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

    (A) Napper, because the heart attack occurred the day after Dan’s return.

    (B) Napper, if Mabe’s pre-existing condition made her especially susceptible to heart attack.

    (C) Mabe, if the heart attack was caused by Napper’s outrageous conduct.

    (D) Mabe, because Napper should have foreseen that his conduct would result in harm.

    5. Dusty was a “crop duster,” an occupation which required her to spray insecticides onto growing crops from an airplane which she flew within fifteen feet of the ground. In locating the fields of her customers, she used a map which the county published for that purpose, and on which every parcel of real estate in the area was identified by a parcel number. Arrow, a farmer, hired Dusty to spray his fields with insecticide. Arrow knew that his farm was identified on the county map as parcel 612, but by mistake told Dusty that it was parcel 621. As a result, Dusty sprayed the farm which the county map identified as parcel 621. That farm belonged to Plower, who had contracted to grow his crop without chemical insecticides and to sell it to an organic produce distributor. As a result of Dusty’s spraying, Plower was unable to fulfill his contract and sustained serious economic losses.

    If Plower asserts a claim for damages resulting from trespass to land, the court should find for

    (A) Plower, because crop dusting is an abnormally dangerous activity.

    (B) Plower, because Dusty intentionally flew through the air space above his land.

    (C) Dusty, because she reasonably believed that the farm which she was spraying belonged to Arrow.

    (D) Dusty, because there was no damage to Plower’s land.

    6. Nichol, who was 11 years of age, was playing with Paul, who was ten years of age. While they were playing together, Nichol offered to show Paul his new air rifle. The air rifle was manufactured by the Loly Company. Nichol purchased it from Storr, with money which he earned by mowing the lawns of several of his neighbors. While demonstrating the air rifle to Paul, Nichol accidentally shot him with it, severely injuring Paul’s eye. Paul subsequently asserted a negligence claim against Storr.

    If Paul is successful in his claim against Storr, it will be because a jury finds that

    (A) any negligence by Loly Company in the design of the air rifle should be imputed to Storr.

    (B) the air rifle was defectively designed.

    (C) the air rifle was defectively manufactured.

    (D) it was unreasonable for Storr to sell the air rifle to Nichol.

    Create New Group

      Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following