Abigail lived in City and regularly ran a couple of miles through…

Question Answered step-by-step Abigail lived in City and regularly ran a couple of miles through… Abigail lived in City and regularly ran a couple of miles through the town. Sebastian lived in a house on the same block in City that Abigail ran past during her regular runs. Sebastian loved to play his electric drums loud in his garage. Sebastian knew that others might be disturbed by the noise, but he wanted to try to join a heavy metal rock band and he believed he needed to practice every day. Every single day, when she returned home, Abigail would soothe her ears with ointment. However, Abigail could still hear Sebastian’s drumming, even while sitting in her own home with all of the doors and windows closed. Abigail refused to change the route of her daily run. If Abigail brings suit against Sebastian for private nuisance, what would be the most likely result? Judgment for Abigail, because she suffered from not beingable to fully enjoy her daily run.Judgment for Sebastian, because Abigail could have changed the route of her daily run. C, Judgment for Abigail, because Sebastian knowingly played his drums loud while knowing that others might be disturbed.D. Judgment for Sebastian, unless Sebastian’s drum playing was a substantially unreasonable interference with her use and enjoymentof her home. Customer purchased a lawnmower from Hardware Store. The engine on the lawnmower occasionally backfireda little, so Customer returnedthe lawnmower to Hardware Store for HardwareStore to repair it. Customerpicked up the lawnmower from Hardware Store after Hardware Store had completed their repairs. However, when Customer again operated the lawnmower, the engine backfired strongly, and Customer was physically hurt. It was later found that even though Hardware Store had tried to repair the lawn mower and used their best efforts to do so, Customer was hurt because of a manufacturing defect that was present in the engine when the lawn mower left the manufacturer. If Customer sues Hardware Store based on strict liability in tort, who will most likely prevail? Customer, because the lawn mower had a defectiveengine when Customerbought it.Hardware Store, because it will be indemnified by the lawnmower manufacturer.Customer, because she brought the lawn mower in for repairs and was aware ofthe defect.Hardware Store, because they used reasonable care in attempting to repair the lawnmower. Franklin and Jefferson were large, vital and active men in their 20’s. They were also friends. However, Franklin’s pranks and practical jokes were wearing thin on Jefferson. One day, when Franklin visited Jefferson at Jefferson’s house, he found Jefferson sleepingon a backyard lounge chair. Quickly, Franklin visited the neighborhood novelty store, and brought some kite string and fake handcuffs. When he returned to Jefferson’s house, Jefferson was still sleeping. Franklin then proceeded to bind Jefferson’s hands to the lounge with the flimsy fake plastic handcuffs, and to tie Jefferson’s feet to the lounge with 4-5 circlings of kite string around his ankles. Franklin then hid in the nearby bushes. When Jefferson awoke, he was surprised and upset to see that his hands and feet were bound. He started crying and wailing, and felt mental anguish. At that moment, Franklin bounded from the bushes laughing hysterically. However, he quickly undid the fake handcuffs, and untied the kite string, thus freeing Jefferson’s hands and feet. Jefferson decided to bring suit against Franklin for false imprisonment. What result is most likely? Franklin is liable for false imprisonment, because he intentionally bound Jefferson to a restricted area.Franklin is liable for false imprisonment, because he directly caused Jefferson to incur mental anguish. Franklin is not liable for false imprisonment, because Franklin immediately unbound Jefferson after Jefferson became aware that he was bound to a restricted area.Franklin is not liable for false imprisonment, because Jefferson was not bound without a reasonable means of escape. Tenant rented severalacres of land on the same propertyas her rented house. On part of the land, far from the house, she had a large trampoline that she used for her own personalamusement. She never intentionally let anyone else use the trampoline and so decided not to surround it with a fence, althoughit would not have been difficult or expensive to do so. Sometimes, she yelled at children who occasionally walked through her yard towardsthe trampoline, thus scaring them away. One day, Johnny, a boy of five years of age, ventured onto the Tenant’s trampoline without Tenant’s consent. Tenant was not home at the time and did not know Johnny. Johnny fell off of the trampoline, suffering personal injuries as a result. If a proper action is filed, what is the probable result? Judgment for Tenant, because she did not own the land.Judgment for Johnny, if Tenant failed to exercise a duty of reasonable care owed to child trespassers.Judgment for Tenant, because she occasionally chased children off of the property.Judgment for Johnny, becausethe trampoline was an attractive nuisance. Supervisor was asked by Company to give an employment reference for one of Supervisor’s former workers, Employee. Supervisor did not personally like Employee, so she gave a written reference for Employee that stated that Employee regularly stole merchandise while working for her.Based on the statements concerningstealing merchandise, Company failed to hire Employee. Company informed Employee that Company had relied solely on the statements concerning stolen merchandise in the writtenreference from Supervisor as the reason they decided not to hire Employee. In fact, Supervisor had no reason to believe that Employee had ever stolen merchandise. However, Employee had in fact regularly stolen merchandise while working for Supervisor. If Employee brings suit against Supervisor for defamation, and all the facts given in the above paragraph are taken as true, what is the probableresult? Judgment for Supervisor, because as a Supervisor she had a qualified privilegeto write defamatory statements about employees, as long as it concerned the work environment.Judgment for Employee, because Supervisor was not actually aware of him stealing any merchandise.Judgment for Supervisor, because Employee actually did steal the merchandise.Judgment for Employee, because Supervisor was motivated to write the reference with a malicious intent. Franklin often joggedwhile wearing earphonesand listening to music. One day, he turned the volume very high when he decided to go jogging. As he crossed the street at one corner, he did not hear the screeching brakes and blaring horn from the direction of Emma’s automobile. Emma often drove over the speed limit, and she was driving at fifteen miles over the speed limit when she saw Franklin run out into the street in a residential part of town. She immediately hit her brakes and sounded her horn when she saw Franklin, but Franklin did not hear the horn or screeching of brakes because of the loudness of his music. Just before Emma’s automobile got to Franklin, he saw the automobile, and jumped out of the way. However, he suffered injuries from the quick jump. The jurisdiction adheres to the common law principles on defenses to negligence. If Franklin brings suit againstEmma in negligence, and it is shownthat Emma was negligent in driving over the speed limit, what result concerning possible defenses is the most probable? That Franklinwas contributorily negligent, and thus his damages would be reducedaccording to his level of fault.That Franklin was not contributorily negligent, if Emma hadthe last clear chance to avoiddriving so close to Franklin, causing him to attempt to immediately jump out of the wayThat Franklin was comparatively negligentand barred from bringing a negligence suit against Emma.That Franklin was not comparatively negligent, because Emma herself was driving above the speed limit. One day while out for a walk, Rita saw Swimmer out in a lake thrashing about and shouting for help. Rita pretended that she did not hear Swimmer, even though Rita was an excellent swimmer, and could easilyhave swum out to help Swimmer. Luckily, a passingboat was able to rescue Swimmer, but only after Swimmer had ingested a significant amount of water into his lungs, causing personal injuries. Rita could easily have reached Swimmer, and brought him to shore, before Swimmer ingestedany water. What duty of care did Rita owe Swimmer? A duty of reasonable care.Noduty.No duty, but only becausethe passing boat was nearby.A duty to try extraordinary measures to help save Swimmer. Fred was on his way home from work when he heard an explosion. He immediately rushed to the scene of the explosion and discovered a burning building. He looked into the window of the burning buildingand saw a person lying on the floor, seeminglyunconscious. He quicklyentered the building and pulled the person to safety just before another explosion rocked the building. Fred suffered extreme burns on 60% of his body, and flying debris from the second explosion broke his arm and several ribs. Matt, the one Fred rescued from the burning building, was a disgruntled employee of the building owner who set the building on fire to get back at his boss. He suffered no lasting injuries. If Fred files a claim against building owner for his injuries what is the likely result? Fred will prevail, because he acted reasonably in attempting rescue.Fredwill prevail, becausehe saved Matt’s life.Thebuilding owner will prevail, becauseFred assumed the risk.The building owner will prevail, because the building owner did nothing to endanger Fred or Matt. Bessie was a milking cow that Farmer often took to fairs and other community events, where he would let youngsters learn the art of milking a cow for themselves. Farmer had been taking Bessie to such events for over five years, and Bessie was always calm and complacent when the children wouldmilk her. However,at the county fair, mischievous minded Sydney, a twenty­ five year old, decided to have some fun. When Farmer had stepped outside of the milking shed for a minute,Sydney repeatedly poked Bessie on her rear quarters with a sharp penknife. Before Farmer returned, Bessie, upset from the painful poking, struck Sydney with a kick of her left rear hoof. Sydney was sent scurrying backward by the force of the kick from a 500-pound animal, and landed hard against the nearby wall, suffering injuries.If Sydney brings suit againstFarmer in strictliability, what is the probableresult? Judgment for Farmer, because Bessie had not kickedor otherwise hurt anyone else before.Judgment for Sydney, becauseFarmer was negligentin leaving the milking area.Judgment for Farmer, because Sydney was an adult and the milking activity was meant only for children.Judgment for Sydney, because the strength of a 500-pound animal indicates that such an animal has inherent dangerouspropensities that could lead to an injury such as this. TV Repair Person had been specifically called by Tenant to repair Tenant’s television. Tenant rented her house from Landlord, who owned the house. When TV Repair Person arrived, she fell when the wooden step leading up to Tenant’s porch crumbledunder TV Repair Person’s foot. The step had rotted away, but the weakened conditionof the step was notapparent. In fact, earlier in the week, Tenant had made a reasonable inspection of the porch and steps, but had not found the step to be in bad condition. TV Repair Person suffered personal injuries from the accident, and decided to assert a lawsuit seeking damages against Tenant and Landlord. What is the most probableresult? Judgment againstTenant, because TV Repair Personwas a licensee to whom Tenant owed a duty of reasonable care.Judgment against Landlord,because the bad condition of the step was not apparent.Judgment against Tenant,because TV RepairPerson was an invitee of Tenant.Judgment againstboth Landlord and Tenant, because both are equally responsible for injuries resulting from thedangerous condition of the steps. Musician purchased a guitar at Music Store. Musician liked to camp in the woods while playing her guitar at the campfire. One evening, on a cold night, Musician sat quite close to the campfire. She was about to go to bed, and wanted to put an extra heavy log on the fire. However, since she did not want to get her hands cold by touching another log, Musician gently tried to use the guitar to roll a new heavy log on the fire. However, glue that held the guitar together had been weakened by Musician’s close proximity to the fire, and as Musician rolled a log with the guitar, the guitar burst into pieces. Splinters from the guitar caused personal injuries to Musician. If Musician sues Music Store in strict liability for defective product, what isthe probable result? Judgment for Music Store, because they did not manufacture the guitar.Judgment for Music Store, because Musician tried to movea heavy log with the guitar.Judgment for Musician, because she purchased the guitar from Music Store.Judgment for Musician, because the weakening of the glue in the guitar helped cause her injuries. Johnson was a homeowner who kept wine in a barrel in her large five-acre backyard. Johnson lived quietly in the country, and rarely had any visitors of any kind. The barrel had “Water” written on it, but contained Johnson’s favorite wine. Every so often, Johnson liked to drink wine from the barrel while looking at the stars, but she never allowed anyone else to sample the contents of the barrel. One day, Hiker, an adult, lost his way while hiking and became thirsty. While hiking across Johnson’s backyard, Hiker spotted the barrel with “Water” written across it, and then drank some of the contents of the barrel. Hiker was allergic to wine, and suffered personal injuries due to the severity of his allergic reaction to the wine. Hiker brought an action for personal injuries against Johnson arising from his drinking of the wine. What will be the probable outcome? Judgment for Johnson, because Hiker was an unknowntrespasser. Judgment for Johnson, because she never consented to allowanyone to drink the wine.Judgment for Hiker,because the sign “Water” on the barrel signified an attractive nuisanceto him.Judgment for Hiker, becausethe sign “Water” on the barrel causedhim to reasonably believe the barrel contained water. Albert owns an auto repair shop where he regularly rebuilds engines for customers. Joe contacted Albert in need of help. Albert agreed to tow Joe’s car to the shop to diagnose the problem. Once at the shop Albert realized that Joe’s car needed a new engine, and that he had a rebuilt Ford engine that would be perfect for Joe’s car. Albert installed the rebuilt engine into Joe’s car. Afterwards Joe was on the way to school with his friend Michelle as a passenger when the gas pedal stuck. He ended up crashing into a telephone poll, injuring both Joe and Michelle. They both miss the last two weeks of school and fail to graduate. If the accident occurred because the connection between the gas pedal and the engine was not properlylubricated when the new engine was installed and Michelle sues Ford under a strict products liability theory for their injuries, what isthe likely result? Ford will prevail, because the problemwas the result of the installation by Albert.Fordwill prevail, becauseMichelle was not the purchaser of the car.Michelle will prevail, if the gas pedal and the connection were still the original parts.Michelle will prevail, because cars are inherently dangerous products. Norton owned a candy store that had been shut down for several years. He decided to lease the candy store to Harvey. Before leasing the store, Norton made a couple of needed repairs, but some of the glass candy receptacles had noticeable cracks when he leased the store to Harvey. Norton leased the candy store to Harvey while fully aware that Harvey intended to reopen the store as a candy store, which would be open to the general public. Harvey spent most of his available capital on stocking the candy in the store, and was prepared to make repairs to the shop as time went along. One of the repairs Harvey had on his list of needed repairs was to replace the damaged candy receptacles. A week after Harvey reopenedthe shop, Child, a store patron, was physically injured when one of the damaged candy receptacles broke as he reachedin to get candy. If Child sues Norton, what is the most likely result? Judgment for Norton, because Harvey was the land occupier and the party who owed a duty of care to business invitees.Judgment for Child, because he suffered personal injuries as a result of an abnormally dangerous activity in the candy store.Judgment for Norton, because Harvey knew when he leased the store that the candy receptacles needed repair.Judgment for Child,because the candy store was open to the general public. Baxter was hurt by the proven negligence of Dowd. If Baxter brings suit against Dowd in negligence, which of the following is the most probable? If Baxter assumed a risk in the situation with Dowd, then Baxter’s damages would be reduced accordingly.If Baxter was found to be contributorily negligent, then Baxter’s damages would be reduced accordingly.If Baxter did not have the last clear chance to avoid the injury,then Baxter’s damageswould be reducedaccordingly. If Baxter is proven to be comparatively negligent, then Baxter’s damages would be reduced accordingly. Dennis was a six-year-old boy who frequently came onto Mr. Mitchell’s propertyto play basketball in Mr. Mitchell’s driveway, shooting at the basket attached to Mr. Mitchell’s garage. Mr. Mitchell had oftenreturned home from work to find Dennis playing in the driveway.When Mr. Mitchell decided to dig a well to provide water for his lawn, a large piece of equipment was left in Mr. Mitchell’s yard by the excavation company, We Dig It Co., which had leased the equipment from Rents-All Corp. After We Dig It employees had finished for the day, Dennis came over to play basketball. Dennis played for several minutes before the rebound of a missed shotbounced near the piece of equipment left behind by We Dig It. Curious, Dennis began to climb around the machine, which was able to be started by simply pushing a button; no key was required. Dennis began to press each button and turn each handle he could reach. Eventually, Dennis pressed the ignition button and the machine began to move. Not wanting to be blamed for anything, Dennis jumped from the still running machine. When he jumped, Dennis landed on a pile of dirt excavated from the hole and broke his ankle. The machine continued on its path and eventually struck a support beam in Mr. Mitchell’s deck, causing the deck and a section of the roof to collapse.Dennis and Mr. Mitchelllive in a “pure” comparative negligence state.Dennis’s parentsbrought suit on Dennis’s behalfagainst both Mr. Mitchell and We Dig It. Who is most likely to prevail? Mr.Mitchell, because he had no duty to maintain or inspect the equipment.Mr.Mitchell, because Dennis was a trespasser.Dennis, because Mr. Mitchell is strictly liableto children enteringhis property.Dennis, because it was reasonably foreseeable that he would be on Mr. Mitchell’s property. Opal visited the rodeo and watched all of the cowboys compete in dangerous situations. After the competitive portion of the rodeo, Rodeo Manager asked if people from the audience would like to ride a horse that was not fully tame. Rodeo Manager pointed out that while the horse often did not pose a problem to riders, every once in a while the horse would buck, and throw the rider to the ground. Some audience members rode the horse without incident. Rodeo Manager specifically then asked Opal if she would like to ride the horse. Opal replied that she was afraid, but since Rodeo Manager had specifically asked her, Opal would try and ride the horse. Opal did not sign a waiver of liability before riding the horse. While riding the horse, Opal was thrown from the horse and landed on the hard ground, suffering injuries to her arms and legs. If Opal sues Rodeo Manager seeking damages, what would be the probable result if Rodeo Manager asserts that Opal had assumed the risk of riding the horse? Judgment for Opal, becauseOpal did not sign a waiver of liability.Judgment for Opal, because Rodeo Manager specifically asked Opal if Opal would like to ride the horse.Judgment for Rodeo Manager, becausethe horse was not sure to throw every rider.Judgment for RodeoManager, because Opal knew about the potentialwildness of the horse, and Opal voluntarily decided to ride the horse. Construction Worker bought a 50-footladder manufactured by Star Manufacturing, from Store Owner’s store. Construction Worker could have bought the same ladder from a different store in town, but she brought it from Store Owner because Store Owner was a friend of hers. While Day Laborer, who worked for Construction Worker,was using the ladder in an appropriate manner, a rung broke on the ladder, and Day Laborer fell and suffered personal injuries. The ladder had left Star Manufacturing’s plant with a manufacturing defect that caused the rung to break when Day Labor used it, but the defect was not visible or apparent even on close inspection. If Day Laborerbrings a strict liability in tort action against Store Owner,what is the most probable result? Store Owner is not liable,because Day Laborerdid not buy the ladder from Store Owner.Store Owner is liable, because Construction Worker bought a defective ladderfrom Store Owner.Store Owner is not liable, because the defect is attributable solely to Star Manufacturing, andthe defect was not visible upon inspection.Store Owner is liable, but only if Store Owner represented that the ladder was adequate for the type ofconstruction work in which Construction Worker was engaged. David was an adult who enjoyed target shooting with slingshots. Slingshots are devices whereby a strong rubber band is pulled back, and then released, enabling a projectile to be shot through the air. David bought a new slingshot from Department Store. One day, David loaded the slingshot with pebbles, while target shooting metal cans off of a split rail fence. However, as Davidpulled the rubber band back fifteen inches to shoot a rather large rock instead of a pebble, the rubber band broke, and the rubber band struck him in his chest, causing personal injuries. If David brings an actionin strict productsliability against Department Store, what fact, if proven,would be least helpful to David? The design of the slingshot was inherently more dangerous than an average consumer would expect.The risk of harm from using the slingshot was greater than the benefit that David might get from using the slingshot.Theslingshot should have had a warning concerning appropriate use of the slingshot.David was an adult who was using a device (a slingshot) that usually is used by children. Manufacturing Company was a very conscientious company to their employees and to the town they were located in. They provided jobs to needy workers and helped out with community projects.Their manufacturing processcaused severe vibrations, which Manufacturing Companywas fully aware of, and they did everything they could to minimize the vibrations. However, Mulligan, who owned a house right next to Manufacturing Company, suffered severe structural damage to his house as a result of the vibrations caused by Manufacturing Company. Mulligan informed Manufacturing Company of the structural damage to his home, and Manufacturing Company apologized, but said they had already done everything they could to minimize the vibrations, and they continued to operate as normal. No other nearby houses sufferedsuch damage. If Mulligan brings asuit in privatenuisance, what is the probableresult? Judgment for Manufacturing Company,because they took all reasonable steps to prevent the vibrations.Judgment forManufacturing Company, because no other neighbors sufferedany comparable damages.Judgment for Mulligan, because he informedManufacturing Company that the vibrations were causing damage to his house.Judgment for Mulligan, because he suffered unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of his land. The Mayor of Anytown was a respected individual in town. Everywhere he went, people walked up to him and asked tohave their picture taken with him. Then, a newspaperreporter, Scoop, wrote anarticle in the local newspaperwhich specifically stated that the Mayor had misappropriated funds from the town in order to build a vacation house in another state. Scoop had heard this information from a normally reliable source, but took no steps to check the accuracy of the information. After publication of the article, Mayor vehemently denied the accusations of impropriety. In fact, the Mayor did not misappropriate any funds. However, his approval rating plummeted, people started to shun him in public, and he was defeated by a relatively unknown candidatein the next Anytown mayoral election. If Mayor bringssuit against Scoop for defamation, what is the probableresult? Judgment for Scoop, becausehe was not actively trying to hurt the Mayor by his article.Judgment for Mayor, if Scoop’s failure to make any inquiry regardingthe accuracy of his assertions in the articleconcerning the Mayor was considered reckless.Judgment for Mayor, because Scoop’s false article concerning the Mayor’s reputation was published in the town newspaper and directly causedthe Mayor to experience public embarrassment, and directly caused the loss his election defeat.Judgment for Scoop, because his position as a town reporter gave him a public interest privilege to write articles about public figures like Mayor. Worker had his own corner office in a prestigious Company. Manager thought that Worker may have been divulging trade secrets of the Company to others outside of the Company. Manager talked with Boss about the situation regarding Worker, and Boss told Manager that Manager should use his own professional discretion in handling the situation. Manager then decided to search Worker’s office, and asked Janitor to open Worker’s office door while Worker was on vacation . Manager then opened and searched through Worker’s desk drawers. If Worker brings suitagainst Manager for invasion of privacy, which of the following (if shown to be the truth) would be most relevant? Worker had actuallydivulged trade secretswhile at work.Worker had a key to his own office, and no employee (except Janitor) had normal access to Worker’s office or desk.Manager subsequently communicated to Boss that Worker had indeed been divulging trade secrets.Manager was operating under the professional discretion given to him by Boss when he went into the office of Worker and searched throughWorker’s desk. Serena and Polly were motorboat enthusiasts. In June, Serena’s motorboat broke down, causing her to be quite depressed. One day she proceeded to the dock, where she watched the other boat owners taking out their motorboats. Serena asked Polly if she (Serena) could take out Polly’s boat. Polly agreed, but told Serena that she would have to be back within one hour, because Polly had a dinner date with her boyfriend across the bay. Serena agreed to return the boat within an hour. However, the joy of driving a motorboat caused her such exhilaration, that Serena could not bear to return in such a short time, and she did not return for two-and-a-half hours. When Serena returned, she was informedthat Polly had missed her dinner date. Additionally, Serena had brushed up against a rock in the water, causing $50 of damage to the underside of the $15,000 motorboat. If Polly brings an appropriate action against Serena, what is the most likely result? Serena is liable for conversion, because she exercised dominion and control over Polly’s boatfor two-and-a-half hours.Serena is liable for trespass to chattels, if she should have seen and avoided contact with the large rock in the water. Serena is liable for trespass to chattels, even though the interference with Polly’s property and damage to the boat were both relatively minor.Serena is not liable for conversion or trespass to chattels, because Polly did not intend to cause any injury to Polly or her boat. Fred was on his way home from work when he heard an explosion. He immediately rushed to the scene of the explosion and discovered a burning building. He looked into the window of the burning building and saw a person lying on the floor, seemingly unconscious. He quickly entered the building and pulled the person to safety just before another explosion rocked the building. Fred suffered extreme burns on 60% of his body, and flying debris from the second explosion broke his arm and several ribs. Matt, the one Fred rescued from the burning building, was a disgruntled employee of the building owner who set the building on fire to get back at his boss.He suffered no lasting injuries. If Fred sues Matt for his injuries, who is likely to prevail? Matt, because Fred assumed the risk by entering a burning building.Matt, because it was not foreseeable that someone would enter the burning building.Fred, because Matt caused the fire that injured Fred.Fred, because he preventedinjury to Matt. Dennis was a six-year-old boy who frequently came onto Mr. Mitchell’s propertyto play basketball in Mr. Mitchell’s driveway, shooting at the basketattached to Mr. Mitchell’s garage. Mr. Mitchellhad often returnedhome from work to find Dennis playing in the driveway. When Mr. Mitchell decided to dig a well to provide water for his lawn, a large piece of equipment was left in Mr. Mitchell’s yard by the excavation company, We Dig It Co., which had leased the equipment from Rents-All Corp, which maintains the equipment. After We Dig It employees had finished for the day, Dennis came over to play basketball. Dennis played for several minutes before the rebound of a missedshot bounced near the piece of equipment left behindby We Dig It. Curious,Dennis began to climb around the machine, which was able to be started by simply pushing a button; no key was required. Dennis began to press each button and turn each handle he could reach. Eventually, Dennis pressed the ignition button and the machine began to move. Not wanting to be blamed for anything, Dennis jumped from the still running machine. When he jumped, Dennis landed on a pile of dirt excavated from the hole and broke his ankle. The machine malfunctioned due to poor maintenance and continued on its path and eventually struck a supportbeam in Mr. Mitchell’s deck, causing the deck and a section of the roof to collapse. Dennis and Mr. Mitchell live in a “pure” comparative negligence state. Mr. Mitchell sues We Dig It, Rents-All and Dennis’s parents for the damage to his deck and roof. Against whom is he likely to prevail? Mr. Mitchell will not prevailagainst any defendant because he assumedthe risk.Mr. Mitchell will prevail againstall three defendants.Mr. Mitchell will prevail againstDennis’s parents only.Mr. Mitchell will prevailagainst We Dig It and Rents-Allonly. Johnson, a former police officer, recently became the new prosecutor in the City of Sandmill. Just before he was sworn into office, Corey, a local drug dealer, told a reporter that while Johnson was on the police force he had come to Corey’s “place of business,” beat several of Corey’s associates with a blackjack and stole drugs for his use. When Johnson read the article in the local newspaper containing Corey’s allegations, he was furious. Johnson immediately called a press conference where he announced that he was suing Corey for defamation. Which of the following must Corey establishto have a valid defense? That his claims are true.That his claimsare true and that he received the information from a reliablesource.That his claims are true and that he knows it from personalknowledge.That his claims are true and that he has independent evidence to prove the truth of the claims. Ralph went to a New Year’s Eve party at Vic’s house. Ralph, highly intoxicated, went to the bar and ordered another drink. Joe, a bartender hired for the party, refused to serve Ralph. Ralph then became extremely belligerent, reached over the bar, tapped Joe on the cheek and said, “If you weren’t Vic’s friend and this wasn’t his house I would kick your butt!” At that point Vic grabbed Ralph and locked him in a utility closet to allow him to cool down. John, Ralph’sbest friend, waited about 20 minutes and thenlet Ralph out of the closet.Ralph was still extremely intoxicated, so John took him to the back door, gave him his car keys and told him to climb into the back of John’s car and “sleep it off”. Instead of going to John’s car, Ralph waited afew minutes and then tried to re-enter the house. When he was not allowed to re-enter he tried to climb up to the balcony,but slipped on some ice that had recently accumulated on the balcony and fell to the ground, breaking his ankle. If Ralph sues Vic what would be his best claim for relief? Negligence, for the icy condition of the balconyrailings.False imprisonment, for locking him in the closet.Strict liability, because Ralph was invitedto the party and then refused re-entry.Intentional infliction of emotional distress. John operated a construction supply store. He is very knowledgeable about all types of construction and the necessary tools required for any project.Walt came into John’s store asking how to build a patio and what tools were necessary. John explained everything to Walt and referred him to the proper aisle. While choosing wood saws Walt overheardtwo men talking. One man said to the other that John had recommended the Steel electric saw for cutting even pieces of wood. After hearing this Walt decided to buy the Steel electric saw the man pointed out, even though it was not the one he had been told to buy in his previous discussions with John. Walt also purchased the wood and stain John told him to buy. Walt spentthree weeks building the patio. During that time the wood and equipment stood outside in the driveway. As a result the wood became brittle and was difficult to nail. The saw did not function as well as Walt expected and the patio was a complete failure. Walt went back to John’s store and demanded a refund. He yelled at the top of his voice that John was an ignorant construction person and that everything he recommended failed. John asked Walt to leave several times before having him thrown out of the store.Several people left the store after witnessing Walt’s tirade. Walt is seekingdamages due to misrepresentation by John. Will he prevail? Yes, since John told him how and what to buy.Yes, since Walt bought the Steel electricsaw based on John’s recommendation.No, since Walt did not follow John’sdirections explicitly.No, since John was truthfulwhen he told Walt how to builda patio. EnviorCo purchased some land on the outskirts of Big City about 10 years ago to starta new division. They were working on bioengineering various forms of agricultural products and needed a greatdeal of land  for their  experimentation. An unexpected  byproduct of  the research is that, during certain parts of the processing, an extremely foul odor is released, and the powerful fertilizers used also give off a strong chemical odor. However, this had not been a problem until recently, when home were constructed closer to EnviorCo’s land. EnviorCo had always tried to be a good neighbor by doing all they could to suppress the odors, but they have been getting more and more complaints concerning the odors, since there is now housing within 400 yards of the property. The odor from the fertilizers contains toxins that are a health hazard. Three homeowners who had recently moved to the area file suit against EnviorCo. If the claim is based on public nuisance, whois likely to prevail? The homeowners, ifEnviorCo’s activity interfered with anyone’s privateuse of their property.The homeowners, but only if they can show that they sufferedsome damage differentfrom the public at large.EnviorCo, because plaintiffs moved to the nuisance.EnviorCo, because only a government can use publicnuisance for recovery. To promote their new program of children’s karate classes, Karate School drew large murals of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, popular children’s cartoon characters, on their walls. The pictures depicted these famous cartoon characters fighting and wearing the Karate School logo on their arms. Many children joined the karate school after seeing the murals. The karate school was sued by the man who owned the rights to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, claiming that the images were used without permission. Will the man prevail? No,because the TeenageMutant Ninja Turtlesare not real people.No, because the Karate School is not well known throughout the country.Yes, because the Karate School did not draw the characters in a favorable light to the public.Yes, if the KarateSchool increased its class size after displa Law Social Science Tax law PLG 101-1801 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)