Kim Kardashian Themed Multiple-Choice Questions
Kim Kardashian has posted about using our personalized bar prep questions. You can view Kim Kardashian’s shoutout to JD Advising on Instagram here!
You can also review a Tiger King-themed multiple-choice question that she enjoyed here!
These are the questions that were sent to Kim Kardashian in her preparation for the baby bar exam. This page is updated as more questions are sent. Enjoy!
You can review questions on the following subjects:
II. Criminal Law
Kim Kardashian Themed Multiple-Choice Questions: Contracts
Kim spent her Labor Day studying Contract law. She was feeling tired and stressed out so her husband, Kanye, decided to surprise her with a deluxe spa package from her favorite spa. He purchased the spa package for Kim and told the spa Kim would be contacting the spa to set up an appointment at the day and time of her choosing.
On the day that Kim went to the spa for her scheduled appointment, the spa did not have the ingredients for the facial that came in the deluxe spa package.
If Kim sues the spa for breach of contract, will she be successful?
(A) No, because Kanye, not Kim, entered into the contract with the spa.
(B) No, unless Kim could show that she detrimentally relied on the contract.
(C) Yes, if the spa was not able to substitute an ingredient of similar value.
(D) Yes, as an intended third-party beneficiary.
(D) is the correct answer. Kim would be an intended third-party beneficiary to the contract so she could sue. The factors one examines to determine if a third party is intended are the following:
- Is the TPB expressly designated in the contract?
- Is performance directly to the TPB?
- Does the TPB have any rights under the contract?
- What is the relationship between the TPB and the promisee?
Here, Kim is expressly designated in the contract. Performance is directly to her. She has rights under the contract (i.e., she can pick when she goes to the spa). And the relationship between her and Kanye is that she is married to him! Because she is an intended third-party beneficiary, the next question is whether her rights have vested. Her rights can vest if she (a) assents to the contract, (b) relies on it, or (c) sues. Here, she assented to the contract by going to the spa.
(A) is incorrect. Just because Kanye can sue does not mean that Kim cannot sue. Indeed, she is a third-party beneficiary. This third-party beneficiary doctrine adds a party that can sue!
(B) is incorrect. Kim would not need to show a theory of detrimental reliance. She could prevail under a third-party beneficiary theory as noted above.
(C) is incorrect. Even if the spa was able to substitute an ingredient of similar value, Kim could still sue for a minor breach. It would not preclude Kim from being successful in a lawsuit. It would merely affect the amount of damages she could recover.
KKW Fragrance, in a signed writing, contracted with a buyer, a beauty store, for the sale of 1,000 bottles of Kylie Jenner “red lips” perfume, 500 bottles to be delivered on June 1, and the remaining 500 to be delivered on November 1. The contract was silent as to any place of delivery, timeline for payment, or place for payment to be made.
Which of the following statements is correct?
(A) KKW Fragrance must tender 500 bottles of Kylie Jenner perfume to the beauty store at the beauty store’s place of business on June 1, but it does not have to turn them over to the beauty store until the beauty store pays the contract price for the 500 bottles of Kylie Jenner perfume.
(B) KKW Fragrance has no duty to deliver the 500 bottles of Kylie Jenner perfume on June 1 at the beauty store’s place of business unless the beauty store tenders the contract price for the 500 bottles of Kylie Jenner perfume on that date.
(C) KKW Fragrance must deliver 500 bottles of Kylie Jenner perfume on June 1, and the beauty store must pay the contract price for the 500 bottles of Kylie Jenner perfume within a reasonable time after their delivery.
(D) KKW Fragrance must deliver 500 bottles of Kylie Jenner perfume on June 1, but the beauty store’s payment is due only upon the delivery of all 1,000 bottles of Kylie Jenner perfume.
(B) is the correct answer. This question is controlled by the UCC because there is a sale of goods; here, reams of paper. Under the UCC, this is a non-carrier case, whereby the seller does not hire a third party to ship its goods, and instead the buyer simply picks up the goods. The facts tell us that “[t]he contract did not list any place of delivery, timeline for payment, or place for payment to be made.” Under the UCC, when an agreement is silent on those terms then gap fillers are applied. When there is no place for delivery listed in the contract, then under UCC § 2-308(a), “the place for delivery of goods is the seller’s place of business.” Additionally, when no place or time of payment is given, under UCC § 2-310(a) “payment is due at the time and place at which the buyer is to receive the goods.” Here, unless the beauty store pays for the goods on June 1, then KKW Fragrance has no duty to deliver the goods at the beauty store’s place of business.
(A) is incorrect because, as explained above, UCC § 2-308 tells us that the place of delivery is the seller’s place of business and not the buyer’s place of business.
(C) is incorrect because, as explained above, the governing gap filler in UCC § 2-310 states that payment is due when the buyer receives the goods (upon delivery, at the seller’s place of business) and not within a reasonable time after delivery.
(D) is incorrect because, under UCC § 2-307, when “either party [has] the right to make or demand delivery in . . . lots the price if it can be apportioned may be demanded for each lot.” Here, because KKW Fragrance can divide the order into two separate installments of 500 bottles of perfume, KKW Fragrance can demand a proportional amount of payment after the first delivery for 500 bottles, KKW Fragrance does not need to wait until all 1,000 bottles are delivered in order to be paid.
Kim Kardashian West needed someone to garden on her Hidden Hills mansion property. She hired her friend in the landscaping business to maintain the landscaping once every week from April through September. In return, Kim promised to pay her friend $400 each visit. The friend dutifully maintained the property for five months. However, the friend got an assignment at work that required him to put in extra hours in September and could not tend to Kim’s garden. As a result, the friend called his neighbor, also a landscaper, to see whether she would be willing to tend to the property each week in September. The neighbor agreed, and the friend gave him $20 for taking time out of her schedule to keep Kim’s yard looking perfect. However, the neighbor never showed up at Kim’s house! Kim, upset that her property was not tended to for one month, brings a breach of contract action against the friend.
Is the court likely to find in favor of Kim?
(A)No, because the friend was released from liability by entering into a novation.
(B) No, because Kim can only successfully sue the person to whom the duty was delegated.
(C) Yes, because Kim may successfully sue the friend even though the friend delegated the duty to the neighbor.
(D) Yes, because the friend was first required to get the consent of Kim in writing before delegating the duty to the neighbor.
(C) is the correct answer. When a duty is delegated and not performed by the delegatee, the obligee may sue the delegator (unless there has been a novation). Additionally, the obligee may also sue the delegatee, but only if the delegatee receives consideration from the delegator. Here, Kim (the obligee—the person to whom the duty is owed) may sue the friend (the delegator) even though the duty to maintain the property had been delegated to the neighbor (delegatee). The facts do not indicate that a novation has occurred. A novation requires an agreement by the obligee, delegator, and the delegatee to release the delegator from liability. Essentially, the delegatee would take on the obligation of the delegator, thereby completely releasing the delegator of that obligation (which, in this case, would be to tend to Kim’s property every week in September).
(A) is incorrect because, as explained above, nothing in the facts indicates that a novation has taken place.
(B) is incorrect because it is too narrow in scope. As explained above, the obligee may sue the delegator (unless there has been a novation). Additionally, the obligee may also sue the delegatee, but only if the delegatee receives consideration from the delegator. On the facts at hand, a novation has not taken place. Further, the neighbor (delegatee) did receive consideration (the $20) from the friend (delegator) to tend to Kim’s (obligee’s) property. Therefore, Kim may sue the neighbor and the friend but would only be entitled to recover once.
(D) is incorrect because it is an inaccurate statement of the law. To delegate a duty, the friend (delegator) does not need Kim’s (the obligee’s) consent, consideration, or a writing.
After spending dedicated weekends studying for the baby bar, Kim Kardashian West came out with a new line of long-lasting makeup designed for “Lazy Sundays” and days spent inside studying. The collection was designed to be minimalist and contain only the essentials to feel confident on days that required long hours of studying.
A company that specialized in selling final exam care packages contracted to purchase 500 of the Lazy Sunday makeup kits on the condition that it found an investor to invest $10,000 in the company. The company looked diligently for an investor but could only find an investor that agreed to invest a maximum of $8,000.
Is the company contractually obligated to purchase the 500 makeup kits?
(A) Yes, because the condition of finding an investor was substantially complied with.
(B) No, because the company will successfully be able to use the doctrine of impossibility as a defense.
(C) No, because the company did not find an investor to invest $10,000 in the company.
(D) No, but the company is obligated to purchase 400 makeup kits since the contract is divisible.
(C) is the correct answer. Finding an investor to invest $10,000 in the company was an express condition of the contract. Thus, it must be complied with exactly in order for the company’s duties to arise. Since the company used diligent efforts to find an investor but couldn’t, the company will not be legally required to purchase the 500 makeup kits. To put it another way, the company’s duties never arose under the contract since the condition was not fulfilled.
(A) is incorrect. An express condition must be complied with exactly. (If this were a constructive condition, substantial performance would suffice, but finding an investor would be held to be an express condition that requires strict compliance.)
(B) is incorrect. The doctrine of impossibility would discharge existing duties. However, here the company’s duty never arose to begin with because the company could not find an investor. Thus, the company would not need to use this doctrine. Answer choice (A) is better.
(D) is incorrect. This is not an example of a divisible contract. If a contract is divisible, a seller may collect for the portions of the contract that are performed. But, in this case, no portion of the contract was performed. And since the express condition was not fulfilled, the company is not obligated to purchase the 500 makeup kits.
The Kim Kardashian West SOOO FIRE makeup collection was scheduled to launch at 12:00 PM on July 19, 2019. A waitress, who worked frequently during the daytime hours and late evening hours, called her mother one morning and said “I really want the SOOO FIRE makeup collection but I’m going to be in work at 12:00. Can you order the makeup for me when it goes on sale? I’ll pay you $10 if you do it. Otherwise, I am afraid it will sell out!” The mother agreed to purchase the makeup for the waitress at 12:00 in exchange for $10. However, the mother thought that the makeup collection would launch at 12:00 AM (midnight) but it actually launched at 12:00 PM (noon). By the time the mother realized her error, the makeup collection was already sold out.
In a breach of contract action by the waitress, what is the mother’s best defense?
(A) Mutual mistake of fact.
(B) Mutual misunderstanding.
(C) Frustration of purpose.
(D) Unilateral mistake.
(B) is the correct answer. The mother’s best defense is that there was a mutual misunderstanding. There is no contract if both parties have a different understanding of a material term that is open to at least two reasonable interpretations and neither party has any reason to know of the meaning attached by the other. Here, the waitress stated “12:00”. This is a material term. Further, the facts state that she worked frequently during the daytime hours and late evening hours. So, the mother’s best defense is that she was reasonable in assuming that the waitress meant 12:00 AM, rather than 12:00 PM. An honest and reasonable mutual misunderstanding will preclude contract formation.
(A) is incorrect. Mistake of fact is a good defense if both parties are mistaken about a basic assumption of fact that exists at the time the contract is made, that materially affects the agreed upon exchange, and is not a risk that the party seeking to avoid the contract bears. However, in this case, there was a misunderstanding. Both parties were not mistaken about a fact; rather, the parties had an honest misunderstanding about what the daughter meant when she said “12:00”.
(C) is incorrect Frustration of purpose is present if the primary purpose of the contract was known to both parties at the time of contracting and was substantially frustrated by an unforeseeable event that occurred after the contract was entered into. Here, the purpose of the contract was not frustrated by some later-occuring event. Rather, there was a mutual misunderstanding about the meaning of a term.
(D) is incorrect. A unilateral mistake is present if one party was mistaken about a fact and the other party knew or had reason to know of the mistake. Here, the mother and daughter merely misunderstood a term. Further, the daughter did not know or have reason to know of the mother’s misunderstanding. Thus, this is not the best answer.
A woman and her friend were big fans of Kim Kardashian West. The woman told her friend “I would love it so much if Kim Kardashian West retweeted me. I will give you $100 if she does!” The friend laughed and said “Deal!”
To the woman and the friend’s surprise, Kim Kardashian West retweeted the woman’s tweet. The friend then bought a $100 pair of sunglasses, believing that the woman would give her $100.
What is the friend’s best argument that the woman’s promise to give her $100 is enforceable?
(A) An enforceable contract was entered into by the woman and the friend when the friend said “Deal!” to the proposal made by the woman.
(B) The friend foreseeably and justifiably relied on the woman’s promise when she bought the $100 sunglasses.
(C) The woman’s statement constituted an enforceable promise to make a gift.
(D) The woman’s statement was an offer to enter into a unilateral contract which was accepted when Kim Kardashian West retweeted the woman’s tweet.
(B) is the correct answer. Here, the friend’s best argument would be that she relied on the woman’s promise. Promissory estoppel is present when there is a promise, foreseeable and justifiable reliance, and enforcement is necessary to avoid injustice. Here, the woman made a promise to give her friend $100 an event (retweet by Kim Kardashian West) occurred. The event occurred. Moreover, the woman could argue she justifiably relied on the promise by spending $100 on sunglasses. Because this answer choice recognizes promissory estoppel as the friend’s best legal argument, it is correct.
(A) is incorrect. Here, the friend did not give up anything. There is not a legal detriment suffered by both sides. Rather, this is merely a promise by the woman to make a gift if an event occurs. Thus, there is no enforceable contract.
(C) is incorrect. A promise to make a gift is generally not enforceable absent a theory such as promissory estoppel, recognized by answer choice (B). Thus, (B) is a better answer choice than (C).
(D) is incorrect. Kim Kardashian West is not the “offeree” here. The friend is the offeree. Thus, Kim Kardashian West did not “accept” the offer when she retweeted the woman’s tweet. Further, the conversation between the woman and the friend did not create a contract for reasons mentioned above. Instead, the statement was merely a promise to make a gift.
A doctor that specialized in treating psoriasis made a gift basket, composed of several impressive goodies, including Kim Kardashian West’s new skin perfecting body make-up and shimmer.
Since stress is a known trigger of psoriasis, the doctor planned to have a contest and give the gift basket to that the patient that lowered their stress levels the most in the next month (as measured by medical tests, including heart rate, blood pressure, etc.). The doctor announced the contest on his webpage.
Which of the following accurately describes the announcement made by the doctor?
(A) It is an offer to enter into a bilateral contract.
(B) It is an offer to enter into a unilateral contract.
(C) It is an offer that can be revoked at any time.
(D) It is an unenforceable promise that is not supported by consideration.
(B) is the correct answer. The announcement is an offer to enter into a unilateral contract. It is an offer because it manifested an intent to enter into a contract and was communicated to the patients. It is an offer to enter into a unilateral contract because it can only be accepted by full performance (i.e., by winning the contest). Tip: An offer for a reward or prize is an offer to enter into a unilateral contract.
(A) is incorrect. An offer to enter into a bilateral contract can be accepted by promise or beginning performance. This is not an offer to enter into a bilateral contract because a patient could not accept by promising (i.e. “I promise to win the contest”) or by beginning performance (i.e., taking steps to reduce stress levels). Rather the patient can only accept by actually winning the contest—that is, full performance.
(C) is incorrect. This is an offer to enter into a unilateral contract. An offer to enter into a unilateral contract cannot be revoked once the offeree (the patients in this case) have begun performance (i.e., by taking steps to reduce stress levels).
(D) is incorrect. There is consideration present here. The doctor is going to give up a gift basket and the patients who enter are going to take steps to reduce their stress levels. Thus, there is a “bargained-for exchange” or a legal detriment on both sides. In other words, both the doctor and the patients are doing something they are not legally obligated to do.
A customer ordered Love Lipstick from KKW Beauty’s website (kkwbeauty.com) after the customer’s friend raved about how creamy and long-lasting the lipstick was. The customer clicked “add to cart” and added the Love Lipstick to her cart. Her total was $18 plus tax and shipping. The customer checked out by paying with her credit card. Soon after, the customer received an email from KKW Beauty stating, “Thank you for your order. Your order is on its way!” with a tracking number so that she could track the package online. A few days later, the customer received the Love Lipstick in the mail.
Which of the following statements accurately describes when a contract was formed?
(A) KKW Beauty made an offer when it advertised the Love Lipstick product on its website and the customer accepted the offer when she added the Love Lipstick to her cart.
(B) KKW Beauty made an offer when it advertised the Love Lipstick product on its website and the customer accepted the offer when she checked out by paying with her credit card.
(C) The customer made an offer to purchase the Love Lipstick product when she checked out of the KKW Beauty store online and KKW Beauty accepted the offer when it sent the customer the email notifying the customer that the order was on its way.
(D) The customer made an offer to purchase the Love Lipstick when she checked out of the KKW Beauty store online and KKW Beauty accepted the offer when it shipped the Love Lipstick to the customer.
(C) is the correct answer. An offer generally has three elements: (1) intent to enter into a contract; (2) communication to the offeree; and (3) essential terms – generally, price, quantity, and identity of the parties.
Here, the customer made the offer when she checked out of the online store. At that point, there was intent and communication to the offeree. Further, the essential terms were known at that time – i.e., the customer was purchasing one Love Lipstick product for $18 (plus tax and shipping) from KKW Beauty. Thus, this was the offer.
An offer to purchase goods can be accepted by promising to ship the goods or shipping the goods. Here, the email from KKW Beauty stating “Thank you for your order. Your order is on its way!” constitutes an acceptance of the customer’s offer.
(A) is incorrect. An advertisement is not an offer – rather, it is an invitation to make an offer. The customer made the offer in this case.
(B) is incorrect for the same reason that (A) is incorrect. The customer made the offer. KKW Beauty’s website was merely inviting offers.
(D) is incorrect. This answer choice recognizes that the customer made the offer. However, KKW Beauty accepted the offer when it promised to ship the goods. At that point of sending the email with a tracking number, there was a contract. While KKW Beauty could have accepted the offer by shipping the goods, it did not.
Which of the following is most likely to be considered an enforceable promise?
(A) A maid of honor promised to purchase a Mrs. West makeup kit for her best friend, the bride, as an anniversary present. The maid of honor did not. The best friend seeks to enforce the promise to purchase the Mrs. West makeup kit.
(B) A group of friends each put $10 into a “pot” and bet on when Kim Kardashian’s fourth baby would be born. Whoever guessed the right date was promised the money in the pot. The winner was denied the money and seeks to enforce the promise to pay.
(C) A mother promised to pay for a CBD themed baby shower for her daughter if her daughter promised to name her baby after the mother. The daughter promised to do so but the mother refused to pay for the shower. The daughter seeks to enforce the promise to pay.
(D) A dad promised to purchase the latest Vogue magazine with Kim Kardashian on the cover for his teenage daughter if he “felt like it”. The dad did not do so. The teenager seeks to enforce the promise to purchase the magazine.
(C) is the correct answer. Here, there is a binding contract. Specifically, there is an offer (to pay for a CBD themed baby shower), an acceptance (the daughter promised to name her baby after the mother) and consideration (the mother pays for the shower, the daughter names the baby after the mother). Thus, this promise would be considered enforceable under the law. The daughter could seek monetary damages from the mother.
(A) is incorrect. A promise to make a gift is not enforceable because consideration is lacking. Thus, this is not the best answer as the maid of honor’s promise is merely to make a gift. (Note: there are no facts showing reliance on the promise. Thus, a promissory estoppel theory would not be successful.)
(B) is incorrect. This is a unilateral contract – i.e., if the friend guesses the correct date that the baby will be born, the friend will win the money. However, this is a gambling contract, which is most likely to be held illegal under most state laws. Thus, this is not the best answer choice.
(D) is incorrect. This is an illusory promise. The dad did not give up anything. He promised to do something “if he felt like it”. Thus, he was not committing to anything. So here, he suffered no legal detriment. Thus, no consideration was present and the promise will not be enforced.
A woman hired a well-known photographer to create a photograph of a “champagne incident” which she hoped would #breaktheinternet. The photographer was famous and known for his distinct artistic ability. Pursuant to the contract, the woman would pay the photographer once the photo shoot was complete.
A month before the photo shoot was supposed to take place, the photographer said that he was unable to perform the photo shoot for the woman. He did not give an explanation.
Which of the following accurately describes the woman’s rights?
(A) The woman may sue the photographer immediately.
(B) The woman must wait until the contract date to sue the photographer.
(C) The woman must demand adequate assurances in writing and give the photographer 30 days to perform under the contract.
(D) The woman may hire a different photographer to take the photo shoot only if she gives the photographer a reasonable time to retract his repudiation or indicates that she is treating his repudiation as final.
(A) is the correct answer. The woman can sue the photographer immediately. Here, the photographer anticipatorily repudiated the contract since he unequivocally manifested to the other party that he would not perform his obligations under the contract. If one party anticipatorily repudiates in an executory contract (meaning that there are duties left on both sides) the other can: (a) sue immediately, (b) suspend performance and wait to sue (especially if they can mitigate damages), (c) treat the contract as discharged, or (d) urge the other party to perform. Here, answer choice (A) reflects that one of the woman’s options is to sue immediately.
(B) is incorrect. In these circumstances, the woman can sue immediately and need not wait until the contract date.
(C) is incorrect. The woman need not demand adequate assurances in writing. The photographer has already indicated that he would not perform. This is not a situation where the woman has merely “reasonable grounds for insecurity” (i.e., it is not a “prospective inability to perform” situation whereby demanding assurances may be the appropriate first step – an example of that would be if the photographer said he wasn’t sure if he could perform). Rather, this is a situation where the photographer has unequivocally breached by saying he will not perform.
(D) is incorrect. The woman does not have to give the photographer a reasonable time to retract his repudiation in this instance. She can sue immediately.
On May 1, a woman went to the mall and purchased two of the KKW Crème Contour and Highlight sticks in the “light” color from a store. The salesperson that the woman talked to said she was out of the “light” color but promised to have it delivered to the woman before May 15, which was the day that the woman was getting married. On May 10, the woman received a package from the store that contained one of the KKW Crème Contour and Highlight sticks in the “light” color and one in the “medium” color.
Which of the following is an accurate statement of law with regard to the store’s rights?
(A) The store has a right to cure so long as the store seasonably notifies the buyer of its intention and delivers the correct color contour sticks before May 15.
(B) The store has a right to cure so long as it does so within a reasonable time after receiving the woman’s notification of her rejection.
(C) The store has no right to cure under the contract because it did not deliver perfect tender to the woman and the contract at hand is not an installment contract.
(D) The store has no right to cure but can demand that the woman promptly ship the contour sticks back to its place of business at the woman’s expense.
(A) is the correct answer. Under the UCC, the seller may “cure” a nonconforming shipment by shipping the conforming goods within the contract time. So long as the seller delivers the conforming goods before May 15, the contract date, the seller has a right to cure.
(B) is incorrect. The “reasonable time” standard does not apply. Rather, the seller must get the goods to the woman by May 15, the date specified in the contract.
(C) is incorrect. While it is true that the seller breached the contract, it may still cure, as noted above. Installment contracts allow the seller to cure as a matter of right; however, in other contracts, the seller has a right to cure nonconforming goods in limited circumstances such as this one.
(D) is incorrect. This answer choice does not recognize that the seller has a right to cure. Further, under the UCC, the woman must hold the goods with reasonable care but does not have to ship them back to the seller at her expense.
A celebrity sent a skilled make-up artist an email that said “I will give you $500 if you do my make-up on the night of December 31 using only KKW products. This offer can only be accepted by full performance.” The make-up artist responded to the celebrity with an email that stated, “I accept your offer.” The make-up artist purchased the KKW products, met the celebrity at her studio on December 31, and applied her make-up.
At what point was a contract between the celebrity and the make-up artist formed?
(A) When the make-up artist wrote an email that said, “I accept your offer.”
(B) When the make-up artist purchased the KKW products.
(C) When the make-up artist began applying the celebrity’s make-up.
(D) When the make-up artist completed the application of the celebrity’s make-up.
(D) is the correct answer. The celebrity sent the artist an offer to enter into a unilateral contract. The language “This offer can only be accepted by full performance” means that the offer can only be accepted by full performance – i.e., by completing application of the make-up. Remember that the offeror is master of his offer. Thus, the contract was formed when the make-up artist completed application of the make-up. Tip: If there is quoted language in a contracts question, remember to pay close attention to it! It is often in quotes for a reason – i.e., the language itself is very important.
(A) is incorrect. Because this is an offer to enter into a unilateral contract, it can only be accepted by full performance. If the language stating that the offer can only be accepted by full performance was not in the offer, then it would be an offer to enter into a bilateral contract and this would be the correct answer. However, the language makes all the difference in this case.
(B) is incorrect. Purchasing supplies – getting prepared to perform – does not constitute an acceptance of this offer to enter into a unilateral contract. (Note that this would not suffice if it was an offer to enter into a bilateral contract because preparing to perform does not constitute beginning performance.)
(C) is incorrect. The offer states that it can only be accepted by full performance so this is not the correct answer. (If this were a standard offer to enter into a bilateral contract, beginning performance would suffice but if this were the case (A) would be a better answer than (C) as the offer would have been accepted by the make-up artist’s reply to the celebrity.) Note that as soon as the make-up artist begins applying make-up, the celebrity cannot revoke her offer. However, a contract is not formed until the make-up application is complete.
A store that sold baby clothing ran an advertising campaign stating that it would give a free designer outfit to anyone who properly guessed the name of Kim Kardashian West’s new baby. To submit a guess, the store required that participants email the store their guess and subscribe to the store’s newsletter.
A woman, who was a huge Kim Kardashian fan, submitted her guess to the store according to their rules and luckily guessed the name. The woman went to the store to pick up the designer outfit soon after the baby’s name was announced. The store admitted she had guessed the correct name but refused to give her the outfit.
If the woman sues the store for breach of contract, will she prevail?
(A) Yes, because this was a unilateral contract that was accepted by full performance.
(B) Yes, pursuant to the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
(C) No, because there was no consideration.
(D) No, because this was a promise to make a gift and a promise to make a gift is not enforceable.
(A) is the correct answer. The store made an offer to enter into a unilateral contract – an offer to give a prize. An offer to enter into a unilateral contract can only be accepted by full performance (in this case, guessing the correct name). In this case, the woman guessed the correct name and therefore accepted the offer. The store will be liable for breach of contract.
(B) is incorrect. This answer is incorrect for two reasons. First, promissory estoppel is a doctrine that is used when no traditional contract exists. Here, a unilateral contract exists. Thus, this doctrine is not necessary. Second, promissory estoppel requires a promise and foreseeable and justifiable reliance on that promise. Here, there is a promise (to give a designer outfit to whoever guesses the correct name) but no foreseeable and justifiable reliance on that promise as the woman did not change her position in reliance on receiving a free designer outfit (and indeed she should not have assumed she would have guessed the name correctly, so it would have been unreasonable for her to rely on the promise).
(C) is incorrect. There is consideration in this case. The store promised to give away a designer outfit in exchange for someone guessing the correct name and giving the store their email address. The woman guessed the correct name and gave the store her email address. Both parties have suffered a legal detriment (loss of a designer outfit, and loss of time submitting a guess/sharing one’s email address).
(D) is incorrect. This is not a promise to make a gift. This is a prize that is given to whoever guesses the correct name. Thus, this is incorrect for the same reason that (C) is incorrect. Tip: Answer choices (C) and (D) are essentially both saying the same thing – i.e., that there is no consideration. So, if you were in between answer choices (C) and (D), you should consider that they may both be wrong since they are saying the same thing and it would be difficult to choose one over the other!
A pregnant mother wished to have a baby shower. She decided to copy off of her favorite celebrity and have a baby shower with a CBD theme. She ordered 50 jars of CBD bath salts from a beauty store for $8 per jar. The beauty store made proper arrangements for shipping the CBD bath salts and delivered them to the United States Postal Service for shipment. The beauty store notified the mother of the tracking number and the expected delivery date. The contract was silent as to any shipping terms.
While the United States Postal Service delivery truck was driving to deliver the bath salts to the pregnant mother, a tornado suddenly came through the area, toppled over the delivery truck, and the bath salts were scattered everywhere. The mother sued the beauty store for breach of contract and demanded a refund.
Will the mother prevail in her lawsuit against the beauty store?
(A) No, because the contract was a shipment contract.
(B) No, because the beauty store may successfully raise the defense of impossibility.
(C) Yes, because the beauty store did not deliver the goods to the mother.
(D) Yes, because the contract was a destination contract.
(A) is the correct answer. This is a shipment contract because it is silent as to a delivery term. When a contract is silent, the default rule – that it is a shipment contract – applies. The goal in a shipment contract is to get the goods to the “shipper” (versus a “destination contract” where the goal is to get the goods to the destination). Here, as soon as the beauty store dropped off the goods to the United States Postal Service, notified the woman of the tracking number, and made proper arrangements for shipment, the beauty store’s obligations were fulfilled. Thus, the mother will not prevail in her lawsuit as the beauty store did not breach the contract.
(B) is incorrect. The beauty store need not raise any defenses because it did not breach the contract. Furthermore, the facts do not suggest it would be impossible to deliver the goods (i.e., the beauty store could simply send a new set of CBD bath salts).
(C) is incorrect. The beauty store’s obligation in this case is only to get the goods to the “shipper” – not the destination, as explained above.
(D) is incorrect. This is a shipment contract, as noted above. It is not a destination contract. So, there is no obligation to get the goods to the destination. Note: If you struggled between answer choices (C) and (D), you probably struggled because they are saying the same thing! If you are ever in between two answer choices that seem identical, it may be a clue that both are incorrect!
Kim Kardashian Themed Multiple-Choice Questions: Criminal Law
A woman was driving, distracted by the Kim Kardashian: Hollywood app on her phone. She was so distracted that she inadvertently hit a construction worker. The construction worker was injured and went to the Intensive Care Unit at the local hospital. However, the construction worker survived.
Is the woman guilty of attempted murder in a common law jurisdiction?
(A) Yes, she is guilty of attempted murder in the first degree.
(B) Yes, she is guilty of attempted murder in the second degree.
(C) No, because she did not have the specific intent.
(D) No, because she did not come dangerously close to committing the crime.
(C) is the correct answer. In order for one to be guilty of attempt, one must have (1) the specific intent to commit the crime and (2) come “dangerously close” to committing the crime. Here, the woman lacked the specific intent to commit murder. The facts say that she was distracted and “inadvertently” hit the construction worker.
(A) is incorrect. As noted above, she did not have the specific intent to commit the crime.
(B) is incorrect. The woman lacked the specific intent to kill.
(D) is incorrect. Arguably, the woman did come “dangerously close” to committing the crime. (Indeed, she struck the construction worker with her vehicle and she ended up in the ICU!) Thus, she committed the “guilty act”. However, she did not have the guilty mind—that is, she did not have the specific intent to commit the crime. Her actions were inadvertent. Note: if the man died, she could be guilty of second-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter.
Desperate to get enough money to purchase the highly sought after new KKW Skin Perfecting Body Foundation, the defendant threatened a cashier at gunpoint and told her, “If you don’t give me the money in the cash register, I will shoot you.” Fearing for her life, the cashier turned over the cash and the defendant ran out the door. On his way home from the store, the defendant stopped at the mall to see if any store had any of the KKW beauty products she was interested in. About thirty minutes later, as the defendant was rushing to leave the mall, filled with excitement over her purchases, she backed her car into a pedestrian in the mall’s crowded parking lot. While the pedestrian was in the ambulance he died as a result of the serious head wound resulting from the accident. This jurisdiction follows the common law principles governing homicide.
Which crime(s) has the defendant committed?
(A) Felony murder.
(B) Larceny by trick.
(C) Robbery and felony murder.
(D) Robbery and manslaughter.
(D) is the correct answer because all of the elements of robbery and manslaughter are satisfied. Robbery requires the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them thereof (i.e. larceny) + taking from the other’s person or presence + force or the threat of force. The defendant took the money from the cash register (which did not belong to her) and carried it away with the intent to permanently deprive the convenience store of its money. In addition, the defendant threatened to kill the cashier if she did not hand the money over. As a result of the threat, the cashier handed the defendant the money and the defendant walked out of the store.
Note that when manslaughter is listed in an answer it is important to analyze both voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. If the elements of either one of these crimes is satisfied then the defendant has committed manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional killing of a human being without malice aforethought committed in the heat of passion due to adequate provocation. Nothing in the facts suggests that the defendant hit the pedestrian with his car in the heat of passion due to adequate provocation.
However, the defendant committed involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of another due to gross negligence or recklessness and without malice aforethought. Here, the defendant unintentionally killed the pedestrian by backing out of her parking space too quickly in the mall’s parking lot. Nothing in the facts indicate that the defendant intended to kill the man, but she did not act with caution as she backed out of the mall’s crowded parking lot.
(A) is incorrect because the elements of felony murder are not satisfied. Felony murder applies to any killing of a human being that occurs during (1) the commission of a felony, (2) an attempt to commit a felony, or (3) a flight from a felony (but once the defendant reaches a place of temporary safety, the felony ends). Further, the felony must be an inherently dangerous felony (e.g., burglary, arson, rape, robbery, kidnapping, etc.). Here, the underlying felony at issue is robbery. Robbery requires the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them thereof (i.e. larceny) + taking from the other’s person or presence + force or the threat of force.
All of the elements of robbery are satisfied. The defendant took the money from the cash register (which did not belong to her) and carried it away with the intent to permanently deprive the convenience store of its money. In addition, the defendant threatened to kill the cashier if she did not hand the money over. As a result of the threat, the cashier handed the defendant the money and the defendant walked out of the store. However, the defendant cannot be convicted of felony murder because while the pedestrian was killed, the defendant had already reached a place of temporary safety (the mall) before she backed her car into the pedestrian.
(B) is incorrect because the elements of larceny by trick have not been satisfied. Larceny by trick requires the defendant to (1) intentionally make a false representation of a (2) material past or existing fact (3) to obtain custody (but not title) of (4) personal property of another. Here, the defendant never intentionally misrepresented any past or present material fact in order to get the cashier to give her the money in the register.
(C) is incorrect because as explained above the defendant did commit robbery but did not commit felony murder.
A celebrity loved her KKW SOOO FIRE promotional box. She kept it on her kitchen counter. One day, her boyfriend, who recently moved into the celebrity’s house, decided to start a fire in the grill. He poured lighter fluid all over the coals in the grill. He lit the match on the KKW SOOO FIRE promotional box. Unfortunately, the wind was blowing in the direction of the home and it lit the celebrity’s house on fire. Fire crews were able to stop the fire. A small portion of the house was damaged.
Which of the following, if true, would serve as a defense to arson?
(A) The man acted negligently but not maliciously.
(B) The man did not intend for the house to burn down.
(C) The house did not burn down all the way; rather, only part of the house was damaged.
(D) The man lived in the house.
(A) is the correct answer. Arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another. If the man was negligent but did not act with malice, then he will not be guilty of arson.
(B) is incorrect. Arson is a “malice” crime. This means that one does not need to have the intent to commit the crime. One only needs to act with malice (which is akin to recklessness; however, being intentional will suffice). This answer choice is not as good as (A).
(C) is incorrect. Arson occurs when home or portion of it is charred. It does not need to burn completely to the ground or destroyed. It just needs to be damaged by the fire to some degree.
(D) is incorrect. A house can still belong to “another” even if one lives in the house. Thus, this would not be the man’s best defense.
One evening, a girl and her mom were watching the season finale of Keeping Up With The Kardashians in the girl’s room. The girl said she thought she heard something downstairs. The girl and her mom went downstairs to investigate and found a man going through the kitchen drawers. The man grabbed the mom’s wallet then ran out of the house. Once outside of the house, the man opened the wallet and realized it had no money in it. He dropped it on the porch and fled the scene, upset that his plan to make some quick cash failed.
Which of the following crimes is the man guilty of?
(A) Burglary and larceny.
(B) Burglary and attempted larceny only.
(C) Attempted burglary and attempted larceny only.
(D) Burglary only.
(A) is the correct answer. At common law, burglary is defined as the breaking and entering the dwelling of another at night with the intent to commit a felony or larceny therein. Here, the man broke and entered the mom’s dwelling at night and had the intent to commit a felony or larceny once inside (indeed, the facts mention that his plan to make some quick cash failed). Thus, the man is liable for burglary. The man was liable the instant he broke and entered the dwelling of the woman with the requisite intent. It does not make any difference that he fled once the mom and the girl discovered him.
At common law, larceny is defined as the trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them thereof. Here, the man took and carried away the personal property (the wallet) of another (the mom’s) and intended to permanently deprive her of the item, which he believed had money in it. It does not matter that he later discarded the wallet. The larceny was already complete at that moment he took and carried it away with the requisite intent.
(B) is incorrect. Here, the man did more than “attempt” to commit larceny. The larceny was complete, as noted above. Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.
(C) is incorrect. Here, the man did more than “attempt” to commit the burglary or the larceny. Both crimes were complete as noted above. Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.
(D) is incorrect. The man could also be charged with larceny. Note that the crimes of burglary and larceny are not considered the same offense for double jeopardy purposes since each contains an element that the other does not. These crimes actually contain completely separate elements, with larceny requiring the taking and carrying away of personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them thereof and burglary requiring the breaking and entering the dwelling of another at night with the intent to commit a felony or larceny therein.
The season finale of Keeping Up with the Kardashians (KUWTK) aired on Sunday, June 30. The previews promised a lot of drama involving Khloe, Tristan, and Jordyn.
A teenager was really excited to watch the KUWTK finale but did not have cable television. The teenager knew that her neighbors religiously watched the show. So, the teenager stood outside of her neighbor’s house and watched the KUWTK episode through the neighbor’s open window.
Did the teenager commit larceny against the neighbor or the cable network?
(A) Yes, as against the neighbor only because the teenager was acting in a trespassory manner to essentially steal cable network services that the neighbor was paying for.
(B) Yes, as against the cable network only because the teenager intended to permanently deprive the cable network of its service without paying for it.
(C) Yes, as against the neighbor and the cable network because the teenager was taking property (cable network services) with the intent to permanently deprive both parties of the benefit of their contract.
(D) No, as against either the neighbor or the cable network because the teenager did not take and carry away personal property of another.
(D) is the correct answer. At common law, larceny is defined as the trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them thereof. Cable network services is not “personal property” of another. Rather, it is a service. Thus, the teenager is not guilty of larceny under common law because the teenager did not take and carry away tangible personal property of another.
(A) is incorrect. While the teenager may have been committing a trespass, she did not “take and carry away personal property of another” and thus, did not commit larceny.
(B) is incorrect. While the teenager may have intended to view a show without paying for cable, her actions do not constitute larceny as noted above.
(C) is incorrect for the reasons mentioned above.
Shoppers waited in line for hours for the Yeezy Boost 350 in Black Static, a shoe designed by rapper Kanye West in collaboration with Adidas. A man and his friend who were waiting in line overnight were finally at the front of the line. The store only had one pair of the much sought-after shoes left. The man and his friend started fighting about who would get the pair of shoes.
The salesperson had the man and his friend play “rock, paper, scissors” to decide which one would get the shoes. The man won. After buying the shoes and taunting his friend, the friend started to get angry. Finally, the friend balled his hand into a fist and said he would punch the man if the man did not immediately give him the shoes. The man was not afraid of the friend. The man laughed and felt bad for the friend for going to such lengths. The man decided to do the right thing and give the shoes to the friend.
What crime, if any, is the friend guilty of?
(B) Attempted robbery.
(C) Attempted robbery and robbery.
(D) No crime.
(B) is the correct answer. Robbery is:
- (1) larceny (i.e., the taking and carrying away of personal property of another with the attempt to permanently deprive them thereof) by
- (2) force or threat of force (if the latter, the victim must feel fear)
- (3) from another’s person or presence.
Here, no robbery is present because the second element is missing—that is, the friend did not use any actual physical force and, further, while the friend threatened to use force, the man was not afraid. Tip: In order to be liable for robbery, either (a) force must actually be used or (b) the threats must make the other person afraid (and induce the other person to hand over the item). Here, the man did not feel fear and his own conscious (rather than the man’s threats) compelled him to give the shoes to the friend.
Thus, the robbery was not complete. However, it was attempted.
An attempt requires the mens rea of specific intent to commit the crime (which was present here, as the friend clearly intended to rob the man of the shoes) and an actus reus, which differs depending on the jurisdiction. (Under common law, the defendant must get “dangerously close” to committing the crime. Under the Model Penal Code, the defendant must take a “substantial step” that is strongly corroborative of the criminal purpose.) Regardless of which test is used, the man did all acts necessary to complete the crime, and thus, the actus reus is satisfied.
(A) is incorrect. As noted above, a completed robbery did not occur. Rather, the friend attempted to rob the man.
(C) is incorrect for the same reason (A) is incorrect. Further, pursuant to the merger doctrine, a defendant cannot be guilty of both attempt and the completed crime. He can be guilty of one or the other, but not both.
(D) is incorrect because the friend would be guilty of attempted robbery, as explained above.
A single woman was hoping to meet a nice guy at a club. In order to boost her confidence and give herself good luck, she purchased the KKW Beauty Mrs. West collection. She wore the “Pleeease Marry Meee!!!” metallic pale champagne gold eye shadow, the love crème lipstick and lip liner and the soulmate gloss. She also wore the forever highlighter and flower wall blush. She kept the collection in her purse.
The woman’s best friend, who was accompanying the woman to the club, asked the woman if she could use the woman’s makeup. The woman said, “sure, you can borrow it!” The woman then handed over the makeup collection to her best friend.
Later, the woman was talking to a guy she met. She began to ignore the best friend. The best friend had a couple drinks. The best friend then decided to keep the makeup collection permanently. She figured it must have been good luck, since the woman met someone while wearing the makeup.
What is the best friend’s best defense to a charge of larceny?
(A) That she was intoxicated when she decided to keep the makeup collection.
(B) That the woman initially gave her permission to borrow the makeup collection.
(C) That she did not yet use the makeup collection.
(D) That she did not know that keeping the makeup collection constituted larceny.
(B) is the best answer. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them thereof. Here, the best friend took and carried away the personal property (the makeup collection) of another (the woman) but at the time she did that, she had permission of her friend to borrow the property. Thus, her taking at that point was not trespassory. Further, at the time she decided to steal the property, it was already in her possession. Thus, this is her best defense to larceny. (Note: embezzlement might be a viable charge since she the property was in her possession and she had sufficient control over it at the time she converted it. But the call of the question asks specifically about larceny.) Tip: If the defendant already exercises sufficient control over the property, the defendant will not be guilty of larceny even if the defendant decides to permanently take it. The defendant might, however, be guilty of embezzlement.
Note that the continuing trespass doctrine does not apply here. The continuing trespass doctrine states that if the initial taking was trespassory and then the defendant later forms the intent to steal then the defendant is guilty of larceny. However, in this case, the initial taking was not trespassory as the best friend had the woman’s permission to borrow the makeup collection.
(A) is incorrect. Here, the best friend still formed the intent to steal despite the fact that she was intoxicated. Thus, this will not be a valid defense. Voluntary intoxication may successfully be used as a defense to a specific intent crime (like larceny) but only if it precludes the defendant from forming the specific intent. In this case, the best friend still formed the intent to steal. Thus, this defense will not be helpful to her.
(C) is incorrect. Even if the best friend did not yet use the makeup collection, she still formed the intent to steal it. If the elements of larceny were met (which they are not, as explained above), she could be guilty of the crime regardless of whether she ever used the makeup. The question is simply whether she had the specific intent.
(D) is incorrect. Mistake of law is generally not a good defense to the vast majority of crimes. In other words, a defendant will be guilty of committing a crime if she does all of the acts that make up the crime. She generally does not need to know that his acts constitute a crime to be guilty of the crime. (There are some very minor exceptions to this general rule that are not applicable here.)
On May 24, 2019, a woman purchased the Mrs. West collection make-up kit. It arrived in the mail a few days later. The woman raved about the kit to her friend, who was jealous that the woman bought the kit before it sold out.
A few days later, the friend stole the kit from the woman’s bathroom. The friend was later charged with larceny, which is a crime in the jurisdiction. However, the friend raises the defense of consent, and argues that the woman let her borrow the make-up kit.
Under the state’s statute, the prosecution must prove the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant must prove any applicable defenses by a preponderance of the evidence. The friend claimed that the statute is unconstitutional.
Is the statute constitutional?
(A) No, because under the United States Constitution, the prosecution is required to prove all elements of the crime by clear and convincing evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.
(B) No, because a defendant may not be required to prove a defense in a criminal case.
(C) Yes, because the state may shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense, so long as the statute is clearly written and gives proper notice to the accused.
(D) Yes, because the defendant may be required to prove its affirmative defenses.
(D) is the correct answer. The prosecution is required to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the defendant may be required to prove an affirmative defense.
(A) is incorrect. It does not recognize that the prosecution is required to prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
(B) is incorrect. A defendant may be required to prove a defense in a criminal case, as noted above.
(C) is incorrect. This statement is overbroad. The state may not shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense as it pleases. Rather, the prosecution must prove all elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt and the defense may be required to prove affirmative defenses thereafter.
A teenager saw that his role model, Kanye West, wore a $42 Dickie’s black zip-up jacket to the Met Gala. The teenager really wanted the jacket but did not have any money. So, he decided to steal the jacket.
The teenager went to a local Target and stole the jacket along with some other items. The theft constituted a felony under the jurisdiction’s laws. A security guard saw the teenager steal the jacket and called the police. The teenager knew that the police were after him and so instead of going home, he went to a friend’s house. The teenager confessed to the friend, asked the friend if he could stay at his house and suggested that the friend help him hide the evidence of stealing the jacket. The friend agreed to let the teenager stay at his house and also helped the teenager hide the jacket.
When the police arrived at the friend’s house, the friend lied and stated that he and the teenager had been watching the surprising Ellen DeGeneres show where Kris Jenner was surprised on the show by her children, Kourtney Kardashian, and the news that Kim Kardashian West’s surrogate was in labor with Kim’s fourth child.
What crime, if any, is the friend guilty of?
(B) Accomplice liability.
(C) Accessory after the fact.
(D) No crime.
(C) is the correct answer. One is considered an accessory after the fact if one knowingly assists a person who has committed a felony with the intent to help him avoid arrest, trial, or conviction. Here, the friend is an accessory after the fact because he knew that the teenager had committed a felony and he intended to help him avoid arrest by hiding the teenager, hiding the jacket, and lying to the police.
(A) is incorrect. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them thereof. Here, the friend is not guilty of larceny because the larceny was completed by the time the teenager arrived at the friend’s house.
(B) is incorrect. Accomplice liability is not generally a crime; rather, it is a way to be liable for a crime. (For example, if the friend had helped the teenager steal the jacket and the other items, the friend would be an accomplice and therefore liable for larceny –not accomplice liability.) In this case, though, the friend is not an accomplice regardless because he did not assist in the actual theft. He only assisted after the fact.
(D) is incorrect. The friend would be considered an accessory after the fact, as noted above.
A college student and her classmate decided that they wanted to take photographs that looked like, and were inspired by, Kim Kardashian’s book “Selfish.” However, they did not have a high-quality camera to take selfies with. The college student asked the classmate if she would steal a camera from her photography class the next time she had class. The classmate agreed to steal the camera and did so the following day.
What crime or crimes may the college student be convicted of?
(A) Conspiracy and larceny.
(C) Solicitation and conspiracy.
(D) Solicitation, conspiracy, and larceny.
(A) is the correct answer. Here, the college student conspired to have the classmate commit larceny. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them thereof. The classmate stole the camera from the university with the intent to permanently deprive the university of the camera, so these elements are present. A conspiracy requires an agreement by two or more people to commit a crime, an overt act in furtherance of the crime (in some states but not at common law), plus the specific intent to enter into the agreement and accomplish its objectives. Those elements are present here. Note also that the conspirators can be liable for the completed crime—in this case, larceny—in addition to conspiracy. Conspiracy does not “merge” with the completed crime so the college student could be convicted of both.
(B) is incorrect. It is not as good of an answer as (A) because it only recognizes that the college student could be convicted of larceny but does not recognize she could also be convicted of conspiracy.
(C) is incorrect because it does not recognize that the college student could be convicted of larceny Further, solicitation merges with the crime of conspiracy. Thus, the college student cannot be convicted of both solicitation and conspiracy.
Bar Exam Tip: If you picked this answer, think of it this way: As soon as the defendant asks another to commit a crime, the defendant is guilty of solicitation regardless of whether the other party agrees to commit the crime. And the other party is not guilty of anything if he does not agree to commit the crime. However, once the other party agrees to commit the crime, both parties can be liable for conspiracy.
(D) is incorrect because one cannot be convicted of solicitation and the completed crime (larceny). Solicitation and the completed crime “merge” so the defendant could be convicted of one or the other, but not both. Further, solicitation merges with conspiracy, as explained above.
A flight attendant was going to board a long flight and was looking for something to read. She stopped in a small shop at the airport and saw the latest Vogue magazine with Kim Kardashian on the cover. She picked up the magazine with the intent to take it without paying for it, figuring she had already spent over her budget for that month. She started to walk to the door but had a change of heart and paid for the magazine before leaving.
What crime, if any, is the flight attendant guilty of?
(B) Larceny by trick.
(D) No crime.
(A) is the correct answer. Larceny is the taking and carrying away of personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them thereof. Here, the flight attended took and carried away the Vogue magazine (personal property) of another (the store’s) and at that time she had the intent to “take it without paying for it.” Thus, she committed larceny.
(B) is incorrect. A defendant commits larceny by trick when it intentionally makes a false representation of material past or existing fact to obtain custody of personal property. Here, the flight attendant did not make any false statement.
(C) is incorrect. Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion or misappropriation of property of another by one who is already in lawful possession of that property. Here, the flight attendant was not in “lawful possession” of the property at the time she took it. She was merely a customer in the store. Thus, larceny is the appropriate charge.
(D) is incorrect. While the flight attendant did not leave the store with the magazine, she is still guilty of larceny because all of the elements were met, as explained in (A).
A patron and his friend were sitting at a bar arguing over how Kim Kardashian’s minimalist basin-less bathroom sinks worked. The patron thought that the sink was just for show and didn’t actually work. The friend thought that the sink worked just like an ordinary sink. Neither of them thought to look up Kim Kardashian’s recent video that explained how the sinks work.
After arguing about it for a few minutes and having several alcoholic beverages, the patron punched the friend. The patron immediately felt bad and started to leave the bar. Enraged, the friend pulled out a gun and shot the patron in the back. The patron died from his injuries.
Which of the following crimes should the friend be convicted of?
(A) First-degree murder.
(B) Second-degree murder.
(C) Voluntary manslaughter.
(D) No crime.
(C) is the correct answer. Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing of a human being in the heat of passion due to adequate provocation. Here, the friend was punched in the face, which is adequate provocation. Further, the friend was ‘enraged” and was acting in the heat of passion. Thus, voluntary manslaughter is the most appropriate charge.
(A) is incorrect. First-degree murder requires that the defendant act with premeditation and deliberation. The facts do not show that the friend premeditated or deliberated. Rather, he was adequately provoked by the patron’s actions.
(B) is incorrect. Second-degree murder is an appropriate conviction if the defendant acts with malice aforethought and is (1) extremely reckless, (2) intends infliction of great bodily harm and death results or (3) acts with malice aforethought but without the mindset for first-degree murder. Here, this would be the appropriate conviction if the defendant was not acting in the heat of passion due to adequate provocation. Because the friend was acting in the heat of passion due to adequate provocation, voluntary manslaughter is the more appropriate conviction.
(D) is incorrect. The friend would not have any defenses to its voluntary manslaughter charge. Self-defense is available if the defendant reasonably believed force was necessary to avoid the imminent use of unlawful force by another. Here, it would not be a successful defense because the patron was leaving when the friend shot him in the back. Thus, he was not acting in self-defense. Further, while voluntary intoxication can be a defense in some cases (e.g., if the defendant was unable to form the requisite mens rea due to his intoxication) there are no facts indicating that voluntary intoxication precluded the friend from forming the intent to kill the patron.
Kim Kardashian Themed Multiple-Choice Questions: Torts
Kanye West held his Sunday Service in Watts, California. A guest at the Sunday Service swore she saw Brad Pitt arrive. The guest moved through the crowd, lightly tapping other attendees on the shoulders, and saying “excuse me” as she tried to get closer to the person she believed to be Brad Pitt.
One of the attendees whom the guest was trying to move past was dancing and singing in the front of the crowd. However, the attendee did not like to be touched by others. The attendee was very sensitive to even light taps. The guest, who was trying to get closer to Brad Pitt, did not know of the attendee’s extreme sensibilities. The guest lightly tapped the attendee on the shoulder, and said “excuse me”. The attendee was highly offended by being tapped on the shoulder. The attendee was not otherwise physically harmed.If the attendee sues the guest for battery, will she be successful?
(A) No, because she sustained no actual harm.
(B) No, because the guest lacked the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact.
(C) Yes, because she was offended by the contact.
(D) Yes, because it was not reasonable for the guest to try move past others to get closer to a person whom she believed to be Brad Pitt.
(B) is the correct answer. A battery is an act with intent to commit a harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension of such contact and a harmful or offensive contact directly or indirectly results. Here, the guest lacked the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact. She was merely trying to get a better view of Brad Pitt. Thus, because she lacked the requisite intent, she will not be found liable for battery.
(A) is incorrect. Actual harm is not needed for a battery claim. Rather, a harmful or offensive contact is needed.
(C) is incorrect. Just because the attendee was offended does not mean that she will prevail in a battery lawsuit. The attendee still must show that the woman acted with intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact. Here, the woman did not intend to cause a contact that was harmful or offensive. She was merely tapping guests on the shoulder, which is a normal way to behave when one has to move through a crowd.
(D) is incorrect. Reasonableness is not the standard in an intentional tort claim. (It would be if this were a negligence claim.) Further, it is reasonable to tap attendees on the shoulder to try to get through a crowd. That the guest acted reasonably might go to her intent – that is, she lacked the intent to cause an offensive contact. However, the focus should be on the guest’s intent, not the reasonableness of her actions. (Indeed, if the guest knew the attendee was very bothered by being tapped on the shoulder and still tapped on her shoulder with the intent to cause an offensive contact, then the guest would be liable for battery despite her conduct being “reasonable.”)
A 16-year-old girl was operating a motor boat. While operating the motor boat, the girl got distracted by a friend sharing with her the latest Kim Kardashian West Instagram post, and the girl inadvertently struck a man sitting in a canoe in her path. The girl did not know the man was there. The man suffered serious injuries and sued the girl for battery.
Will the man succeed?
(A) Yes, if the trier of fact finds that a girl of his age, intelligence, and experience would have been able to avoid the collision.
(B) Yes, because the girl intended to drive the boat, which caused him harm.
(C) No, because the girl did not intend to strike the man.
(D) No, because the girl did not make direct physical contact with the man.
(C) is the correct answer. A battery is an act with intent to commit a harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension of such contact and a harmful or offensive contact directly or indirectly results.
Here, the girl did not intend to commit a harmful or offensive contact or an imminent apprehension. Indeed, the facts state that the girl “inadvertently strikes” the man and “did not know that the man was there.” Thus, she could not have formed the intent to cause harm and thus will not be liable for battery.
(A) is incorrect because it mixes up intentional torts with negligence. This “age, intelligence, and experience” language is the standard of care that children are judged by in a negligence claim. (Note: it would not apply here even if it was a negligence claim as operating a motor boat is an adult activity.) Thus, this answer is incorrect for a few reasons. If you picked this answer, make sure you have the bigger picture of the law in your head. It would be worth it to closely review your outlines (or make your own “bigger picture” short outline for Torts) so that you can see how the concepts fit together.
(B) is incorrect because it is not the intent to do the act that causes the harm that matters for intentional tort purposes. Rather, one must intend to cause harm.
(D) is incorrect. If you chose this one, work on closely memorizing your definitions! A battery is “an act with intent to commit a harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension of such contact and a harmful or offensive contact directly or indirectly results.” Thus, the girl does not need to physically contact the man with his body. The contact that directly resulted was the boat striking the man.
A woman was walking on a busy city street, looking at Kim Kardashian West’s Instagram stories on her phone. Distracted by the new 90’s inspired “Mattes” collection, the woman was not looking where she was going. A driver noticed how distracted the woman was and decided to teach her a lesson by lightly “bumping” her. The driver lightly hit the woman with his vehicle. The woman did not suffer any physical injuries but was offended and annoyed.
What cause of action is most likely to be successful by the woman in a lawsuit against the driver?
(D) Intentional infliction of Emotional Distress.
(B) is the correct answer. The woman is most likely to be successful in a lawsuit for battery.
A battery is an act with intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact (or an imminent apprehension of such contact) and a harmful or offensive contact directly or indirectly results. Here, the man acted with intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact (bumping the woman with his car) and a harmful or offensive contact directly resulted. Indeed, the woman was not physically injured but was offended and annoyed.
(A) is incorrect. Here, the man was acting intentionally, not negligently. Tip: Be careful if you picked this one! The Examiners often try to confuse students with negligent v. intentional torts!
(C) is incorrect. An assault has the same requirements as battery but the harm suffered is imminent apprehension. Here, the woman did not notice the car until he hit her. Thus, a lawsuit for assault will not be successful.
(D) is incorrect. Intentional infliction of emotional distress occurs when a defendant intentionally or recklessly engages in extreme or outrageous conduct and severe emotional distress results. Here, the driver’s conduct is arguably extreme or outrageous (since he intentionally struck someone with a vehicle!) but there are no facts that show the woman suffered severe emotional distress. Indeed, she was offended and annoyed, but that is it! Thus, this is not the best answer.
Khloe Kardashian sued a tabloid magazine for defamation after the tabloid magazine published an incorrect statement about her relationship with Tristan Thompson.
Which of the following statements is NOT accurate?
(A) Khloe must show that the tabloid magazine made the incorrect statement with knowledge of the statement’s falsity or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.
(B) Khloe’s reputation is not allowed to be admitted into evidence in the defamation lawsuit for any reason.
(C) Khloe must show that the statement made by the tabloid magazine was false.
(D) Khloe must show that the tabloid magazine acted negligently when it made the statement.
(D) is the correct answer. A public figure (i.e., someone who has pervasive fame or notoriety, such as Khloe Kardashian) must prove that the defendant acted with malice in order to prevail. This answer choice understates the plaintiff’s burden.)
(A) is incorrect. This statement is true because it notes that the tabloid magazine must have acted with malice in order to be held liable. Malice is present if the defendant made the statement with knowledge of the statement’s falsity or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.
(B) is incorrect. The plaintiff, Khloe’s, reputation can be admitted to show both liability and damages in a defamation lawsuit. Thus, this statement is true.
(C) is incorrect. This statement accurately states that the plaintiff, Khloe, must prove that the statement was false. The elements of defamation are: (1) there is a defamatory statement about the plaintiff, (2) there is an unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party, (3) the defendant acts with some degree of fault (in a public figure case, the requisite level of fault is malice), (4) the plaintiff is damaged, and (5) the statement is false (note that private figures that are suing over a matter of private concern need not prove this last element as part of their prima facie case, but public figures need to prove falsity in order to prevail).
A celebrity sued a fast-fashion company for ten million dollars. The celebrity accused the company of using the celebrity’s name and image to advertise its clothing.
Which of the following tort claims is the celebrity most likely to prevail on?
(A) False light.
(B) is the correct answer. Appropriation is the unauthorized use of a plaintiff’s name or likeness to advertise a product. Since the celebrity’s name and image was used to advertise the company’s clothing, the celebrity is most likely to prevail on this claim.
(A) is incorrect. A claim for false light arises when a defendant widely spreads facts about the plaintiff which puts the plaintiff in a false light that would be objectionable to a reasonable person. This is less likely to be successful than appropriation, which gets to the heart of the plaintiff’s claim. Here, no facts are spread about the celebrity and there is less of an argument that the celebrity would prevail on this claim.
(C) is incorrect. A claim for intrusion arises when a defendant intentionally pries or intrudes into a private place in a way that would be offensive to the reasonable person. Here, there is no intrusion into a private place. Rather, the company is simply using the celebrity’s name and likeness to advertise its clothing.
(D) is incorrect. Disclosure occurs when a defendant widely disseminates or publishes private information about the plaintiff that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. In this case, the company is not widely spreading information about the celebrity. Thus, (B) is the better answer.
A college student and her roommate had a tradition of watching the show “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” every week.
One day, the college student decided to play a practical joke on the roommate. A few minutes before Keeping Up with the Kardashians aired, when the roommate was about to sit down in the chair she normally sat in, the college student pulled the chair from under the roommate. The roommate did not realize that the chair was pulled out from underneath her. Thus, when she attempted to sit down, she fell to the floor and broke her tailbone. The college student did not intend for the roommate to suffer such a serious injury.
Which of the following torts did the college student commit?
(A) Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
(D) No tort.
(B) is the correct answer. A battery is committed when the defendant acts with intent to commit a harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension thereof and a harmful or offensive contact directly or indirectly results. Here, the college student acted (by pulling away the chair) with intent to commit a harmful contact (that is, the roommate falling on the ground). And a harmful contact occurred (the roommate fell on the floor). It does not matter that the college student did not directly contact the roommate herself – the contact was the student hitting the floor. Further, it does not matter that the college student did not intend for the roommate to break her tailbone. The college student intended the contact – i.e., the roommate falling on the floor – and is therefore liable for the harm that results under the eggshell skull rule.
(A) is incorrect. Intentional infliction of emotional distress occurs when a defendant intentionally or recklessly engages in extreme or outrageous conduct and severe emotional distress results. Here, the harm that resulted was not “severe emotional distress”. Rather, the roommate was physically injured (i.e., she broke her tailbone). Thus, the college student is not liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
(C) is incorrect. An assault is committed when the defendant acts with intent to commit a harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension thereof and an imminent apprehension directly or indirectly results. Here, the roommate did not suffer imminent apprehension of the contact. Indeed, the facts state the roommate was unaware that the chair was being pulled out from under her. Thus, the college student did not commit an assault.
(D) is incorrect. The college student committed a battery, as noted above.
A man wanted to impress a woman who he knew was a huge Kim Kardashian West fan. The man knew that the woman was especially delighted by the fact that Kanye West had taken Kim to Las Vegas to see Celine Dion on their five-year anniversary. The woman mentioned this to the man.
The man decided to make the woman a Celine Dion playlist. He asked the woman out to lunch. She said yes. He gave her the Celine Dion playlist at the lunch and she was impressed.
When lunch was over, the man kissed the woman. The woman did not realize that the man thought they were on a date. She did not want to be kissed by the man.
Is the man liable for battery?
(A) Yes, because his acts constituted an offensive touching of another.
(B) Yes, because it was not reasonable to believe that going out to lunch constitutes a date.
(C) No, because the woman was not harmed in any way.
(D) No, if the man was reasonable in believing that the woman consented to the kiss.
(D) is the correct answer. If the man was reasonable in believing that the woman consented to a kiss, he will not be liable for battery. A battery is an act with intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact (or an imminent apprehension of such contact) and a harmful or offensive contact directly or indirectly results. A prima facie case for battery is present because the man intended to cause the contact that was offensive to the woman (i.e., he kissed her) and the offensive contact resulted from the man’s actions. However, the man can raise the defense of consent. Consent is looked at objectively. If a reasonable person in the defendant’s (man’s) position would believe that the plaintiff (woman) consented to the act, the defendant will not be liable for battery.
Here, this answer choice recognizes that the man will not be liable only if he was reasonable in believing that the woman consented to a kiss. Thus, this is the best answer choice as it recognizes this possibility.
(A) is incorrect because it does not recognize the defense of consent. Further, it is a little limited in its rationale. Just because one’s acts are offensive to another does not mean one will be liable for an offensive battery. One also needs intent to commit the act.
(B) is incorrect because it automatically assumes that the man was unreasonable in his belief – unlike (D), which recognizes that there is a possibility that the man was reasonable. Thus, (B) is not as good of an answer as (D) because it is too conclusive. (D) recognizes the grey area present in the fact pattern.
(C) is incorrect because the woman does not have to be physically harmed to raise a battery claim. In this case, this would be an offensive battery.
Aunt Koko promised to take her five-year-old niece, North, in a stretch limousine after hearing about how much North wanted to ride in one.
The driver for the limousine company was so eager to pick up North that on his way to her house, he drove 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. Suddenly, a tree fell on his limousine. The driver was okay and the limousine only sustained minor damages. (And a different driver ended up taking North on a limousine ride!)
In a lawsuit by the limousine company against the driver for damages sustained to the limousine, what is the driver’s best argument that he should not be held liable?
(A) A tree falling on the limousine was not a foreseeable consequence of speeding.
(B) The driver’s breach of duty was not an actual cause of the harm sustained.
(C) The driver did not have a duty to obey the speed limit.
(D) The driver was working as an agent for the limousine company at the time and thus, the driver cannot be held personally liable.
(A) is the correct answer. In order for the limousine company to win in a lawsuit against the driver, the company has to prove the elements of duty, breach, cause, and harm.
- Here, the driver had a duty to drive under the posted speed limit.
- He breached his duty.
- His breach of duty was an actual cause of the harm (because if he was not speeding, he would not have been where he was at the time the tree fell).
- However, the limo driver’s best argument is that his breach of duty was not a proximate cause of the harm sustained. While it may be foreseeable that the limo may crash and damage property or injure people, a tree falling on the vehicle is not a foreseeable result of speeding. Tip: If you have trouble identifying proximate cause, pretend you are watching a movie and pause the movie as soon as you see a defendant breach his duty. In this case, we would “pause” the movie as soon as we see the defendant starting to speed. Then at that moment ask, “What am I worried about?” You may be worried about the defendant getting into an accident and hurting someone or himself. But you would not be worried about a tree falling on the vehicle!
(B) is incorrect. Here, the driver’s breach of duty actually did play a role in his harm. Tip: If you struggle with this, ask, “Would the same harm have occurred if the driver did not breach his duty?” In this case the answer is no, the same harm would not have occurred because if the driver didn’t breach his duty (by speeding) he would not have been in that exact place at that exact time. So, his breach of duty was an actual cause of his harm because if he didn’t breach his duty, the harm would not have occurred.
(C) is incorrect. The driver did have a duty to obey the posted speed limit.
(D) is incorrect. An agent does not escape liability simply because he is working for someone. Here, the principal (the limousine company) is not prohibited from suing the agent for his own tort (negligence).
A woman saw a girl, North West, dressed in her famous celebrity mother’s clothing and high heels. She thought that the girl was adorable and encouraged her own young daughter to wear her high heels on an errand to the grocery store. The young daughter wore the high heels but while in the grocery store, accidentally tripped and fell, knocking over a pallet. The pallet fell on a customer and the customer sued for the woman for damages.
Which of the following is true with regard to the woman’s liability?
(A) The woman is vicariously liable for the acts of her child.
(B) The woman is liable for her child’s acts if the woman herself was negligent.
(C) The woman is strictly liable for the acts of her child.
(D) The woman is not liable for the acts of her child.
(B) is the correct answer. If the woman herself was negligent – that is, if she breached her duty by having her daughter wear high heels to the grocery store – then she will be liable to the customer (assuming that her breach of duty caused the customer’s harm).
(A) is incorrect. A parent is generally not vicariously liable for the actions of his or her child. Thus, the customer would have to prove that the woman was herself negligent in order to prevail.
(C) is incorrect. A parent is not strictly liable for the actions of his or her child. In order to sue a parent, the plaintiff (the customer in this case) generally must prove that the parent herself was negligent.
(D) is incorrect. It is true that the woman is generally not liable for her child’s actions. However, she will be liable if she herself was negligent, as explained above. Thus, (B) is the better answer.
A well-known celebrity attended a popular and elite fundraiser event held at a museum. The celebrity was wearing a Thierry Mugler dress that took eight months to make. A photographer was attempting to photograph the celebrity as she was posing on the red carpet in the museum where the event was held. To get a better photograph of the celebrity, the photographer went into an area of the event room that was specifically roped off and labeled with a sign that stated “NO ENTRY BEYOND THIS POINT.” While in that area trying to take a photograph of the celebrity, the photographer tripped over a cord, fell, and used his right arm to catch himself. An ordinary person would not have been hurt by the fall, but due to a preexisting injury, the photographer was severely injured and required surgery.
Will the photographer be able to recover damages from the museum?
(A) Yes, because the eggshell skull rule will allow him to recover all of his damages, even if more severe than expected.
(B) Yes, because the museum should have foreseen that photographers would enter the area where the photographer was injured in order to take photographs.
(C) No, because the photographer’s harm was unforeseeable.
(D) No, because at the time of his injury, the photographer was trespassing.
(D) is the correct answer. Here, the photographer would bring a claim for negligence and would have to show that the elements of duty, breach, cause, and harm were present. So the first hurdle for the photographer will be showing that the museum owed him a duty of care. However, at the time of the injury, the photographer was an undiscovered trespasser. An undiscovered trespasser – one who comes onto the land without permission or privilege who the premises possessor does not know about – is not owed any duty of care by the premises possessor. Thus, because the premises possessor did not owe the photographer a duty of care, the photographer will be unsuccessful in his lawsuit as he will not be able to prove this essential element of negligence.
(A) is incorrect. While this is a generally correct statement of law, the photographer does not have a prima facie case for negligence since the museum did not owe him any duty of care when he was in the area marked “NO ENTRY BEYOND THIS POINT.”
(B) is incorrect. There are no facts stating that the museum should have foreseen that the photographer would have entered the area in question. For example, there are no facts stating that other photographers were entering the area. Further, even if the museum should have foreseen the photographer’s entry, there are still not enough facts to show that the museum breached a duty of care. Just because the photographer tripped over a cord does not automatically mean that the museum is negligent. The museum is not strictly liable for all injuries occurring on its premises.
(C) is incorrect. It misses the fact that the photographer was trespassing. Further, it is an incorrect statement of law. Under the eggshell skull rule, a plaintiff will recover all damages even if they are larger than the defendant would have anticipated. Foreseeability of the extent of the harm is not required; just some harm must be foreseeable and the plaintiff will recover for all harm sustained.
Kim, Khloe, and Kourtney were walking down the street. Khloe playfully pushed Kourtney, who tripped and fell onto someone’s property.
If the property owner sued Kourtney for trespass, what is her best defense?
(A) She did not realize that the land was someone else’s land.
(B) She did not cause any damage to the land.
(C) She did not intend to enter the land.
(D) She entered the land for only a brief period of time.
(C) is the correct answer. Kourtney’s best defense is that she did not intend to enter the land. A trespass is the intentional physical invasion of the land of another. It is an intentional tort. Here, she was lacking the requisite intent as she was pushed onto the land. This will be her best defense to a trespass claim.
(A) is incorrect. Trespass does not require knowledge that one is trespassing. It only requires that the defendant intends to be where she is and that it is someone else’s land. Here, Kourtney’s best argument is that she did not have the requisite intent.
(B) is incorrect. The plaintiff does not need to show actual harm to recover in an intentional tort action. Rather, the plaintiff can recover nominal damages.
(D) is incorrect. Trespass to land does not have a time requirement. Even a brief trespass is still a trespass. If Kourtney showed that she was only on the land for a brief period of time this may reduce the plaintiff’s damages but it would not negate liability.
A law student invited her study group over to her house to study for the baby bar exam. One of her classmates complimented the perfume she was wearing and asked if she could try it on. The law student retrieved the bottle of Kim Kardashian fragrance from her bedroom. When getting ready to spray the perfume, the classmate accidentally dropped the bottle on the floor, and it shattered into pieces. The law student suffered emotional distress as a result of the incident.
If the law student sued the classmate, the law student would most likely be successful if she sued for which of the following?
(A) Trespass to chattels.
(D) Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
(C) is the correct answer. Here, the law student would have the highest chances of success if she sued for negligence. The facts state that the classmate “accidentally” (i.e. unintentionally) dropped the perfume bottle on the floor. Thus, the law student’s best bet would be to show that the classmate breached her duty to act as a reasonably prudent person and that the breach of duty caused harm (i.e., caused the bottle to break).
(A) is incorrect for two reasons. First, the law student would not be successful in suing for an intentional tort because the classmate acted unintentionally. Second, because the facts state that the bottle “shattered into pieces” a mere trespass would not be the appropriate tort to sue for, if one were to sue for an intentional tort (conversion would be more appropriate).
(B) is incorrect because, as noted above, the classmate acted unintentionally. Thus, an intentional tort would likely not be successful. Tip: Memorize the categories of intentional torts and remember that “intent” is an element in virtually all of them. If intent is not present, an intentional tort claim will not be successful!
(D) is incorrect. This tort requires that the defendant intentionally or recklessly engages in extreme or outrageous conduct and causes severe emotional distress to the plaintiff. Here, the classmate acted negligently (rather than intentionally or recklessly). Secondly, the classmate’s conduct was not “extreme or outrageous.” And third, the facts do not state that the law student’s emotional distress was “severe.” Lastly, this is an appropriate tort to sue for when the plaintiff only suffers emotional distress – here she also suffered actual harm. So, while we can all sympathize with this law student, this would not be the law student’s best case against the classmate!
Want to hear an explanation? Listen to it here!
A woman was walking down the street, trying to choose which Kimoji to text her friend. Because she could not decide between the tacos emoji and the donut emoji, she walked into the street without looking both ways. A bicyclist, who was not paying attention to where he was going, struck the woman. The woman suffered injuries.
Instead of seeking prompt medical treatment, the woman texted her friend the crying Kim Kimoji and went home. Later that day, the woman’s injuries got significantly worse due to her failure to seek prompt medical treatment.
The woman filed a lawsuit against the bicyclist, claiming that the bicyclist was negligent. The jury determined that the woman was 30% at fault and the bicyclist was 70% at fault for the collision. The jurisdiction follows the theory of pure comparative negligence.
What damages will the woman recover?
(A) All of her actual damages because the defendant “takes the plaintiff as they are” and it is foreseeable that a plaintiff could be negligent and fail to seek medical treatment.
(B) 70% of her actual damages plus punitive damages.
(C) 70% of her actual damages less any damages that could have been avoided by seeking reasonable medical treatment.
(D) She will not recover any damages.
(C) is the correct answer. In a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, the woman’s damages would be reduced by her percentage fault. Since she was 30% at fault, the woman will recover 70% of her damages. However, her damage award will be reduced by the damages that she could have avoided by seeking reasonable medical treatment. A plaintiff has a duty to mitigate damages and cannot recover for harm that could have been avoided.
(A) is incorrect. This is a misstatement of the eggshell skull rule. The defendant’s liability will be reduced if the plaintiff was at fault, as mentioned above.
(B) is incorrect. A plaintiff will not recover punitive damages in a negligence action. In order to recover punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove the defendant acted willfully or maliciously. In this case, the defendant was merely negligent.
(D) is incorrect. The woman will recover some damages, as noted above. The damages she will receive will simply be reduced by her percentage fault and any damages she could have avoided by acting reasonably.