BUSINESS LAW EXAM
FACT PATTERN #1: Patricia Holguin went to Sally's Beauty Supply Store carrying her "eco-friendly canvas shopping tote," a large bag that is conspicuous when used.
Upon entering the store, there were no posted signs stating that shopping totes were not allowed. She picked up a can of mousse that was not exactly what she wanted and started to carry it in her tote toward the front counter to ask the cashier a question about it.
As she walked toward the front of the store the assistant manager approached her and asked what was in the bag. She was detained by this manager, who told her that once she put the hair mousse in her tote bag, she was shoplifting. Holguin's lawsuit for false imprisonment against the store was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court.
This court held that once she placed the merchandise in her bag, the store had probable cause to believe she was shoplifting and had a statutory conditional privilege to detain her, free from civil liability for false imprisonment, because she "willfully concealed merchandise." Holguin appealed.
Questions 1-2 are multiple choice. Place the letter that corresponds to the correct answer on the line immediately following the question number. Each multiple-choice question is worth one (1) point.
1. _____ False imprisonment is a(n):
a. Intentional tort;
b. Negligence;
c. Strict liability; or
d. Constructive tort.
2. _____ In order to prove false imprisonment, Holguin has the burden to prove:
a. either an intentional or unintentional detention without her consent;
b. intentional detention without her consent;
c. unintentional detention with her consent; or
d. all of the above.
Question 3 is a short answer questions and is worth three (3) points.
3. _____ What is a "shopkeeper's privilege and how could it apply in a civil lawsuit filed by Holguin against Sally's Beauty Supply Store?
Question 4 is an essay question and is worth five (5) points.
4. Based on the facts outlined above, would Holguin win her lawsuit against Sally's Beauty Supply Store? Why or why not? Be sure to provide a critical analysis of the fact pattern discussing all relevant legal issues and defenses. (Minimum 200 words/Times New Roman font). (Five (5) points).
FACT PATTERN #2: The following is a summary of the facts of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad ("LIRR"):
Helen Palsgraf was standing on the platform at the railroad station for the LIRR as she waited for her train to Rockaway Beach. Two men at the other end of the platform where Mrs. Palsgraf was standing ran to catch another train that was already moving.
One man, with the help of a railroad employee who was on the train, made it safely onto the moving train, but the second man, who was carrying a package, fell and dropped the package. The package, full of fireworks, exploded, and the resulting vibrations on the platform caused the scales standing near Mrs. Palsgraf to fall and strike and injure her.
Questions 5 and 6 are multiple choice. Place the letter that corresponds to the correct answer on the line immediately following the question number. Each multiple-choice question is worth one (1) point.
Answer the following questions regarding Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad:
5. _____ Ms. Palsgraf sued the Long Island Railroad for committing which of the following torts:
a. Negligence;
b. Careless immunity;
c. Poor customer service; or
d. Battery.
6. _____ In order to prove negligence, in addition to damages, a plaintiff has the burden to prove which of the following elements:
a. Duty;
b. Proximate cause;
c. Breach of duty;
d. All of the above.
Question 7 is an essay question and is worth five (5) points.
7. What was the final outcome of the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad? Be sure to provide a critical analysis of the decision discussing all relevant legal issues and defenses. (Minimum 200 words/Times New Roman font).
FACT PATTERN #3: An owner abandoned his van in an alley in Chicago. In spite of repeated complaints to the police, the van was allowed to remain in the alley. After several months, it was stripped of most of the parts that could be removed. Jamin Ortiz, age 11, was walking down the alley when the van's gas tank exploded.
The flames from the explosion set fire to Jamin's clothing, and he was severely burned. Jamin and his family brought suit against the city of Chicago to recover damages for his injuries.
Questions 8 is multiple-choice question. Place the letter that corresponds to the correct answer on the line immediately following the question number.
8. _____ What tort(s) have been committed by the city of Chicago, if any, against Jamin?
a. Civil assault;
b. Battery;
c. Negligence; or
d. Assumption of risk.
Questions 9 is a true/false question. Place a "T" on the line immediately following the question number if the answer is true; place an "F" on the line immediately following the question if the answer is false. In addition to indicating whether the question is ture or false, you must also explain your answer in the space provided below.
9. _____ TRUE OR FALSE: The city of Chicago will be found "strictly" liable for Jamin's injuries.
Question 10 is an essay question and is worth five (5) points.
10. Based on the facts outlined above, would Jamin win his lawsuit against the City of Chicago? Why or why not? Be sure to provide a critical analysis of the fact pattern discussing all relevant legal issues and defenses. (Minimum 200 words/Times New Roman font).