Page 1 of 17
Questions adapted from John Bauman & Ronald Eades,
Exam Pro on Torts (Objective), Chapters 1 & 2, Intentional Torts & Defenses
Questions 1-3
Use the following facts for Questions 1 through 3. Jess, who walked with the aid of a cane, was
standing on a street corner one day, waiting for the traffic light to change. Pranks quietly walked up
behind Jess and, thinking it would be a good gag, kicked the base of Jess’s cane. Although the
bottom of the cane came off the ground, Jess had not been leaning on it heavily. Jess lost his
balance slightly, but did not fall, and was not injured. Jess turned around to see Pranks laughing at
him. Jess got mad and whacked Pranks over the head with the cane.
1. If Jess sues Pranks for battery, who will prevail?
A. Jess will prevail because losing his balance counts as “harm.”
B. Jess will prevail because the contact with his cane, while he was holding it, is the equivalent of
an offensive contact with his person.
C. Pranks will prevail because he intended only to play a joke, not to cause any physical harm.
D. Pranks will prevail because Jess suffered no actual injury.
2. If Jess sues Pranks for assault, who will prevail?
A. Jess will prevail because the intent sufficient for battery will also support a claim of assault.
B. Jess will prevail because every battery includes an assault.
C. Pranks will prevail because he intended only contact with the cane, and not to cause
apprehension.
D. Pranks will prevail because Jess never saw the contact coming and therefore experienced no
apprehension of harmful or offensive contact.
3. If Pranks sues Jess for battery, who will prevail?
A. Jess will prevail because Pranks was the original aggressor.
B. Jess will prevail because most jurisdictions do not require the victim of an assault or battery to
retreat before engaging in self-defense.
C. Pranks will prevail because he actually suffered an intended harmful contact.
D. Pranks will prevail because Jess used a weapon.
4. Marcus was standing in line at the local recreation center with many others, waiting to get a flu
vaccination. Tolbert, a friend of Marcus, arrived at the center to play basketball. Tolbert saw
Marcus and strolled over to say hello. As Marcus and Tolbert talked, they gradually approached the
front of the line. Pimmy, a registered nurse who was administering the injections as fast as possible
because of the number of people seeking the vaccinations, did not bother to look at Marcus’s
consent form or ask permission, but instead said, “Hold out your arm.” Marcus held out his arm,
but Tolbert did not. Nevertheless, Pimmy injected Tolbert, thinking he was also in line. Tolbert was
allergic to the vaccination and suffered severe injury as a result. If Tolbert sues Pimmy for battery,
who will prevail?
A. Tolbert will prevail because the contact was in fact harmful.
B. Tolbert will prevail because he did not consent to the contact.
C. Pimmy will prevail because Tolbert impliedly consented by standing in line.
D. Pimmy will prevail because he asked for consent.
