1. Someone develops a hatred for you. Over the course of a few weeks he slashes your tires kills your dog and sets fire to your tool shed. Before each act he calls you on the phone and torments you by telling you what he plans to do. After setting fire to the tool shed he calls and says that everything up to now has been child s play. I m going to get serious now. I m going to kill you in the next few months. The man keeps up these tormenting calls until you re a wreck with fear although he never does actually attack you. Which of the following statements is correct?A. You have a case for alienation of affections at least in some jurisdictions.B. The calls were slanderous so you have a case for defamation.C. You don t have case for intentional infliction of emotional distress because nothing the man did was particularly outrageous or extreme a required element.D. You have a case for intentional infliction of emotional distress2. You hire Frank to make deliveries for your office supply business. Frank has a history of driving while intoxicated. However he didn t reveal his driving history to you when applying for the job. Thus you had no way of knowing that he was dangerous on the roads. After a week in your employment he drunkenly crashes the company van into a legally parked car while making his deliveries. Which of the following statements is correct?A. You were reasonably careful in hiring Frank and had no reason to suspect the danger he posed. Because you weren t negligent you can t be held liable for Frank snegligence.B. You can be held liable for Frank s negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.C. You can be held liable for Frank s actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior or vicarious liability.D. Because Frank had the accident while acting as an employee only you as his employer not Frank personally can be held liable for negligence.3. In the preceding question imagine that the plaintiff s car which Frank struck was illegally parked. It was sticking out too far into the street and the parking meter had expired. If Frank hadn t been drunk he probably could have avoided hitting the car. However the careless way the car was parked did help cause the accident. Which of the following statements is correct?A. Frank could raise the defense of comparative negligence depending on the jurisdiction.In most states the effect of this defense would simply be to lessen the award to the owner of the parked car by the percentage he was responsible for the accident.B. The defense of assumption of risk is Frank s best bet.C. Frank could raise the defense of the plaintiff s negligence. In most states if the plaintiff s negligence was partly to blame for the injury the plaintiff can t recover anything.D. By failing to put money in the parking meter the plaintiff violated a statute and is liable under the doctrine of negligence per se.4. You re assaulted by a U.S. tax collector. Can you sue the federal government?A. No because of the doctrine of official immunity.B. Yes. Whether you win or not will depend on the evidence for negligence.C. No because the Federal Tort Claims Act exempts the U.S. government from liability for most unintentional torts.D. No because the Federal Tort Claims Act exempts the U.S. government from liability for most intentional torts.
