TORTS: INTENTIONAL

TORTS

Question 1 | MBE TORTS | HARMS TO PERSONAL PROPERTY AND LAND | Trespass to

Land

A husband was driving in a torrential rainstorm on a deserted stretch of rural highway. His
wife and another couple were passengers in the vehicle. The husband looked in his rear-
view mirror and saw a tornado approaching him on the left. He chose to swerve his vehicle
to the right, crashing through a fence and colliding with a tractor on a farmer's property.

If the husband is sued by the farmer for damage caused to the fence and tractor, will the
farmer prevail?

(A) No, because the potential harm to the husband and the other passengers was
greater than the harm to the farmer.

(B) No, because the husband acted reasonably under the circumstances.

(C) Yes, because the farmer suffered actual damages.

(D) Yes, only if the farmer can establish that the tornado was not a threat to the car.

Answer choice C is correct. By steering his car onto the farmer's property, the husband
committed a trespass to land; by damaging the tractor, the husband committed a trespass
to chattel. The husband's actions, however, were justified by private necessity, as the
entrance upon the farmer's land prevented serious harm that was substantially more
serious than the invasion itself. However, a person who enters upon another's property or
interferes with another's personal property due to private necessity must still pay for actual
damages caused. Answer choice A is incorrect because it misstates the effect of the
privilege of necessity. Even when it applies, the defendant is liable for actual damages.
Answer choice B is incorrect because it states the standard for public necessity, rather than
private necessity. Public necessity justifies trespasses made to protect a large number of
people. Answer choice D is incorrect because it improperly places a burden of proof upon
the farmer.
Question 2 | MBE TORTS | HARMS TO PERSONAL PROPERTY AND LAND | Nuisance

Deciding he needed a new hobby, a retired widower decided to set up a tannery in a shed
on his property. The tannery emitted incredibly foul odors, and the stench quickly spread to
the properties of his many neighbors. Although many of the neighbors used to hold frequent
cookouts and parties, the stench quickly made this unpleasant for all of the widower's
neighbors. One of the widower's neighbors who can no longer hold his usual weekly family
cookouts due to the stench has brought an action against the widower for private nuisance.

Is the neighbor likely to succeed in his action?

(A) No, because the neighbor has not suffered a harm different from that suffered by the
other nearby residents.

(B) No, because the widower's tannery is not interfering with a commercial or
profitable use of the neighbor's land.

(C) Yes, because the neighbor's use of the property predates the widower's interference.

(D) Yes, because the widower's tannery substantially and unreasonably interferes with
the neighbor's use and enjoyment of his land.

Answer choice D is correct. A private nuisance is a thing or activity that substantially

and unreasonably interferes with another individual's use and enjoyment of his land.
Because these elements are met here, since the neighbor could no longer hold his usual
weekly family cookouts due to the stench, the neighbor can likely succeed in his private
nuisance action against the widower. Answer choice A is incorrect because it states a
requirement for a private citizen to bring a tort claim for a public nuisance. Because the
neighbor has claimed a private nuisance, this requirement does not apply.
Answer choice B is incorrect. A private nuisance only needs to interfere with a land
possessor's use and enjoyment of the property. Although interference with an economic
property use may be relevant to the reasonableness of the interference, economic harm is
not required in order to succeed in an action for private nuisance. Answer choice C is
incorrect because ownership of land prior to the defendant's entry into the neighborhood will
not, by itself, make the defendant's action a nuisance. The test is whether the defendant's
action is unreasonable.

2 |© 2023 Themis Bar Review, LLC | Torts MBE

Questions
Question 3 | MBE TORTS | HARMS TO PERSONAL PROPERTY AND LAND | Trespass
to Chattels

A man and his neighbor were involved in an increasingly serious dispute. One afternoon,
the man backed his car out of his driveway, and headed down the street past the
neighbor's house. Suddenly, the man heard two "pop" sounds coming from his right.
Looking in that direction, the man saw his neighbor standing on his porch, tossing a gun into
the bushes. The man drove away as quickly as possible. Once he was a safe distance
away, he got out of his car and surveyed the damage. He immediately noticed a bullet hole
in the front right fender. Later, he repaired his vehicle, at a substantial cost.

Based on the foregoing facts, which intentional tort claim by the man is most likely to result
in the greatest monetary recovery?

(A) Intentional infliction of emotional distress

(B) Conversion

(C) Assault

(D) Trespass to chattels

Answer choice D is correct. A defendant commits trespass to chattels if the defendant

intentionally interferes with the plaintiff's right of possession by dispossessing the plaintiff of
the chattel or using or intermeddling with the plaintiff's chattel. Intermeddling with a
plaintiff's chattel requires the defendant to make physical contact, whether direct or
indirect, with the chattel. In cases of use or intermeddling, the plaintiff may recover only
when there are actual damages. Here, the neighbor intermeddled with the man's chattel
(i.e., his car) by firing shots that caused damage to the car. Furthermore, punitive damages
may be available, as the neighbor's conduct was willful and wanton. Answer choice A is
incorrect because the facts do not indicate that the man suffered severe emotional distress
as a result of the incident. Answer choice B is incorrect because the man was able to repair
the car, and therefore he wasn't totally deprived of the benefit of the property. Answer
choice C is incorrect because an assault requires the plaintiff to anticipate an imminent, and
harmful or offensive, contact. The plaintiff must be aware of or have knowledge of the
defendant's act. Here, the man did not see the neighbor until after the shooting had
occurred.

3 |© 2023 Themis Bar Review, LLC | Torts MBE

Questions
Question 4 | MBE TORTS | INTENTIONAL TORTS INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURY |
Battery

A teenager planned to play a malicious prank on a neighbor. The teenager wanted to see
the neighbor slip and fall, although she did not intend for the neighbor to suffer serious
injuries. She poured several quarts of silicone-based engine lubricant into the street in front
of the neighbor's driveway, causing the street to become dangerously slippery. While the
teenager waited for the neighbor to come out of his house, a passing motorcyclist drove
through the slippery patch, spun out of control, and crashed, sustaining serious injuries.
The motorcyclist sued the teenager, alleging one count of battery.

Will the motorcyclist prevail?

(A) Yes, because the teenager poured the silicone lubricant into the street.

(B) Yes, because the teenager is strictly liable for the motorcyclist's injuries.

(C) No, because the teenager did not intend to seriously injure the neighbor.

(D) No, because the teenager did not make contact with the motorcyclist's person.

Answer choice A is correct. A defendant is liable for battery if the defendant intended to
cause contact with the plaintiff's person and the defendant's affirmative conduct caused
contact that was harmful or offensive to the plaintiff. However, under the doctrine of
transferred intent, the intent requirement for battery is also satisfied if the defendant
intended to cause contact with a third party but instead caused contact with the plaintiff
(same tort against a different person). Here, the teenager intended to cause a contact with
the neighbor by setting in motion a chain of events, beginning with pouring the lubricant
onto the street, that was intended to cause the neighbor to fall. This intent transfers to the
motorcyclist (same tort, different person). Therefore, the teenager is liable. Answer choice
B is incorrect because strict liability is imposed in cases of abnormally dangerous activity,
dangerous animals, defective or dangerous products, or in the context of vicarious liability
for employees' or agents' torts. While the teenager's actions caused injury, the silicone
lubricant is not abnormally dangerous in the same way as mining, blasting, or handling
poisons—the typical subjects of strict liability for dangerous activity. Answer choice C is
incorrect because battery does not require that the defendant intend to inflict serious injury
on the plaintiff. Answer choice D is incorrect because direct contact by the defendant with
the plaintiff is not necessary to establish battery.

4 |© 2023 Themis Bar Review, LLC | Torts MBE

Questions
Question 5 | MBE TORTS | INTENTIONAL TORTS INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURY |
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

A mother often let her two young children play alone in her front yard. The mother's
neighbor disapproved, fearing that someone would kidnap the children while they were
playing outside without parental supervision. In order to frighten the mother, the neighbor
walked over while the children were playing outside by themselves and invited them over.
The children knew the neighbor and had visited her many times before. Without telling their
mother, they went over to the neighbor's house. A few minutes later, the mother came out
to check on her children. Seeing they were not in the front yard, the mother panicked and
started frantically yelling their names and looking around. After watching the mother for a
few minutes through her window, the neighbor went outside and told the mother that her
children were safe, but that she should learn to be more careful about letting them play
outside by themselves. The mother was extremely upset, and had nightmares about her
children being kidnapped for several weeks.

If the mother sues the neighbor for intentional infliction of emotional distress, will she
succeed?

(A) No, because the mother observed no injury to her children.

(B) No, because the neighbor only intended to teach the mother a lesson.

(C) Yes, because the mother suffered nightmares.

(D) Yes, because the neighbor intended to frighten the mother.

Answer choice D is correct. A defendant is subject to liability to the plaintiff for the
intentional infliction of emotional distress if the defendant by extreme and outrageous
conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to the plaintiff. Here,
the neighbor took the children into her home without their mother's knowledge intending to
frighten the mother into not leaving her children alone. She then let the mother search for
her allegedly missing children for a few minutes before telling her that they were actually
safe. This conduct was extreme and outrageous, and caused the mother severe emotional
distress, as she was extremely upset and had nightmares for several weeks. Therefore, the
mother will be able to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Answer choice
A is incorrect because it states a requirement to recover under the tort of negligent infliction
of emotional distress as a bystander. A plaintiff does not need to observe an injury to
another to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Answer choice B is
incorrect because the neighbor's motives for frightening the mother do not excuse her
intentional and outrageous conduct. Instead, the fact that she hid the mother's children
with the intent of frightening the mother supports the mother's claim, regardless of why the
neighbor engaged in the conduct. Answer choice C is incorrect because physical symptoms
are not required to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

5 |© 2023 Themis Bar Review, LLC | Torts MBE

Questions
Question 6 | MBE TORTS | INTENTIONAL TORTS INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURY |
False
Imprisonment

The owner of a convenience store was in the back of his store when he heard a loud noise.
When he walked to the front of the store to determine the cause of the commotion, he saw
that a large pile of canned goods had just fallen. Around that time, a woman walked into the
store wearing a large coat despite the warm weather outside. The woman was bedraggled
and smelled of liquor. The owner correctly ascertained that the woman neither caused the
canned goods to fall nor stole anything.
However, he assumed that she entered the store intending to steal. The owner therefore
ordered the woman to go to the back office, where he questioned her for two hours. While
he left the door to both the office and the store unlocked, he continually threatened that if
the woman did not comply with questioning or left the room, he would have her arrested
the next time he saw her around his store. The woman was obviously confused and anxious
but never left or asked to leave the room at any point.

Would the owner's actions constitute false imprisonment?

(A) Yes, because the questioning lasted for over two hours.

(B) Yes, because the owner's actions were not reasonable.

(C) No, because the woman was not confined or restrained.

(D) No, because the woman was a suspected shoplifter.

Answer choice C is correct. A defendant is subject to liability to a plaintiff for false

imprisonment if (i) the defendant intends to confine the plaintiff within a limited area, (ii)
the defendant's conduct causes the plaintiff's confinement or the defendant fails to release
the plaintiff from a confinement despite owing a duty to do so, and (iii) the plaintiff is
conscious of the confinement. The defendant may confine the plaintiff by the use of
physical barriers, physical force or restraint or the threat of physical force or restraint,
duress other than by threat of physical force or restraint, or by the assertion of legal
authority. The defendant's use of moral pressure or future threats does not constitute
confinement or restraint by duress, and a plaintiff is not imprisoned if she willingly submits
to confinement. Here, the door was unlocked for the woman to leave at any time, and the
only threats exhibited were future threats.
Therefore, the owner's actions do not constitute false imprisonment because the woman
was not confined or restrained. Answer choice A is incorrect because even if the
questioning lasted longer than was reasonable, no confinement actually occurred. Answer
choice B is incorrect because the woman was not confined or restrained, and therefore it is
not necessary to determine whether the owner's actions were reasonable, and thus whether
he may be protected by the shopkeeper's privilege. Answer choice D is incorrect because
there was no confinement, and thus the shopkeeper's privilege is not implicated.
Moreover, the owner could not validly assert the privilege, which allows a shopkeeper to
reasonably detain a suspected shoplifter, because the woman was not a suspected
shoplifter.

6 |© 2023 Themis Bar Review, LLC | Torts MBE

Questions