FYLSX Torts Principles & Liability Rules 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: An employer instructs a delivery driver to make deliveries only within the city. The driver detours 20 miles to visit a friend and causes an accident on the detour. Is the employer vicariously liable?
- Yes, because the driver was an employee acting during work hours
- No, because the driver was on a frolic outside the scope of employment (Correct answer)
- Yes, because employers are strictly liable for all employee acts
- No, because the driver was negligent, not the employer
Correct answer: No, because the driver was on a frolic outside the scope of employment
A substantial departure from authorized routes constitutes a frolic, taking the employee outside the scope of employment and relieving employer liability.
Question 2: A defendant is sued for private nuisance. Which element distinguishes private nuisance from trespass to land?
- Nuisance requires physical entry onto the plaintiff's land
- Nuisance involves interference with use and enjoyment without physical intrusion (Correct answer)
- Nuisance only applies to commercial properties
- Nuisance requires intentional conduct by the defendant
Correct answer: Nuisance involves interference with use and enjoyment without physical intrusion
Private nuisance protects against substantial, unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of land, not requiring a physical entry that trespass demands.
Question 3: A child trespasses onto a railroad's property and is injured by an unlocked switch left near the tracks. Which doctrine may allow the child to recover despite being a trespasser?
- Res ipsa loquitur
- Attractive nuisance doctrine (Correct answer)
- Last clear chance
- Strict liability
Correct answer: Attractive nuisance doctrine
The attractive nuisance doctrine imposes a duty on landowners when an artificial condition is likely to attract and injure trespassing children.
Question 4: Paula suffers severe emotional distress after witnessing her child struck by a negligently driven car. Paula was not in the zone of danger herself. Under the majority rule (Dillon/Thing factors), can Paula recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress?
- Yes, if she was present, closely related to the victim, and observed the injury (Correct answer)
- No, because only those in the zone of danger can recover
- Yes, because any witness to a serious accident can recover
- No, because emotional distress is never recoverable without physical impact
Correct answer: Yes, if she was present, closely related to the victim, and observed the injury
The Dillon/Thing bystander rule allows recovery when the plaintiff was present at the scene, closely related to the victim, and observed the injury.
Question 5: A surgeon operates on the wrong patient due to a hospital scheduling error. The patient sues the surgeon for battery. Which element is most critical to establishing battery?
- The surgeon intended to cause harm
- The surgeon made intentional contact with the patient without consent (Correct answer)
- The hospital was negligent in its scheduling
- The patient suffered permanent injury
Correct answer: The surgeon made intentional contact with the patient without consent
Battery requires intentional, harmful or offensive contact without consent; the surgeon's intent to perform surgery without proper consent satisfies this even without harmful intent.
Question 6: A landlord fails to repair a broken staircase despite repeated tenant complaints. A tenant falls and is injured. Under the modern approach to landlord-tenant tort liability, the landlord is most likely liable based on:
- Strict liability as a property owner
- Negligence for failing to exercise reasonable care after notice (Correct answer)
- Trespass because the landlord should have entered to fix it
- Absolute immunity because landlords owe no duty to tenants
Correct answer: Negligence for failing to exercise reasonable care after notice
The modern rule imposes a negligence duty on landlords to maintain common areas and repair known defects after receiving notice.
Question 7: Dan punches Victor in the face. Victor sues for battery. Dan claims he was defending himself because Victor insulted him verbally. Is verbal provocation a valid defense to battery?
- Yes, if the insult was severe enough
- No, words alone do not justify a physical response (Correct answer)
- Yes, as long as Dan's response was proportionate
- No, but it reduces damages by 50% under comparative fault
Correct answer: No, words alone do not justify a physical response
Verbal provocation, no matter how offensive, does not justify battery; the privilege of self-defense requires a reasonable belief of imminent physical harm.
FYLSX Torts Principles & Liability Rules 3
An employer instructs a delivery driver to make deliveries only within the city.
The driver detours 20 miles to visit a friend and causes an accident on the detour.
Is the employer vicariously liable?