only apparent means of escape would expose the plaintiff to unreasonable risk of harm.
Question 7: A defendant, during an argument, raises a fist in a threatening manner toward the plaintiff but is immediately restrained by bystanders before moving closer. The plaintiff was terrified. Can the plaintiff recover for assault?
- No, because the defendant never got close enough
- Yes, because the plaintiff had reasonable apprehension of imminent contact at the moment of the gesture (Correct answer)
- No, because bystanders intervened before any harm
- Yes, but only if the defendant intended to make contact
Correct answer: Yes, because the plaintiff had reasonable apprehension of imminent contact at the moment of the gesture
Assault is complete when the plaintiff experiences reasonable apprehension of imminent contact; subsequent intervention does not undo the apprehension already experienced.
FYLSX Intentional Torts Against Persons 3
A defendant shouts 'I'll kill you!' at the plaintiff from across a busy intersection.
The plaintiff is not certain the defendant can reach her.
Is there assault?