FYLSX Intentional Torts Against Persons 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A defendant spits on the plaintiff during an argument. The plaintiff was not physically harmed. Can the plaintiff recover for battery?
- No, because no physical injury occurred
- Yes, because spitting constitutes offensive contact (Correct answer)
- No, because saliva is not a harmful substance
- Yes, but only if the plaintiff suffered emotional distress
Correct answer: Yes, because spitting constitutes offensive contact
Battery covers both harmful and offensive contact; spitting on someone is widely considered offensive contact even without physical injury.
Question 2: A plaintiff is told by a supervisor 'If you report this incident, you will never work in this industry again.' The plaintiff feels unable to leave the room. What is the most significant factor in determining whether false imprisonment occurred?
- Whether the threat was about physical harm
- Whether the plaintiff's will to leave was actually overcome by a threat of imminent harm (Correct answer)
- Whether the room had a locked door
- Whether the supervisor had authority to follow through on the threat
Correct answer: Whether the plaintiff's will to leave was actually overcome by a threat of imminent harm
Confinement by threats can constitute false imprisonment if the threat is sufficient to overcome the plaintiff's will to leave, particularly when it involves imminent harm.
Question 3: A defendant grabs the plaintiff's jacket sleeve to stop him from leaving. The plaintiff slips out of the jacket and walks away freely. Is there false imprisonment?
- Yes, because the defendant physically restrained the plaintiff
- No, because the plaintiff had a reasonable means of escape and used it
- Yes, because intent to confine is sufficient
- No, because the plaintiff was not actually confined (Correct answer)
Correct answer: No, because the plaintiff was not actually confined
False imprisonment requires actual confinement; if the plaintiff could and did escape without unreasonable risk, there is no false imprisonment.
Question 4: Under IIED, which standard is used to determine whether the defendant's conduct was 'extreme and outrageous'?
- The subjective standard of the plaintiff's sensitivity
- The objective standard of what a reasonable person would find intolerable in a civilized society (Correct answer)
- The defendant's intent to cause distress
- The severity of the plaintiff's resulting distress
Correct answer: The objective standard of what a reasonable person would find intolerable in a civilized society
Courts apply an objective standard — whether the conduct exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated by a civilized society.
Question 5: A defendant, angry at a neighbor, fires a gun into the air near the neighbor's child. The child suffers severe emotional distress. The defendant did not intend to distress the child. Can the child recover for IIED?
- No, because the defendant's conduct was directed at the neighbor
- Yes, if the defendant knew the child was present and the conduct was extreme and outrageous (Correct answer)
- No, because transferred intent does not apply to IIED
- Yes, only if the child witnessed physical harm to the neighbor
Correct answer: Yes, if the defendant knew the child was present and the conduct was extreme and outrageous
IIED can extend to a bystander plaintiff if the defendant knew of their presence and engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct.
Question 6: Which of the following best illustrates the difference between assault and battery?
- Assault requires a weapon; battery does not
- Assault is the apprehension of contact; battery is the actual harmful or offensive contact (Correct answer)
- Assault is criminal; battery is civil only
- Assault requires injury; battery requires only intent
Correct answer: Assault is the apprehension of contact; battery is the actual harmful or offensive contact
Assault protects against the mental harm of apprehension of imminent contact, while battery requires actual harmful or offensive contact.
Question 7: A plaintiff consents to a boxing match. During the match, his opponent punches him in the kidney in a manner legal under boxing rules. The plaintiff suffers internal injuries. Can the plaintiff recover for battery?
- Yes, because the injuries were severe
- No, because consent to a boxing match includes consent to contact within the rules (Correct answer)
- Yes, because the defendant intended injury
- No, because professional sports participants cannot sue for battery
Correct answer: No, because consent to a boxing match includes consent to contact within the rules
Consent to participate in a sporting event extends to contact that falls within the rules and normal risks of that sport.
FYLSX Intentional Torts Against Persons 4
A defendant spits on the plaintiff during an argument.
The plaintiff was not physically harmed.
Can the plaintiff recover for battery?