Which of the following is not one of the elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress?

• The defendant intended the conduct that caused the plaintiff’s distress

• The defendant’s conduct was outrageous or intolerable

• The plaintiff’s emotional distress was severe

• The plaintiff’s emotional distress was severe

On April Fool’s Day, the local newspaper, the Adamsville Gazette, runs a spoof article about Bill, the Mayor of Adamsville, suggesting that the Mafia funded his campaign for re-election. This is ridiculous: everyone in town knows that Bill was re-elected unopposed, and also that there has never been any Mafia presence in Adamsville, which is a small respectable country town in Middle America. Nevertheless, Bill is extremely upset about this slur and he sues the Adamsville Gazette for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Which of the following most accurately states the likely outcome?

• Bill will lose unless he can show that the Mafia did not fund his campaign

• Bill will lose unless he proves malice because the Gazette has a First Amendment right to write about public officials

• Bill will lose because he was unduly sensitive

• Bill will lose because he was unduly sensitive

Ariadne is driving behind a school bus. The bus stops, puts on its hazard lights and puts out its “Stop” signs. Ariadne drives past the bus, violating a specific provision of the traffic regulation statutes in the state in question. She runs down Bella, a school student who is waiting to get on the bus. The state in question regards violation of a safety statute as negligence per se. Which of the following most accurately describes what that means?

• Ariadne’s violation of the road safety statute establishes a prima facie case of negligence on her part

•  Ariadne’s violation of the road safety statute is some evidence of negligence

• Ariadne’s violation of the road safety statute constitutes negligence unless she can establish that she had some excuse

• Ariadne’s violation of the road safety statute constitutes negligence unless she can establish that she had some excuse

Scoliosis is a disease that can be treated with complete success if detected sufficiently early. Anne suffers from severe scoliosis, which she first contracted while she was in school. She sues the school board, which did nothing to screen for scoliosis, although there is a state statute requiring all school boards to screen all children for scoliosis at least once a year. Her action alleges that the school board breached its statutory duty. Which of the following must Anne establish to succeed in such an action?

•  That when the legislature created the statutory obligation, it intended to confer a private right of action for violation of that obligation

•  That the legislature intended the statutory obligation to screen for scoliosis to be taken into account in determining whether school boards acted negligently

• That the legislature intended a violation of the statutory obligation to be the equivalent of negligence, unless excused

• That the legislature intended a violation of the statutory obligation to be the equivalent of negligence, unless excused

 A Co. builds a footbridge over railroad tracks that have electrified power lines strung above them to provide power to the trains. A Co. considers two different options to protect against the risk of pedestrians on the footbridge somehow coming into contact with the electrified power lines. One option is five times more expensive than the other but past experience indicates that it is ten times more effective. A Co. opts for the cheaper, less effective option. B, a pedestrian, comes into contact with the electrified power lines when trailing a long wire over the edge of the footbridge. Which of the following statements most accurately states the proper analysis of the related questions of risk and precaution?

•  A Co. may not have been negligent if the precautions it took were reasonably effective given the magnitude of the risk, even though it could have achieved greater effectiveness at greater expense

•  A Co. should not be held to have been negligent because it considered the risk and spent some money on precautions that were effective to some extent

•  A Co. should be regarded as negligent because the option it chose was less cost-effective than the option it rejected (one-fifth of the cost but one-tenth of the effectiveness)

•  A Co. should be regarded as negligent because the option it chose was less cost-effective than the option it rejected (one-fifth of the cost but one-tenth of the effectiveness)

Ayrton, a racing-car driver with extraordinarily fast reflexes and superb car-handling skills, is driving along an ordinary suburban street in an ordinary, unmodified car. A child runs out onto the road so close in front of his car that an ordinary driver would have been unable to avoid running her down. Because of his extraordinary reflexes and skills, Ayrton could have avoided the child if he had been paying attention. However, he runs the child down because his attention is distracted by an attractive female pedestrian on the sidewalk and he is talking on his hand-held cell phone. Which of the following statements is most accurate?

• Ayrton was negligent because a reasonable driver with his reflexes and skills would have avoided the child

• Ayrton was negligent because he could have avoided the child but did not

• Ayrton was not negligent because a reasonable driver in his position would not have been able to avoid the child

• Ayrton was not negligent because a reasonable driver in his position would not have been able to avoid the child

Andrew and Barbara are 5 years old. They are throwing stones, trying to knock a tin can off a tree stump. Barbara puts the can back on the stump after she has knocked it off. While Barbara is still standing close by the tree stump, Andrew throws a stone, which hits Barbara on the head. Which of the following most accurately describes the likely outcome if Barbara sues Andrew?

•  Andrew’s conduct will be judged by the standard of the reasonable 5-year-old child because playing is a child-like activity

•  Barbara’s action will fail because a reasonable child of her age would have realized that it was dangerous to stand next to the tree stump

• Andrew’s conduct will be judged by the standard of the reasonable adult because throwing stones is a dangerous activity

• Andrew’s conduct will be judged by the standard of the reasonable adult because throwing stones is a dangerous activity

Alan has a history of mental illness. He often suffers from severe paranoia. He has kept his condition under control for years by using medication. While he is out driving one day, he suddenly and unexpectedly forms the view that the driver of one of the cars on the other side of the road intends to kill him by crashing into him. (This is not true. The other driver has no such intention.) In order to avoid what he thinks is the impending collision, Alan drives his car onto the sidewalk, where he runs down Beltran, a pedestrian. Which of the following most accurately describes what will happen if Beltran sues Alan?

• Because the attack of paranoia was unexpected, Alan’s conduct will be judged according to what was reasonable in “the agony of the moment”

•  Alan’s conduct will be judged according to the standard of the reasonable driver

•  Alan’s conduct will be judged according to the standard of the reasonable person under medication to control paranoid delusions

•  Alan’s conduct will be judged according to the standard of the reasonable person under medication to control paranoid delusions

Aaron is blind. He runs a concession stand in the lobby of the local post office. He usually walks with a cane while out in the street, but he does not use the cane while at work because he is so familiar with his surroundings. He goes to the restroom, leaving his cane behind. Aaron bumps into Bruce and knocks him over, injuring him. Which of the following statements is most accurate?

• Aaron was not negligent because it is not reasonable to expect him to have seen Bruce.

• Aaron was not negligent because it was not unreasonable for him to leave his cane behind given his familiarity with the surroundings.

• Aaron was negligent because a reasonable blind person would have used his cane at all times

• Aaron was negligent because a reasonable blind person would have used his cane at all times

20.

 Angela is a doctor. She is considering which of three possible courses of treatment to use on her patient Brianna. Each has a very small risk of harmful side-effects. Which of the following statements most accurately states Angela’s duty to Brianna?

• Angela need only tell Brianna about the risks posed by the alternative courses of treatment if a reasonable patient in Brianna’s position would regard the risks as material

• Angela need only tell Brianna about the risks posed by the alternative courses of treatment if a reasonable doctor in her position would do so

• Angela must describe all three courses of treatment to Brianna, tell Brianna of the risks involved with each, and let Brianna choose which course of treatment she wants

• Angela must describe all three courses of treatment to Brianna, tell Brianna of the risks involved with each, and let Brianna choose which course of treatment she wants