The \"intent\" in the tort of battery is: a) The intent to physically injure som
ID: 3226142 • Letter: T
Question
The "intent" in the tort of battery is: a) The intent to physically injure someone; b) The intent to emotionally injure someone; c) The intent to physically touch or have contact with someone; d) The intent to commit a criminal act. David is the manager of the Grand Illusions store. He sees Barbara and it looks like Barbara is putting an expensive item in her purse. David detains Barbara and keeps her from leaving the store. When he looks in her purse to find store merchandise, no store merchandise is found. If Barbara sues David and Grand Illusions for false imprisonment: a) Barbara will win because she was prevented from leaving the store and she had not been shoplifting; b) Barbara will win because she had not left the store yet when she was stopped by David; c) Barbara will lose because the store manager had a right to stop her if he reasonably believed she had been shoplifting; d) Barbara will lose because she did not go to jail. The concept of "res ipsa loquitur" means that: a) Negligence is presumed because the type of injury normally does not happen absent negligence; b) Negligence is presumed because the wrongful act violated a law or regulation. c) Negligence did not occur because of a stated exemption to liability. d) An employer is going to be strictly liable for the negligence of its employees.Explanation / Answer
The answers below:
1. The "intent" in the tort of battery is:
a) The intent to Physically injure someone
Its try to hurt someone and it's necesary to prove it for legally proceed
2. David is the manager...
a) Barbara will win because she was prevented from leaving the store and she had not been shoplifting
She was accused for shopliftig, she was stoped for no reason by the manager, she proved that he was wrong, that is why she can win.
3. The concept of "res ipsa loquitur"
a) Negligence is presumed because the type of injury normally does not happen absent negligence.
Means the facts speaks for themselves, that involves some acts like you can accuse someone for negligence but the facts doesn't prove that the accused has the fault.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.