Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

MULTISTATE-STYLE QUESTIONS

    If Preston is successful in an action for damages against Riteway, it will probably be because

    (A) Riteway, Acme, Birdco, and Cullen were involved in a concerted action in the manufacture and marketing of the product.

    (B) Riteway, Acme, Birdco, and Cullen established standards on an industry-wide basis, which standards made identification of the product’s manufacturer impossible.

    (C) the negligence of either Acme, Birdco, or Cullen resulted in harm to Preston under circumstances such that it was impossible to tell which of them caused the harm; and Riteway is vicariously liable for that negligence.

    (D) either Acme, Birdco, or Cullen manufactured a defective product, and Riteway sold that product while it was in a defective condition.

    Questions 3-4 are based on the following fact situation:

    Dan, a thirteen-year-old boy, was a member of Survival Scouts, a national young people’s organization. As part of a Survival Scout project, he planned to spend an entire weekend camping alone in the woods. Napper, who knew about the project, phoned Dan’s mother Mabe the day after Dan left home. Napper said, “We have your son. We’ve already beaten him up once, just to hear him scream. Next time, we might kill him.” Napper instructed Mabe to deliver a cash ransom to a specified location within one hour. Since there was no way to locate Dan’s campsite in the woods, Mabe could not find out whether Napper was telling the truth. Horrified that her son might be beaten and injured or killed, she delivered the ransom as instructed. She remained in a hysterical state until Dan returned from his camping trip, and Mabe realized that the ransom demand had been a hoax. Mabe, who already suffered from a heart ailment, had a heart attack the day after Dan’s return.

    3. If Mabe asserts a claim against Napper for assault, the court should find for

    (A) Mabe, because Napper was aware that his conduct would frighten her.

    (B) Mabe, because the court will transfer Napper’s intent.

    (C) Napper, because Mabe did not perceive injury being inflicted upon Dan.

    (D) Napper, because Mabe had no reason to expect to be touched by Napper.

    4. If Mabe asserts a claim against Napper for damages resulting from her heart attack on a theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court should find for

    Create New Group

      Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following