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.
24. Can the seller recover damages from the homeowner for his injuries?
As a seller, an encyclopedia salesman, approached the grounds on which a homeowner's house was situated, he saw a sign that said, «No salesmen. Trespassers will be prosecuted. Proceed at your own risk.» Although the seller had not been invited to enter, he ignored the sign and drove up the driveway toward the house. As he rounded a curve, a powerful explosive charge buried in the driveway exploded, and the seller was injured.
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
Regarding the intent element, a battery claim requires only the general intent that the actor knew with substantial certainty that the consequences of his actions would likely result: harmful or offensive contact.
As to the causation element, it is sufficient if the defendant sets in motion the force that brings about the harmful contact, and it is not necessary that the defendant touch the plaintiff with his own body.
A is correct. This question requires a close reading of the elements of the tort of battery. This is the best answer because it satisfies both the action and causation elements. The homeowner must have been responsible for performing the act that brought about the harm, and can still be liable for an indirect action if he set in motion the force that brought about the harmful conduct against the plaintiff. The homeowner will thus be liable if he placed the explosives under the driveway, indirectly causing the harm.
B is incorrect. While this choice may be tempting, it is incorrect for several reasons. Although «intent to cause harmful or offensive contact» is an element of battery, this intent element is not synonymous with an intention to cause harm. For battery, the actor must intend to bring about the harmful or offensive contact. «Contact» is the key word. The actor does not need to intend that harm occurs, which would be a much higher standard. This is also not the best answer because even if it applied the appropriate standard for intent, the seller still would need to prove causation, which is not addressed by this choice. Finally, the reasoning that «the homeowner, when he planted the charge, intended to harm a possible intruder» implies motive, which is not required under battery. Motive is distinguishable from intent in that it impels a person to act to achieve a result. Intent denotes a purpose to use a particular means to effect that result. Motive is not relevant for establishing the prima facie case.
C is incorrect. Only the degree of force necessary to prevent the threatened harm may be used in defense. Deadly forced may not be used unless the defendant himself is in danger of death or serious bodily harm. Here, the homeowner may never use deadly force, such as explosives, to keep trespassers from entering his property. The salesman's status as a trespasser is not relevant and not a defense here.
D is incorrect. Nothing in the fact pattern suggests that the homeowner or his family is in danger. The homeowner would have had a limited privilege to use direct force, equal to the threat against him if there was a threat to his own personal safety. Such facts would change the situation from the defense of property to a self-defense analysis. However, the facts do not place the homeowner in any type of jeopardy at all.