1. Someone develops a hatred for you. Over the course of a few weeks, he slashes your tires, kills your dog, and sets fire to your tool shed. Before each act, he calls you on the phone and torments you by telling you what he plans to do. After setting fire to the tool shed, he calls and says that everything up to now has been child's play. "I'm going to get serious now. I'm going to kill you in the next few months." The man keeps up these tormenting calls until you're a wreck with fear, although he never does actually attack you. Which of the following statements is correct?

A. You have a case for alienation of affections, at least in some jurisdictions.

B. The calls were slanderous, so you have a case for defamation.

C. You don't have case for intentional infliction of emotional distress, because nothing

the man did was particularly outrageous or extreme, a required element.

D. You have a case for intentional infliction of emotional distress

2. You hire Frank to make deliveries for your office supply business. Frank has a history of driving while intoxicated. However, he didn't reveal his driving history to you when applying for the job. Thus, you had no way of knowing that he was dangerous on the roads. After a week in your employment, he drunkenly crashes the company van into a legally parked car while making his deliveries. Which of the following statements is correct?

A. You were reasonably careful in hiring Frank and had no reason to suspect the danger he posed. Because you weren't negligent, you can't be held liable for Frank's negligence.

B. You can be held liable for Frank's negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

C. You can be held liable for Frank's actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior or vicarious liability.

D. Because Frank had the accident while acting as an employee, only you as his employer-not Frank personally-can be held liable for negligence.

3. In the preceding question, imagine that the plaintiff's car, which Frank struck, was illegally parked. It was sticking out too far into the street, and the parking meter had expired. If Frank hadn't been drunk, he probably could have avoided hitting the car. However, the careless way the car was parked did help cause the accident. Which of the following statements is correct?

A. Frank could raise the defense of comparative negligence depending on the jurisdiction. In most states, the effect of this defense would simply be to lessen the award to the owner of the parked car by the percentage he was responsible for the accident.

B. The defense of assumption of risk is Frank's best bet.

C. Frank could raise the defense of the plaintiff's negligence. In most states, if the plaintiff's negligence was partly to blame for the injury, the plaintiff can't recover anything.

D. By failing to put money in the parking meter, the plaintiff violated a statute and is liable under the doctrine of negligence per se.

4. You're assaulted by a U.S. tax collector. Can you sue the federal government?

A. No, because of the doctrine of official immunity.

B. Yes. Whether you win or not will depend on the evidence for negligence.

C. No, because the Federal Tort Claims Act exempts the U.S. government from liability for most unintentional torts.

D. No, because the Federal Tort Claims Act exempts the U.S. government from liability for most intentional torts.