Homework answers / question archive / Question 1 1 / 1 pts An intentional tort requires the plaintiff to prove:    Every element beyond a reasonable doubt: Voluntary act, Intent to do the act, Causation    Every element by a preponderance of the evidence: Voluntary act, Intent to do the act, Causation    Only that the defendant caused the plaintiff's harm by a preponderance of the evidence

Question 1 1 / 1 pts An intentional tort requires the plaintiff to prove:    Every element beyond a reasonable doubt: Voluntary act, Intent to do the act, Causation    Every element by a preponderance of the evidence: Voluntary act, Intent to do the act, Causation    Only that the defendant caused the plaintiff's harm by a preponderance of the evidence

Communications

Share With

---

Question 1

1 / 1 pts

An intentional tort requires the plaintiff to prove:

  

Every element beyond a reasonable doubt: Voluntary act, Intent to do the act, Causation

  

Every element by a preponderance of the evidence: Voluntary act, Intent to do the act, Causation

  

Only that the defendant caused the plaintiff's harm by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

At least 2 elements by a preponderance of the evidence: Voluntary act, Intent to do the act, Causation

 

 

Question 2

1 / 1 pts

The legal effect of defenses to intentional torts is:

  

The defendant wasn't the only person that caused the harm, so they cannot be held responsible.

  

The defendant committed the tort but no measurable damage was done so no liability or damages are imposed.

  

The defendant did not engage in the act that caused the tort.

  

The defendant committed the act, but is legally excused because of legally defined circumstances and will not be held liable for any damages.

 

 

Question 3

1 / 1 pts

When is a landlord liable for a nuisance caused by the activities of their tenant who is managing the land?

  

ONLY when the landlord requires the tenant to take actions that cause the nuisance.

 

When the landlord knows that the tenant is creating a nuisance and has a chance to restrict the tenant's activities in the lease, but does nothing.

  

When the landlord suspects that neighboring landowners may be annoyed with the tenant's activities on the land.

  

A landlord can never be liable for actions taken by their tenant on the leased land.

 

 

Question 4

1 / 1 pts

A landowner owes the highest duty of care to an invitee on his land. Which of these is NOT an example of an invitee:

  

A customer at a farm that sells “U-Pick” berries that is open to the public.

 

The neighbor who comes on to the landowner’s property to retrieve livestock that have wandered onto the property.

  

An extension agent who is on the property to give advice about controlling a field pest.

  

A truck driver who has been contracted to haul a crop to the elevator.

 

 

Question 5

1 / 1 pts

Which statement is true of both the defenses of Private Necessity and Reclaiming Property?

  

For both defenses, there must be a good public policy reason for entering the property.

  

For both defenses, you are not legally liable for trespass and would not be required to pay for any actual damages done to the property.

  

For both defenses, you are not legally liable for trespass but must still pay for any actual damages done to the property.

  

For both defenses, you have to have property rights to something on the property.

 

 

Question 6

1 / 1 pts

Aisha's Apiary is open to the public one weekend per year to educate the public about the benefits of honey bees and promote her products. After another successful event, she got nervous about continuing this tradition just in case someone who is allergic to bees is stung during the event. While this is unlikely, it is possible and potentially life-threatening. If the person does not know that they are allergic when they come to her event, she may not have any legal defense if she were sued.

What advice would you give Aisha about how to deal with this situation?

  

Anyone who comes to her apiary, knowing or not knowing if they are allergic, assumes the risk of being near bees and cannot sue her.

  

When you invite the public on to your land, you must warn them of any dangers. Post signs at the entrance about the potential for bee stings and allergic reactions. To be very secure, ask participants to sign a disclaimer and waiver of liability when they attend

  

A bee sting would be an act of nature, so Aisha can't be liable in any case.

  

Stop holding the public event because the risk of liability is too high.

 

 

Question 7

0 / 1 pts

Magnus was an old bachelor farmer who lived on his land for his entire life and continues to farm into his 60s. His new neighbor, Otis, bought his land to grow hemp. Magnus can't stand the smell as the crop gets close to harvest time in September and October, and the processing is just as bad. Both Otis and Magnus own land that is zoned for exclusive farm use, and hemp is an agricultural crop in the state.

Why is Magnus's private nuisance claim not likely to stop Otis from growing hemp?

  

Otis's operation is protected under the Right to Farm law.

  

All of the answers are correct.

  

Even if Otis is found liable for creating a private nuisance, a court would likely award only money damages.

  

The interference with Magnus's property rights are for a limited time of the year, which does not substantially interfere with his use of his property.

 

 

Question 8

1 / 1 pts

Kai bought 5 acres near an urban area and has been growing fresh vegetables for direct marketing for the last 7 years, 3 years in the organic transition period and 4 years of growing organically certified.

Tory is Kai's neighbor. Tory maintains fences for his cow-calf operation. One day, Kai went to check a field and found cows and calves standing in the field, eating the squash crop, and doing what cows do. In addition to losing that portion of the squash crop, Kai was denied organic certification for that field because the raw cow manure deposited in his field was not allowed under the organic certification regulations.

Kai asks your advice on which claims could be used to hold Tory accountable, and what can be claimed as damages. What advice would you give?

  

Trespass for Tory's cows on the property, negligence for failing to maintain the fence, and strict liability for inherently dangerous cows on organically certified ground. Damages for the value of the lost squash crop at market value, damages for the work involved in getting the field certified organic again, and damages for the lost organic price premium on any produce grown on that field and sold as non-organic.

   

Trespass for Tory's cows on the property, negligence for failing to maintain the fence. Damages for the value of the lost squash crop at market value, damages for the work involved in getting the field certified organic again, and damages for the lost organic price premium on any produce grown on that field and sold as non-organic.

   

Threaten a lawsuit but take any settlement offer because Kai is unlikely to win. The act was by the cows, not Tory.

  

Trespass for Tory's cows on the property, negligence for failing to maintain the fence. Damages for the value of the lost squash crop at market value, damages for the work involved in getting the field certified organic again, and punitive damages for extreme indifference to Kai's organic certification.