FYLSX Intentional Torts Against Persons 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A man puts his arm around a woman's shoulders without her permission at a party. She is offended but not harmed. Which tort, if any, has been committed?
- Assault, because she was placed in apprehension
- Battery, because it was offensive contact without consent (Correct answer)
- No tort, because the contact was minor
- IIED, because her dignity was violated
Correct answer: Battery, because it was offensive contact without consent
Battery encompasses offensive contact without consent even if not harmful; unconsented touching that a reasonable person would find offensive qualifies.
Question 2: A plaintiff suffers only nominal emotional discomfort — not severe distress — after a defendant's harassing phone calls. Can she recover for IIED?
- Yes, because the defendant's conduct was intentional
- No, because IIED requires severe emotional distress as an element (Correct answer)
- Yes, because the harassment was ongoing
- No, because phone calls cannot constitute IIED
Correct answer: No, because IIED requires severe emotional distress as an element
Severe emotional distress is a required element of IIED; nominal discomfort or embarrassment does not meet this threshold.
Question 3: A defendant intends to commit false imprisonment against Person A but accidentally confines Person B in the same room. Under transferred intent, is the defendant liable for false imprisonment of Person B?
- No, because transferred intent does not apply to false imprisonment
- Yes, because transferred intent applies to false imprisonment as one of the five recognized torts (Correct answer)
- No, because the defendant did not know Person B was present
- Yes, but only if Person B was aware of the confinement
Correct answer: Yes, because transferred intent applies to false imprisonment as one of the five recognized torts
Transferred intent applies to five torts: assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels.
Question 4: A defendant threatens to release embarrassing photographs unless the plaintiff remains at the defendant's home. The plaintiff stays for hours out of fear of reputational harm. Is this false imprisonment?
- Yes, because confinement by duress through threats can constitute false imprisonment (Correct answer)
- No, because reputational threats are not physical and cannot confine someone
- Yes, because the plaintiff was on the defendant's property
- No, because the plaintiff voluntarily chose to stay
Correct answer: Yes, because confinement by duress through threats can constitute false imprisonment
False imprisonment can be accomplished by threats of harm — including reputational harm — sufficient to overcome a reasonable person's will to leave.
Question 5: A defendant, while playing a prank, removes the wheelchair of a disabled plaintiff, preventing her from leaving a room. She is aware of the confinement. Which elements of false imprisonment are clearly satisfied?
- Intent only
- Intent to confine and actual confinement with awareness (Correct answer)
- Awareness and harm only
- Confinement only, because intent cannot be inferred from a prank
Correct answer: Intent to confine and actual confinement with awareness
False imprisonment requires intent to confine, actual confinement, and the plaintiff's awareness of or harm from the confinement — all present here.
Question 6: Which of the following acts would most clearly constitute assault under tort law?
- A defendant sends a threatening letter promising to harm the plaintiff next month
- A defendant lunges at the plaintiff with a knife from two feet away (Correct answer)
- A defendant insults the plaintiff loudly in a crowd
- A defendant breaks into the plaintiff's home while the plaintiff is away
Correct answer: A defendant lunges at the plaintiff with a knife from two feet away
Assault requires an act (not words alone) creating reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact; lunging with a knife at close range satisfies this.
Question 7: A plaintiff with an unusually sensitive personality suffers extreme distress from conduct that most people would find only mildly upsetting. The defendant was unaware of the plaintiff's sensitivity. Can the plaintiff recover for IIED?
- Yes, because the plaintiff did suffer actual severe distress
- No, because the extreme and outrageous standard is objective, not based on the plaintiff's unusual sensitivity (Correct answer)
- Yes, if the defendant's conduct was intentional
- No, because IIED requires physical manifestation of distress
Correct answer: No, because the extreme and outrageous standard is objective, not based on the plaintiff's unusual sensitivity
IIED uses an objective standard for outrageousness; a defendant is not liable for distress caused by conduct that only a hypersensitive plaintiff would find intolerable unless the defendant knew of the sensitivity.
FYLSX Intentional Torts Against Persons 5
A man puts his arm around a woman's shoulders without her permission at a party.
She is offended but not harmed.
Which tort, if any, has been committed?