Steenson, Torts, Fall 1987



DIRECTIONS



1. Put your exam number on each bluebook. Do not put your name on your bluebook.



2. Number your bluebooks, e.g., 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3, so I know how many bluebooks you have written in and in what order they should be placed.



3. Please try to write on only one side of each bluebook page.



4. Please write in blue or black pen.



5. Be sure to reach conclusions when you raise issues. Try not to leave the hard questions "for the jury."



6. Do not write things such as "TIME" at the end of your exams. I can usually tell when you have finished your answer to each question without those notations.



Question 1.

(45 minutes - 25%)



Able and Able's spouse, Baker, were shopping in Creative Shopping, a large department store. Able was wearing a tan trench coat at the time.



Able and Baker had completed their shopping and walked out the store, when Able was accosted by Copper, the store detective. Copper had witnessed what he believed to be a shoplifting when a person about the same size as Able, and wearing the same type of tan trench coat, took an expensive piece of jewelry from a showcase and put in his pocket. Copper lost sight of the suspected thief in a crowd at one of the exits, but he thought he had found him again when he saw Able walking out of the store.



Copper caught up with Able when Able was about twenty feet from the store. He grabbed Able by the arm and told him to stop. Able stopped. Copper said, "I think that you shoplifted at the store. I want you to come back with me." Able refused and walked away. Copper again caught up with Able and grabbed him again. "I want to see your pockets," he said, and put his hand into Able's trench coat pocket, the one he saw the shoplifter put the jewelry in. Copper was unable to find the jewelry, of course, because Able had not taken it. Copper apologized and returned to the store. Able, frustrated, ran after him and pushed him to the sidewalk.



Baker was shocked at Copper's actions and extremely upset. As a direct result of the incident she suffered a miscarriage.



Based upon the above facts, what causes of action might be brought by Able, Baker, and Copper and what would be the likelihood of success of those actions?





Question 2.

(60 minutes - 33%)



Albert Accelerator was sixteen years old. He had just received his driver's license and was an inexperienced but aggressive driver. One day Albert was driving down the freeway on his way to his house. He became impatient with the driver of the car in front of him because the car was going too slowly to suit him, even though the car was going the speed limit of 55 m.p.h.



To try to get the driver to move from the left lane into the right lane, Albert moved to within four feet of the rear bumper of the other car. He maintained this position for some distance, notwithstanding the efforts of the other driver to get him to back off. The other driver, Bill Brake, turned around and made a pushing motion with his hand to get Albert to move away. When that didn't work he tried obscene hand gestures. That didn't work either. In fact, Albert thought that it was funny. Then, Bill slammed on his brakes. Albert, because of quick reflexes, saw the brake lights just in time and managed to swerve to the right to avoid hitting Bill's car. Albert no longer thought that it was funny. He continued in the right hand lane and exited at the next freeway exit. Bill, who was enraged by Albert's actions, stayed behind him. When Albert came to a stop at the top of the freeway, Bill drove up behind him and at a low rate of speed hit Albert's car in the back. There was no damage to the car, but Albert was bounced forward. Albert looked around and saw Bill screaming and shaking his fist at him. Realizing that this could be trouble, Albert headed down the county highway to his house, which was only three miles away. Bill stayed behind him, but at a safe distance.



When Albert pulled into his driveway Bill came in behind him. Bill got out of his car with a tire iron in his hand and came up to Albert's car. Albert realized that there might be a problem if he got out of the car, so he locked the doors. Holding the tire iron at his side, Bill yelled, "Get out of that car, you little sonofabitch. I want to talk to you about your driving." Albert stayed put, thinking that if he got out Bill might want to permanently loosen his lug bolts.



A minute or two passed, during which time Bill kept yelling at Albert to get out of the car. Then, the door to Albert's house opened and Albert's mother, Alice Accelerator, came out of the house. Alice had been ill for several months, largely due to the stress caused by trying to keep Albert in line. She was exhausted and was suffering from clinically diagnosed depression. She asked Bill what he wanted with her son. In a loud and very angry voice Bill told her about her Albert's driving and asked her what she was doing in letting him to drive. Alice started crying. She apologized, but Bill kept screaming at her for another thirty seconds or so. Alice put her face in her hands and continued to cry.



Bill then turned back to Albert, who was still sitting in the car, and said, "I'm going to get the police, you little jerk. Stay put until I get back."



Bill went back to his car, got in, and drove away. He did not get the police because he thought that it wouldn't be worthwhile and wouldn't have any impact on Albert.



Albert stayed in the car for an hour after Bill left. He was worried that if he left he might get into more trouble. Alice was in bad emotional shape. She called her psychologist, who was able to get her calmed down after a lengthy phone conversation. Her condition was not further aggravated by the incident.



Based upon the above facts, what causes of action might be brought by Albert, Alice, and Bill? Be sure to consider the likelihood of success of those actions in your answer.



Question 3.

(60 minutes - 33%)



Able owned the Grand Hotel, a fifty-room, eight-story hotel that had been built in 1900. Able had restored the hotel when he purchased the building fifteen years ago, in 1972.



Able had two large drums of gasoline sitting on the ground next to the rear entrance of the hotel. He had had the gasoline delivered there so that he could later load it on his pickup truck and take it to a farm he owned. There was a local ordinance that precluded the storage of gasoline in amounts greater than ten gallons at any business location, absent a permit. Able did not obtain a permit, but he didn't think it would be necessary because the gasoline drums were to be there only a short period of time.



Able was going to move the gasoline the morning after it was delivered. The reason for the delay was that he first had to get his pickup truck from the garage where he was having it repaired.



That evening the gasoline was ignited. It was not clear how the fire started. Arson was a possibility, but it was never clearly established.



When the gasoline was ignited, the hotel was at full occupancy. The fire spread quickly into the hotel.



Heavy smoke was caused by the fire. However, there were no smoke detectors in the hotel, either in the hallways or the individual guest rooms. Smoke detectors were required by statute, but only for hotels built after 1975. The custom of hotel owners in the state, however, was to install smoke detectors in each room. Also, the American Hotel Association, composed of hotel owners across the country, had in 1980 adopted a standard requiring all guest rooms to have smoke detectors.



A number of guests were injured because of smoke inhalation, a problem that might have been avoided had there been smoke detectors in the rooms. One of the guests, Baldwin, awoke and saw her room filled with heavy smoke. She was staying on the third floor of the hotel. She opened the door to her room, but saw even thicker smoke in the hallway. She ran to the window, opened it, and jumped to the ground, breaking her leg in the fall.



The fire department responded to the call as soon as it received the alarm. When the fire department arrived the firefighters immediately began putting water on the fire. Three firefighters were sent into the building to make sure that all the guests in the hotel were evacuated. One of the firefighters, Carol, went through a first floor door that was not marked. The door led to the basement of the hotel. There was a long step down, and Carol missed it, falling down the steps and into the basement, breaking her right leg in the fall. There were no warning signs but even if there had been Carol would not have been able to see such a sign because of the smoke.



Dean was driving by the hotel when he saw the fire. He stopped to watch. While he was watching, Dean saw one of the hotel guests with his head out a third-floor window, yelling for help. Smoke was pouring out the building and there were visible flames, but Dean rushed by the police who were guarding the building and into the hotel to rescue the person. Before he could get to the stairs he was knocked down and trapped by falling debris. He sustained serious burns as a result.



Based upon the above facts, would any of the guests who suffered from smoke inhalation, Baldwin, Carol, or Dean be able to recover against Able? On what theory or theories? Be sure to consider all the issues, including potential defenses, in your answer.





Question 4.

(15 minutes - 9%)



The Minnesota Comparative Fault Act, Minn. Stat. section 604.01, reads in part as follows:



Section 604.02 reads in part as follows:







Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident while driving her own car. She was injured as a result of a collision between cars driven by Defendant One and Defendant Two. Plaintiff was awarded $10,000 in damages by the jury.



Based upon the above Minnesota statutory provisions and the above hypothetical, answer the following questions:




1. Plaintiff (20%) v. Defendant One (40%)
Defendant Two (40%)

Is Plaintiff entitled to recover? If so, in what amount?



2. Same facts as in Number 1, but assume that Defendant One pays Plaintiff $8,000. Is Defendant One entitled to recover from Defendant Two, and if so, in what amount?




3. Plaintiff (50%) v. Defendant One (25%)
Defendant Two (25%)

Is Plaintiff entitled to recover? If so, in what amount?




4. Plaintiff (40%) v. Defendant One (40%)
Defendant Two (20%)

Is Plaintiff entitled to recover? If so, in what amount?




5. Assume the same facts as in the original hypothetical, except that Defendant One is the State of Minnesota (and-not immune from liability).


Plaintiff (0%) v. Defendant One (50%)
Defendant Two (50%)

Defendant Two is insolvent and unable to pay his share of the judgment. Is Plaintiff entitled to recover from Defendant One and if so, in what amount?