IN Bar Torts and Negligence 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A defendant swings a bat at the plaintiff intending only to scare him, but accidentally makes contact. In a battery action, the intent element is satisfied because:
- Intent to cause apprehension transfers to the resulting harmful contact (Correct answer)
- Battery requires no intent at all
- Recklessness alone always establishes battery
- The defendant intended to injure the plaintiff
Correct answer: Intent to cause apprehension transfers to the resulting harmful contact
Under transferred intent, intent to commit an assault suffices for battery when harmful or offensive contact actually results.
Question 2: A department store detains a suspected shoplifter for 20 minutes in a back office while checking receipts. The store's best defense to false imprisonment is:
- The shopkeeper's privilege to detain for a reasonable time in a reasonable manner on reasonable suspicion (Correct answer)
- Consent implied from entering the store
- Absolute immunity for retail merchants
- The defense of necessity
Correct answer: The shopkeeper's privilege to detain for a reasonable time in a reasonable manner on reasonable suspicion
The shopkeeper's privilege permits a merchant to detain a suspected shoplifter reasonably in time, manner, and basis.
Question 3: Under Indiana law, punitive damages in a tort case must be proven by:
- Clear and convincing evidence (Correct answer)
- A preponderance of the evidence
- Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
- Substantial evidence on judicial notice
Correct answer: Clear and convincing evidence
Indiana statutorily requires clear and convincing evidence to support an award of punitive damages.
Question 4: A blasting company uses dynamite near a residential area, and vibrations crack a neighbor's foundation despite all possible precautions. The neighbor's strongest claim is:
- Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity (Correct answer)
- Negligence per se
- Battery
- Breach of implied warranty
Correct answer: Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity
Blasting is a classic abnormally dangerous activity, imposing strict liability regardless of the care exercised.
Question 5: A statute requires drivers to stop for school buses loading children. A driver violates the statute and injures a child exiting the bus. In a negligence per se analysis, the violation matters because the child is:
- Within the class the statute protects and suffered the type of harm it was designed to prevent (Correct answer)
- A foreseeable plaintiff under any statute
- Entitled to strict liability
- A third-party beneficiary of the statute
Correct answer: Within the class the statute protects and suffered the type of harm it was designed to prevent
Negligence per se applies when the plaintiff is in the protected class and the harm is the type the statute aims to prevent.
Question 6: In Indiana, the general statute of limitations for a personal injury negligence claim is:
- Two years from when the cause of action accrues (Correct answer)
- One year from the injury
- Four years from the injury
- Six years from the injury
Correct answer: Two years from when the cause of action accrues
Indiana applies a two-year limitations period to injury-to-person actions.
Question 7: A mother watches from the sidewalk as a negligent driver strikes her child in the crosswalk. For negligent infliction of emotional distress as a bystander in Indiana, she is aided most by:
- The bystander rule allowing recovery for witnessing serious injury to a close relative without physical impact to herself (Correct answer)
- The requirement that she suffer physical impact from the crash
- Strict liability for emotional harm
- The attractive nuisance doctrine
Correct answer: The bystander rule allowing recovery for witnessing serious injury to a close relative without physical impact to herself
Indiana's bystander rule permits emotional distress recovery for one who witnesses the serious injury or death of a close relative even without direct impact.
IN Bar Torts and Negligence 3
A defendant swings a bat at the plaintiff intending only to scare him, but accidentally makes contact.
In a battery action, the intent element is satisfied because: