LAWW 4144 Exam Questions
2025/2026| 200 Questions and Correct
Answers. 2025/2026.
Intentional torts
(1) assault (2) battery (3) false imprisonment (4) IIED (5) RIED (6) Indirect IIED (7) trespass to land (8)
trespass to chattel (9) conversion
Battery
(1) act
(2) intent
(3) H/O contact to P
(4) cause in fact and
(5) injury (presumed)
Act
· external manifestation of actor's will:
(1) this must be perceivable i.e., "standing still," or "throwing a rock,"
(2) movement or failure to move will result from actor's will.
---- Sleeping/sleepwalking are NOT manifestations of will because the will is absent in this action. It is
important to note that an actor can intend the act which causes injury, even if actor/act was
irrational (like pistol whip case).
Intent [to cause contact]
· Purpose of causing contact AND/OR...
· Knows to substantial certainty (absolute certainty) contact will result
Single intent/majority vs. dual intent/minority
- Single intent = purpose/know SC
- Dual intent = purpose/know SC + D has to "appreciate" H/O contact
H/O contact to P
Contact was harmful and or offensive
Contact is harmful when
there is a "physical" change (i.e., physical damage to body from contact)
- Bodily contact can occur with objects intimately connect to person
---- Ex: cane, clothing, chair, or anything held in P's hand
Contact is offensive when
offends a reasonable person (RP)
- Liability for unforeseen results if it offends [societal standards of] a "reasonable sense of dignity"
---- D's act can be offensive regardless of personal thought about the nature of its character
,Cause in Fact (c/f)
But for the defendant's conduct, would the injury have occurred?
Yes = P's injury was caused by something else and therefore inevitable
No = D is responsible for causing P's injury
Injury (presumed)
· Injury is different than harm because it is a legal concept that has to be violated and not based on
any factual understanding (unlike harm, which is determined by physical or emotional
change/distress). It is based on whether a person's legally protected interest (freedom from
intentionally inflicted contact that is H/O).
----Personal bodily integrity/right to be free from intentional infliction of H/O contact
P was at a bar one night. P needed to get home/decided best option to get back to the other side of
campus was a late night University bus. P got on the bus and was happy to see there were quite a
few open seats as she had heard the bus was usually packed with people. P sat down in an open
seat. Next stop, tons of people boarded the bus. S was one of those. S saw an open place to stand in
front of P's legs and did so. Even more people boarded the bus on the next stop. S had to move over
a bit/bumped P in the legs. P wasn't hurt but very upset S had bumped into her legs. If P sues S for
battery:
A. P is unlikely to succeed as she was aware the bus was normally packed with people.
B. P is unlikely to succeed because she consented to type of contact when she boarded the bus.
C. P is unlikely to succeed because she was not injured.
D. P is unlikely to succeed because contact was not harmful/likely also not offensive.
D. P is unlikely to succeed because contact was not harmful/likely also not offensive.
Assault
(1) act
(2) intent
(3) *P suffers apprehension (or anticipation) of imminent H/O contact
(4) C/F
(5) injury (presumed)
Intent [to cause apprehension]
Purpose/knowledge SC
*Transferred intent (required for assault)
*P suffers [reasonably] apprehension (or understanding) of imminent H/O contact
· Imminent contact = "almost at once"
- Future contact is NOT imminent contact
---- Ex: A threatens to shoot B, and then leaves the room to get his gun...A is NOT liable to B
- Words alone not enough to make reasonable person think P suffered apprehension of imminent
H/O contact
---- Fear vs. apprehension
,B, G, and H were shopping and found some fun-looking foam swords at the store and each bought
one. They left the store and were walking outside to the next store. Once outside, B bumped the
sword on his own head and noticed that it didn't hurt. When walking, H heard B yelling behind her. B
then hit H in the head with the foam sword, causing H to fall forward. H's eye glasses were forced
into her right eye, causing permanent diminished vision.
A. B couldn't be liable for battery if he didn't intend to harm her.
B. H likely lacks a battery claim against B because H's falling wasn't an external manifestation of B's
will.
C. If the majority rules applies, H may have difficulty establishing intent because Brandon likely didn't
not appreciate that hitting her in the head with a foam sword would be harmful or offensive.
D. H likely lacks an assault claim against B.
D. H likely lacks an assault claim against Brandon.
S hated P/wanted to scare him. S saw P in the parking lot. S saw a big rock on the ground/decided he
would throw the rock in P's direction so P would think the rock would hit him. S, however, knew that
he was not good at with his aim when throwing. S doubted that he throw the rock close enough to P
to scare P. But Sam decided to try given his hatred of P. Sam threw the rock at P. As the rock
descended, P happened to notice the rock coming toward him and thought the rock was about to hit
him. The rock barely missed P.
A. P is unlikely to have a successful assault claim because he suffered no harm, physical or otherwise.
B. P is likely to be able to establish a legal claim because a reasonable person would likely be
offended by being hit with a rock.
C. None of the answers are correct.
D. P is unlikely to have a successful assault claim because S did not think that the rock would get
close enough to P to scare him.
C. None of the answers are correct.
C and A used to be friends, but ended after a disagreement on C's alcoholism. C became distraught
due to A's termination of the friendship. A and M went over to C's house one day, and A hoped to be
able to calm C down. C was in her backyard cleaning her gun. A and M walked around the outside of
the house to the backyard. M saw the gun/stayed behind A. Again, A had hoped to calm C down, but
C was still distraught. C held a loaded gun pointed at A. Unknown to C, M was standing behind A and
also in the direction in which gun was pointed. M believed that C was about to shoot her. If M sues C
for assault:
A. M can recover if M is A's sister.
B. M can recover because C intended to cause A to apprehend imminent, harmful contact.
C. M can recover because she experienced a reasonable apprehension of imminent, harmful contact.
D. M cannot recover because C did not intend to cause M to apprehend imminent, harmful conta
B. M can recover because C intended to cause A to apprehend imminent, harmful contact.
False imprisonment
(1) act
(2) intent - confine/restrain
(3) P is confined/restrained in bounded area (reasonable means of escape)
, (4) C/F
(5) Injury presumed if P conscious of confinement
IIED
(1) act
(2) intent [to cause ED]
(3) Extreme/outrageous (E/O) conduct
(4) C/F
(5) Severe emotional distress (SED)
Extreme/outrageous (E/O) conduct
· E/O is [objectively] determined by an average member of the community
---- Context, i.e., time and location will change what the average member of the community views as
E/O (Strauss/divorce case - opinion mentioned Iowa City + University of Iowa 50,000 ppl.)
Severe emotional distress (SED)
· P [subjectively] suffers SED
· RP [objectively] would also suffer SED (*this RP part doesn't apply if D knew of P's particular
vulnerability/sensitivity)
2 things to consider in case analysis for IIED cases
Power dynamics and prior knowledge of ED
RIED
(1) act
(2) recklessness
(3) E/O conduct
(4) C/F
(5) SED
Recklessness
conscious disregard (subj) of substantial chance of causing ED
· Lower standard than knowingly
· Higher standard than negligence
Indirect IIED
(1) act
(2) intent
(3) E/O conduct
(4) C/F
(5) SED
(6) family and present OR present and physical manifestation of SED
Intent for indirect IIED
directed at the indirect/ED P (NO transfer)
2025/2026| 200 Questions and Correct
Answers. 2025/2026.
Intentional torts
(1) assault (2) battery (3) false imprisonment (4) IIED (5) RIED (6) Indirect IIED (7) trespass to land (8)
trespass to chattel (9) conversion
Battery
(1) act
(2) intent
(3) H/O contact to P
(4) cause in fact and
(5) injury (presumed)
Act
· external manifestation of actor's will:
(1) this must be perceivable i.e., "standing still," or "throwing a rock,"
(2) movement or failure to move will result from actor's will.
---- Sleeping/sleepwalking are NOT manifestations of will because the will is absent in this action. It is
important to note that an actor can intend the act which causes injury, even if actor/act was
irrational (like pistol whip case).
Intent [to cause contact]
· Purpose of causing contact AND/OR...
· Knows to substantial certainty (absolute certainty) contact will result
Single intent/majority vs. dual intent/minority
- Single intent = purpose/know SC
- Dual intent = purpose/know SC + D has to "appreciate" H/O contact
H/O contact to P
Contact was harmful and or offensive
Contact is harmful when
there is a "physical" change (i.e., physical damage to body from contact)
- Bodily contact can occur with objects intimately connect to person
---- Ex: cane, clothing, chair, or anything held in P's hand
Contact is offensive when
offends a reasonable person (RP)
- Liability for unforeseen results if it offends [societal standards of] a "reasonable sense of dignity"
---- D's act can be offensive regardless of personal thought about the nature of its character
,Cause in Fact (c/f)
But for the defendant's conduct, would the injury have occurred?
Yes = P's injury was caused by something else and therefore inevitable
No = D is responsible for causing P's injury
Injury (presumed)
· Injury is different than harm because it is a legal concept that has to be violated and not based on
any factual understanding (unlike harm, which is determined by physical or emotional
change/distress). It is based on whether a person's legally protected interest (freedom from
intentionally inflicted contact that is H/O).
----Personal bodily integrity/right to be free from intentional infliction of H/O contact
P was at a bar one night. P needed to get home/decided best option to get back to the other side of
campus was a late night University bus. P got on the bus and was happy to see there were quite a
few open seats as she had heard the bus was usually packed with people. P sat down in an open
seat. Next stop, tons of people boarded the bus. S was one of those. S saw an open place to stand in
front of P's legs and did so. Even more people boarded the bus on the next stop. S had to move over
a bit/bumped P in the legs. P wasn't hurt but very upset S had bumped into her legs. If P sues S for
battery:
A. P is unlikely to succeed as she was aware the bus was normally packed with people.
B. P is unlikely to succeed because she consented to type of contact when she boarded the bus.
C. P is unlikely to succeed because she was not injured.
D. P is unlikely to succeed because contact was not harmful/likely also not offensive.
D. P is unlikely to succeed because contact was not harmful/likely also not offensive.
Assault
(1) act
(2) intent
(3) *P suffers apprehension (or anticipation) of imminent H/O contact
(4) C/F
(5) injury (presumed)
Intent [to cause apprehension]
Purpose/knowledge SC
*Transferred intent (required for assault)
*P suffers [reasonably] apprehension (or understanding) of imminent H/O contact
· Imminent contact = "almost at once"
- Future contact is NOT imminent contact
---- Ex: A threatens to shoot B, and then leaves the room to get his gun...A is NOT liable to B
- Words alone not enough to make reasonable person think P suffered apprehension of imminent
H/O contact
---- Fear vs. apprehension
,B, G, and H were shopping and found some fun-looking foam swords at the store and each bought
one. They left the store and were walking outside to the next store. Once outside, B bumped the
sword on his own head and noticed that it didn't hurt. When walking, H heard B yelling behind her. B
then hit H in the head with the foam sword, causing H to fall forward. H's eye glasses were forced
into her right eye, causing permanent diminished vision.
A. B couldn't be liable for battery if he didn't intend to harm her.
B. H likely lacks a battery claim against B because H's falling wasn't an external manifestation of B's
will.
C. If the majority rules applies, H may have difficulty establishing intent because Brandon likely didn't
not appreciate that hitting her in the head with a foam sword would be harmful or offensive.
D. H likely lacks an assault claim against B.
D. H likely lacks an assault claim against Brandon.
S hated P/wanted to scare him. S saw P in the parking lot. S saw a big rock on the ground/decided he
would throw the rock in P's direction so P would think the rock would hit him. S, however, knew that
he was not good at with his aim when throwing. S doubted that he throw the rock close enough to P
to scare P. But Sam decided to try given his hatred of P. Sam threw the rock at P. As the rock
descended, P happened to notice the rock coming toward him and thought the rock was about to hit
him. The rock barely missed P.
A. P is unlikely to have a successful assault claim because he suffered no harm, physical or otherwise.
B. P is likely to be able to establish a legal claim because a reasonable person would likely be
offended by being hit with a rock.
C. None of the answers are correct.
D. P is unlikely to have a successful assault claim because S did not think that the rock would get
close enough to P to scare him.
C. None of the answers are correct.
C and A used to be friends, but ended after a disagreement on C's alcoholism. C became distraught
due to A's termination of the friendship. A and M went over to C's house one day, and A hoped to be
able to calm C down. C was in her backyard cleaning her gun. A and M walked around the outside of
the house to the backyard. M saw the gun/stayed behind A. Again, A had hoped to calm C down, but
C was still distraught. C held a loaded gun pointed at A. Unknown to C, M was standing behind A and
also in the direction in which gun was pointed. M believed that C was about to shoot her. If M sues C
for assault:
A. M can recover if M is A's sister.
B. M can recover because C intended to cause A to apprehend imminent, harmful contact.
C. M can recover because she experienced a reasonable apprehension of imminent, harmful contact.
D. M cannot recover because C did not intend to cause M to apprehend imminent, harmful conta
B. M can recover because C intended to cause A to apprehend imminent, harmful contact.
False imprisonment
(1) act
(2) intent - confine/restrain
(3) P is confined/restrained in bounded area (reasonable means of escape)
, (4) C/F
(5) Injury presumed if P conscious of confinement
IIED
(1) act
(2) intent [to cause ED]
(3) Extreme/outrageous (E/O) conduct
(4) C/F
(5) Severe emotional distress (SED)
Extreme/outrageous (E/O) conduct
· E/O is [objectively] determined by an average member of the community
---- Context, i.e., time and location will change what the average member of the community views as
E/O (Strauss/divorce case - opinion mentioned Iowa City + University of Iowa 50,000 ppl.)
Severe emotional distress (SED)
· P [subjectively] suffers SED
· RP [objectively] would also suffer SED (*this RP part doesn't apply if D knew of P's particular
vulnerability/sensitivity)
2 things to consider in case analysis for IIED cases
Power dynamics and prior knowledge of ED
RIED
(1) act
(2) recklessness
(3) E/O conduct
(4) C/F
(5) SED
Recklessness
conscious disregard (subj) of substantial chance of causing ED
· Lower standard than knowingly
· Higher standard than negligence
Indirect IIED
(1) act
(2) intent
(3) E/O conduct
(4) C/F
(5) SED
(6) family and present OR present and physical manifestation of SED
Intent for indirect IIED
directed at the indirect/ED P (NO transfer)
