Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
17. If the plaintiff asserts a claim for damages against the airline based on battery, she will
During the flight, a flight attendant served the man nine drinks. As the man became more and more obviously intoxicated and attempted to engage the plaintiff in a conversation, the plaintiff chose to ignore the man. This angered the man, who suddenly struck the plaintiff in the face, giving her a black eye.
A plaintiff and a man were passengers sitting in adjoining seats on a flight on an airline. There were many empty seats on the aircraft.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Intent can be established by showing the defendant's intent to cause EITHER: (i) a harmful or offensive bodily contact or (ii) an imminent apprehension by the plaintiff of a harmful or offensive bodily contact, which may be established by intent to commit an assault (i.e., if the defendant intended merely to put the plaintiff in fear of an imminent harmful or offensive contact, it is sufficient for a battery claim, regardless of whether the defendant intended to make actual contact).
It is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove actual damages for a successful battery claim; the plaintiff can recover at least nominal damages even though he suffered no actual injury.
The doctrine of vicarious liability provides that in some situations, the tortious act of one person may be imputed to another because of some special relationship between the two. The latter will be held liable even though his conduct may have been blameless. For example, vicarious liability commonly applies in employer/employee relationships, family relationships, or joint enterprises.
C is correct. This question is testing the application of the doctrine of vicarious liability. If the plaintiff asserts a battery claim against the airline for damages, she will not prevail because the airline is not vicariously liable for the man's actions. Vicarious liability imputes liability onto one person as a result of the actions of another because of some specific relationship between them. These relationships include, for example, employers/employees and agents of employers, families, and joint enterprises. Vicarious liability does not apply in this case, however, because the man was merely a customer, not acting as any form of an agent or employee of the airline. The man committed the battery against the plaintiff, and without any special relationship between the airline and the man, the airline will not be liable for the damages he caused to the plaintiff.
A is incorrect. This is an appealing answer because it correctly lists the elements of battery. As applied to the MAN, this would be the correct answer. However, the call of the question is asking if the plaintiff can recover from the AIRLINE, not whether the man committed a battery against the plaintiff. In order for the plaintiff to recover from the airline, she would have to prove that the airline was vicariously liable for the tortious actions by the man, which she cannot.
B is incorrect. This answer choice may also seem appealing because it sounds like a correct statement of law. However, even if the flight attendant did act recklessly in over-serving the man, this choice does not address the issue being tested. The issue is whether the airline can be held vicariously liable for the man's intentional tort. Regardless of the recklessness of the flight attendant's decision to serve the man nine drinks, without vicarious liability, the airline will not be liable for the man's conduct.
D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The plaintiff will not prevail, but not because she is unable to prove a permanent injury. A battery claim does not require proof of any actual injury at all, let alone a permanent injury. It is enough if the defendant caused offensive or harmful contact with the plaintiff's person. However, the plaintiff here will nevertheless fail to recover damages from the airline because vicarious liability will not attach, as explained above.