Under the ruling inNYT v. Sullivan,

Question:QUESTION 1

1. Under the ruling inNYT v. Sullivan, defamatory statements communicated about a
2. public figure must be made with malice to be actionable.
3. True
4. False

3 points

3 points

QUESTION 3

1. David is driving 25 mph in a 25 mph zone down a four lane street. A nine-year-old child, Kevin, runs into the street chasing a soccer ball. David, without looking, swerves into the other lane to avoid Kevin and hits a car driven by Peter. Peter sues David for negligence. According to McClintick v. Hesse, David will win because his failure to look before changing lanes is reasonable under the Emergency Doctrine.
2. True
3. False

3 points

QUESTION 4

1. According to the court in the Breisig case, when considering proximate cause in a tort action, the courts ask only whether an injury was reasonably foreseeable.
2. True
3. False

3 points

QUESTION 5

1. According to the US Supreme Court in Evans v. Arizona, evidence obtained during an arrest made with an improper warrant based on an incorrect computer record, as a result of mistakes made by court employees, is admissible in court.
2. True
3. False

3 points

QUESTION 6

1. The use of advanced technological equipment by the police to view heat emissions inside a corporate building probably does not violate the 4^th amendment since it is considered "in plain view" and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in such a building.
2. True
3. False

3 points

QUESTION 8

1. If a police officer based on his or her 20 years of experience, is suspicious of an individual, and stops that individual to ask for ID and conduct a brief pat-down search, they have not violated the 4^th amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures (based on the ruling in Terry v. Ohio) because it is deemed reasonable.
2. True
3. False

3 points

QUESTION 9

1. Horace worked as a cook at a Dairy Queen restaurant owned by Ronald Dump. One day, Ronald got extremely upset when several hamburgers were returned to the kitchen by complaining diners. In his anger, Ronald threw a hamburger in the general direction of Horace and it hit Horace in the leg. Assume that Ronald did not intend to hit Horace, but in fact knew with substantial certainty that it would. Also assume that Horace was not injured by the hamburger. Horace now sues Dairy Queen and Ronald Dump for battery. Since there is no injury, and since Ronald did not intend to hit Horace, there is no battery and Horace will lose. True or False
2. True
3. False

3 points

QUESTION 11

1. Roger, Dave, Rick and Nick plan to rob a bank. Roger, Dave and Rick enter the bank armed and Nick is a lookout outside. The police arrive on the scene and Nick promptly surrenders. A shootout ensues and the police accidentally shoot and kill a teller. Roger, Dave, Rick and Nick are all apprehended and arrested. Under the felony murder rule:
2. Nick is criminally liable for murder in the 1^st degree.
3. No one can be charged with murder in the 1^st degree because the shooting was an accident.
4. Dave, Roger and Rick are criminally liable for felony murder in the 1^st degree.
5. Both A and C above are correct.

3 points

QUESTION 13

1. Harvey plans to steal money from the company rainy-day fund. Before he can act on his plans, he is fired from his job. While cleaning out Harvey's desk, Sue, his boss, finds Harvey's plans to steal the rainy-day money. Under the ruling in Faulkner:
2. Harvey is guilty of extortion because he intended to carry it out.
3. Harvey is not guilty of extortion because he no longer works for Sue.
4. Harvey is not guilty of extortion because he has not acted on plans.
5. Harvey is guilty of extortion because he had a "guilty mind."

3 points

QUESTION 14

1. The police went to Mr. Gant's to execute an arrest warrant of Gant for driving on the suspended list. While the police were at Gant's front door, Gant pulled up in his car and parked in the driveway about 25 yards from the front door. When Gant approached the officers waiting at his front door, he was arrested. The police then searched the inside of Gant's car and found a bag of marijuana. Gant was charged with possession and his attorney made a motion to surpress the evidence on the ground that the warrantless search of his car violated the 4th Amendment. The Motion to Surpress should be:
2. Denied, because the warrantless search was conducted incidental to an arrest, which is one of the exceptions allowed under the 4th Amendment.
3. Granted, because the car posed no safety risk to the officers, nor was there any chance of the defendant destroying any evidence.
4. Denied, because possession of marijuana is illegal.
5. Granted, because the 4th Amendment requires a warrant when conducting a search.

3 points

3 points

QUESTION 19

1. The defendant AmLines runs a trolley that uses an overhead wire system to run the trolley. One of the roads on which the trolley runs is crossed overhead by a pedestrian bridge. The plaintiff, Warner, a 12-year-old boy, was walking across the bridge swinging a metal wire. He brought the wire into contact with the trolley wire and was shocked and burned when the wires came together. If Warner sues AmLines:
2. Warner will win because the defendant was negligent.
3. AmLines will win because the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.
4. AmLines will win because Warner's injury was not reasonably foreseeable.
5. AmLines will win because the plaintiff assumed the risk.

3 points

QUESTION 20

1. Slappy the Clown, without any intent to kill anyone, is driving 90 MPH in a 30 MPH zone when he strikes and kills Bad Luck Bill, who was walking across the street at the crosswalk. Slappy is most likely guilty of:
2. A.Murder in the 1st degree
3. B.Murder in the 2nd degree
4. C.Murder in the 3rd degree, Voluntary Manslaughter
5. D.Murder in the 3rd degree, Involuntary Manslaughter
6. E.No crime at all

3 points

QUESTION 21

1. The defendant is told by his caddy to use a 9 iron for a particular shot. Although the defendant hit the ball perfectly, the shot came up short and landed in a water hazard. Angered by the bad advice from the caddy, the defendant swings his club at the caddy, not intending to hit him nor hurt him in any way, and stops 12 inches from the caddy's head. Due to an unknown defect in the club, the clubhead flies off the club and hits the caddy in the eye causing severe injuries.
2. The defendant has committed a battery because it is the natural consequences of his action.
3. The defendant has committed an assault because the caddy was in reasonable fear or apprehension.
4. The defendant has not committed any tort because there is no intent.
5. Both a and b are correct.

3 points

QUESTION 23

1. Emily is a brilliant high school student who was inspired by an experiment conducted in science class in which the teacher had the students mix three chemicals together to cre.ate a gas that caused the faces of the students to become grossly distorted. Emily obtained an ample supply of the three chemicals and went to an abandoned building located on a street that had heavy pedestrian traffic. She mixed the chemicals together, and the fumes passed across the sidewalk, causing the pedestrian's faces to become grossly distorted. The effect was only temporary and none of the pedestrians suffered any permanent damage. One of the pedestrians exposed to the gas was Arnold. If Arnold wants to sue Emily, which of the following best describes the tort she has committed against him?
2. Assault.
3. Battery.
4. Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
5. Invasion of privacy.

3 points

QUESTION 24

1. The legal definition of insanity based on the M'Naughten rule states:
2. One is incompetent to stand trial if he or she knows right from wrong but cannot act in a reasonable manner.
3. One is incompetent to stand trial if they are under the age of 7 years.
4. One is incompetent to stand trial if they are unable to understand the nature and consequences of their act.
5. a and c are both correct as to the M'Naughten rule.

3 points

QUESTION 27

1. Under the ruling in Vosburg v. Putney:
2. one is always liable if they cause damages to someone.
3. The fact that a plaintiff is more susceptible to injury does not lessen a defendant's lliability.
4. A defendant cannot be liable if a Plaintiff has an egg shell skull that the defendant did not know about.
5. A twelve year old cannot be held liable for any torts.