Torts Hypothetical

Ira Innocent is a professional athlete, married with two young children. He received
serious injuries, including multiple fractures and a concussion, when Daniel Dozer, the
driver of the car in which Ira was a passenger, fell asleep at the wheel. The vehicle
veered of the roadway, crashed through the barrier along the side of the road, careened
down a non-traversable embankment and crashed in a V-shaped ditch at the bottom.

Sarah Samaritan saw the car as it crashed. She ran to the scene and successfully
pulled Ira from the car. Just then, the car’s gasoline tank ignited enveloping the car in
flames. Despite the flames, Sarah attempted to extricate the driver, but was
unsuccessful. Daniel Dozer died in the car. Sarah suffered serious burns and, after
three months in the hospital’s intensive burn unit, died of her injuries. Sarah was the
single mother of three; she worked as a freelance photographer.

Ira and Sarah were transported to the hospital in separate ambulances. En route to the
hospital, Penny Puffer, a medical technician, who had been working for fifteen hour
straight, felt a craving for cigarette. As she puffed on the cigarette, an ash fell on to Ira’s
sleeve and immediately ignited due to the fact that oxygen was being administered to
him. Ira suffered third degree burns on his arm.

The evidence at trial established that Daniel Dozer had been working eighteen hours
days at his law firm for the week prior to the accident. He had consumed three glasses
of wine shortly before getting behind the wheel, which put him over the statutory alcohol
blood level limit. Ira Innocent did not know that Daniel had been drinking Ira’s injuries
(both the fractures and the burns) have prevented him from returning to professional
sports.

Evaluate the claims suggested by these facts. Be certain to separate out the claims,
identify the parties, and specify the type(s) of damages recoverable in each claim and
who is responsible for those damages.
Essay writing checklist:
1. Allocate your Time

1. Have your watch somewhere in plain view

2. Set up a timetable on your scrap paper
1. Use the point allocations provided by your professor to set the time
2. If no allocations are provided, use your judgment based on the number of
questions, length of questions, and time given for the exam.
2. Read the Question

1. Begin by reading the interrogatory at the end of the question.

2. If you’re asked to evaluate court rulings, locate these rulings in the fact pattern.
3. Read the fact pattern “actively”
1. Identify the area of law and the legal relationship between the parties.
2. Circle amounts of money, dates, locations, quantities, and ages.
3. Note the words “oral” and “written.”
4. Be perfectly clear about who is doing what to whom.
3. Outline your Answer

1. Identify the issues.

2. Identify the rule for each issue.
3. Compile the building blocks for the rule of law by considering,
1. elements
2. definitions
3. exceptions to the general rule
4. distinctions
4. Follow a hierarchy of concepts by,
1. moving from the general to the specific
2. defining each legal term of art

4. Write the Essay

1. Begin your statement of the issue with, ​“The issue is whether”​? and include the
word ​“when”​ to ensure that you include the relevant facts.
2. Commence your statement of the rule with, ​“Under the​ [state the controlling law:
common law, federal rule, state-specific statute, etc.]
3. Use ​“Here”​ or ​“In this case”​ to introduce your application.
4. Use ​“because”​ to make the connection between rule and fact.
5. Match up a “fact” with each “element” or “definition” in your rule and explain its
significance.
6. Answer the question you were asked.
 “Popeye sets sail” torts hypothetical
Global Oil ships oil in tankers. The tankers sail from Alaska to California. Two years
ago, Global hired Popeye as captain of one of its tankers, the Pequod. Global did not
subject Popeye to any medical examination before hiring him, or at any time during the
period of his employment.

Last year, Popeye consumed a large quantity of alcohol at a party aboard the Pequod
during one of its voyages. It was the first time Popeye ever drank, and he became
intoxicated. Popeye then went to the bridge to pilot the ship. He soon struck an iceberg.
The accident damaged the steering mechanism of the ship, making it difficult to handle.
After this incident, Popeye went to his cabin and fell asleep.

Brutus, a lowly seaman with no sailing experience, saw his chance. He tied up Popeye,
and locked him in his cabin. Then Brutus, because of his inexperience and the damage
to the steering mechanism could not control the ship. The ship ran aground, and spilled
its cargo of oil. The oil washed ashore and damaged land belonging to Olive. Brutus
then ran back to Popeye’s cabin, untied him, and left the cabin door unlocked. Several
hours later, Popeye awoke and reported the incident.

An applicable statute states:

“Any company employing an individual as captain of a sailing vessel must periodically

test the individual for drug or alcohol abuse. If such abuse is discovered, the company
must relieve the individual of duty.”

Olive has filed suit against Global, Popeye, and Brutus.

Discuss the causes of action raised by the above situation. DO NOT DISCUSS
VICARIOUS LIABILITY OR INTENTIONAL TORTS TO PROPERTY.
Murder of the Federal Express Man?
It was late in January and George was having a terrible day. Nothing was going right and then Federal Express
was late in making a delivery. George shouted at the delivery man when he finally arrived: “Where have you
been all day. This was supposed to be an AM delivery and now it’s after 3:00 PM and you show up with no
apology and you just drop the box on the floor. Now my Mickey Mantle collector plate is smashed.” George
called Federal Express to complain about the late delivery, the surly delivery person, and the broken plate.
Federal Express offered to pay the damages but George was not satisfied. Instead, he threatened, “I’ll get that
delivery man and teach him a lesson. We’ll see if he likes to have his property destroyed. I’m going to rip
something to shreds!”

The next day at 6:30 p.m., George went looking for the Fed Ex man. He put a scissors in his briefcase. He was
walking the streets of the city when it started to rain heavily. He ducked into the very first open door he could
find which happened to be a fitness center. George walked around for a while, checking out the exercise
equipment and the locker rooms and then he noticed a closed door at the end of the hall. George opened the
door and went up the stairs. It led to an apartment above the gym. It was still raining and George was hungry
so he went into the kitchen and opened the refrigerator. He made himself a peanut butter sandwich, opened a
can of soda, and sat down to read the newspaper. George cut out some coupons from the newspaper and
placed them in his pocket. Finally, it stopped raining. Just as George was about to leave, the Fed Ex man came
through the door. Panicked, George threw his briefcase at him without even looking and ran out the door. The
briefcase hit him in the head and knocked him to the floor. George had not known that he had been in the Fed
Ex man’s apartment. The man died of his injuries. George has been charged with felony murder.

You have been hired to defend George in this common law jurisdiction. What is the likelihood of successfully
reducing the charges to involuntary manslaughter?

Note: This hypothetical can be easily adapted for use in your class. Based on what the professor emphasizes
in class, answer the question based on your state’s statutory law, the Model Penal Code, or the common law
rule.

Murder of the Federal Express Man?

It was late in January and George was having a terrible day. Nothing was going right and then Federal Express
was late in making a delivery. George shouted at the delivery man when he finally arrived: “Where have you
been all day. This was supposed to be an AM delivery and now it’s after 3:00 PM and you show up with no
apology and you just drop the box on the floor. Now my Mickey Mantle collector plate is smashed.” George
called Federal Express to complain about the late delivery, the surly delivery person, and the broken plate.
Federal Express offered to pay the damages but George was not satisfied. Instead, he threatened, “I’ll get that
delivery man and teach him a lesson. We’ll see if he likes to have his property destroyed. I’m going to rip
something to shreds!”

The next day at 6:30 p.m., George went looking for the FedEx man. He put a scissors in his briefcase. He was
walking the streets of the city when it started to rain heavily. He ducked into the very first open door he could
find which happened to be a fitness center. George walked around for a while, checking out the exercise
equipment and the locker rooms and then he noticed a closed door at the end of the hall. George opened the
door and went up the stairs. It led to an apartment above the gym. It was still raining and George was hungry
so he went into the kitchen and opened the refrigerator. He made himself a peanut butter sandwich, opened a
can of soda, and sat down to read the newspaper. George cut out some coupons from the newspaper and
placed them in his pocket. Finally, it stopped raining. Just as George was about to leave, the Fed Ex man came
through the door. Panicked, George threw his briefcase at him without even looking and ran out the door. The
briefcase hit him in the head and knocked him to the floor. George had not known that he had been in the Fed
Ex man’s apartment. The man died of his injuries. George has been charged with felony murder.

You have been hired to defend George in this common law jurisdiction. What is the likelihood of successfully
reducing the charges to involuntary manslaughter?

Note: This hypothetical can be easily adapted for use in your class. Based on what the professor emphasizes
in class, answer the question based on your state’s statutory law, the Model Penal Code, or the common law
rule.