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.
33. In an action on behalf of the child against the farmer to recover for the injury to her nose, is the child likely to prevail?
While the farmer was in the farmhouse installing the alarm system, he heard a window open in the adjoining room. The farmer crept very quietly to the door of the room, threw the door open, and found an intruder, a young child. The farmer immediately struck the child, a 10-year-old girl, very hard in the face, breaking her nose.
A farmer kept antiques in an uninhabited farmhouse on his property. The farmhouse had been broken into several times in the past, and some of the farmer's goods had been stolen. Instead of posting «No Trespassing» signs, the farmer decided to install an alarm system to deter intruders.
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
A is incorrect. The child can state a claim for battery because there was an intentional infliction of a harmful contact. To support a battery action, the contact need not involve force so great as to threaten death.
B is incorrect. The force the farmer used was likely to and did in fact inflict serious bodily harm. Even if the child had been a thief, the privilege to use reasonable force to protect one's property does not extend to the use of force likely to cause serious bodily harm when there is no threat of such harm to oneself. The child appeared to pose no threat of bodily harm to the farmer and could have been deterred by less forceful means.
C is incorrect. The farmer was not required to have posted a warning in order to have had a privilege to protect his property by the use of reasonable force, although the absence of a warning sign may become a factor in determining whether the steps he took were in fact reasonable. In evaluating whether his actions were reasonable as a defense of his property, the court will ask whether the force he used was excessive. The child appeared to pose no threat of bodily harm to the farmer and could have been deterred by less forceful means. Because the force the farmer used was greater than necessary and was intended to cause serious bodily harm, it was excessive as a defense of property.