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.
51. If the driver were to sue the father, which cause of action would give her the best chance of recovery?
The father got out of his car and strode toward the open door of the bus, screaming at the driver: «You messed with the wrong family! I am going to get you!» Feeling threatened, the bus driver quickly closed the door. The father pounded on the door with enough force to dent it, screaming obscenities at the driver, until a school security guard intervened.
The following Monday morning, after the bus driver had let the children off the bus in front of the school, but before she could close the door and drive away, the student's father pulled his car directly in front of her bus, blocking the driver's path. Because there was another bus right behind hers, the driver was unable to move her bus.
A school bus driver reported to a middle school principal that a student had harassed other children on the bus. The principal informed the student's parents of the bus driver's report and told them that, because of the student's behavior, the student could not ride the bus for the next week and would have to be driven to school by a parent.
This is a last question in category
« Go to questions from category Intentional TortsComments (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
B is incorrect. There was no battery because the father never touched the driver. Even under the «extended personality» doctrine—which allows a battery plaintiff to establish the necessary contact element if the defendant touches an object closely connected to the plaintiff's person—making contact with the bus is almost certain not to count as making contact with the driver's person.
C is incorrect. Establishing the elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim requires showing both that the defendant intended to cause severe distress and that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous. These elements will be harder for the driver to establish than the elements of an assault claim.
D is incorrect. Trespass to chattels requires an intentional interference with the plaintiff's chattel in a way that causes recognizable harm to the chattel. The driver is not likely to be considered to have a possessory interest in the damaged bus, and therefore trespass to chattels would be difficult to prove and less likely to result in recovery than a claim based on assault.