TX Bar Torts and Personal Injury 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A defendant swings a baseball bat intending to hit a ball, but accidentally strikes the plaintiff who was standing nearby. Which analysis correctly addresses battery?
- No battery because the defendant did not intend to hit the plaintiff
- Battery exists because the defendant intended the act — swinging the bat — that caused the harmful contact (Correct answer)
- Battery requires the defendant to have intended to cause serious bodily harm
- This is only negligence because no harmful intent was present
Correct answer: Battery exists because the defendant intended the act — swinging the bat — that caused the harmful contact
Battery requires intent to cause contact, not intent to cause harm — the defendant need only intend the act that results in the harmful or offensive touching.
Question 2: Which of the following scenarios best constitutes the tort of civil assault?
- Defendant sneaks behind plaintiff and punches him before plaintiff realizes what is happening
- Defendant calls plaintiff and threatens to hurt him next week
- Defendant raises a fist toward plaintiff, who sees the gesture and reasonably believes they are about to be struck (Correct answer)
- Defendant engages in months of workplace harassment causing severe emotional distress
Correct answer: Defendant raises a fist toward plaintiff, who sees the gesture and reasonably believes they are about to be struck
Assault requires the plaintiff to reasonably apprehend imminent harmful or offensive contact — a raised fist that the plaintiff perceives and believes threatens immediate contact satisfies this element.
Question 3: A store security guard says, 'Sit here until police arrive or I'll physically drag you back.' The shopper complies. Which element of false imprisonment is most clearly satisfied?
- The confinement resulted in actual physical harm to the plaintiff
- The defendant acted with malice toward the plaintiff
- The plaintiff was confined through a threat of physical force (Correct answer)
- The plaintiff consented to the confinement by voluntarily complying
Correct answer: The plaintiff was confined through a threat of physical force
A threat of physical force — 'I'll drag you back' — satisfies the confinement element of false imprisonment even without actual physical restraint.
Question 4: In a Texas products liability claim based on a design defect, the plaintiff must prove:
- The specific product unit deviated from the manufacturer's own specifications
- The manufacturer failed to warn consumers of known hazards associated with the product
- A reasonable alternative design existed that would have reduced the foreseeable risk of harm without substantially impairing utility (Correct answer)
- The manufacturer had subjective knowledge the design was dangerous before sale
Correct answer: A reasonable alternative design existed that would have reduced the foreseeable risk of harm without substantially impairing utility
Texas design defect claims require the plaintiff to show a reasonable alternative design that, if adopted, would have reduced the foreseeable risk of harm without substantially impairing the product's utility.
Question 5: Which of the following activities is most likely classified as 'abnormally dangerous,' justifying strict liability in Texas?
- Operating a gasoline service station in a commercial district
- Storing large quantities of explosives in a residential neighborhood (Correct answer)
- Running a commercial passenger airline on scheduled routes
- Performing surgery using high-powered medical lasers
Correct answer: Storing large quantities of explosives in a residential neighborhood
Storing large quantities of explosives is a classic abnormally dangerous activity — it creates a risk of serious harm that cannot be eliminated even with reasonable care.
Question 6: An employer berates a pregnant employee in front of coworkers, calling her pregnancy 'an embarrassment' and saying she is 'too slow to be useful.' She suffers severe emotional distress. This scenario most likely:
- Satisfies IIED because any intentional workplace humiliation meets the standard
- Satisfies IIED because targeting a pregnant employee's condition is per se extreme and outrageous
- Does not satisfy IIED because the plaintiff was not threatened with physical harm
- Likely does not satisfy IIED because insulting workplace comments, even offensive ones, rarely meet Texas's extreme-and-outrageous standard (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Likely does not satisfy IIED because insulting workplace comments, even offensive ones, rarely meet Texas's extreme-and-outrageous standard
Texas requires conduct that goes beyond all reasonable bounds of decency; offensive and insulting workplace comments, while potentially actionable under other theories, typically fall short of the extremely high IIED threshold.
Question 7: The primary distinction between trespass to chattels and conversion is:
- Whether the defendant acted intentionally or negligently
- Whether the plaintiff suffered any accompanying physical injury
- The severity of the interference — minor interference versus a serious deprivation of the owner's rights (Correct answer)
- Whether the chattel was ultimately returned to the owner before suit was filed
Correct answer: The severity of the interference — minor interference versus a serious deprivation of the owner's rights
Trespass to chattels involves minor interference with personal property; conversion involves a serious, substantial interference justifying a forced sale at fair market value.
TX Bar Torts and Personal Injury 3
A defendant swings a baseball bat intending to hit a ball, but accidentally strikes the plaintiff who was standing nearby.
Which analysis correctly addresses battery?