Back to Course Page 


Student No. ____                                                         Torts II 1996 Answer Key


                                                      Question #1


___ 5 Cat & Kid v. Ace  professional malpractice (RIL, common knowledge)

___ 5 invest advisor prof.? (MBA degree, CPA exam, prof ass'n, spec. skill) Kerkman

___ 5 D, B, C, D

___ 5 std of care for prof. invest advisor (national std., specialty? Vergara Hall)

___ 5 failure to disclose risks given clientsí objectives Arato

___ 5 Cat: advisor shouldn't "borrow" from client for get rich quick scheme

___ 5 Kid: "shady lending co." is unreasonably risky

___ 5 informed consent (is "full discretionary authority" blanket consent?  Wooley  Harnish

___ 5 damages (Cat: loss $500K, fear of future harm re med exp; Kid: craziness)


___ 5 Cat & Kid v. Ace straight negl. investment advice/investing

___ 5 special (fiduciary) relationship DeLong higher duty for infirm, like child Fazzolari

___ 5 affirmative bad action worsened their positions when they relied on Ace's expertise Florence


___ 5 Cat & Kid v. Ace/E&Y  contort

___ 5 K = "sensible invest" + client's objective (Cat: "secure, stable invest"; Kid: "best return")

___ 5 Cat: phys safety (kidneys) involved? Mobil  did Ace know?

___ 5 Kid: "shady lending co." is not "best possible return" v.  no damages (hasnít lost a dime)

___ 5 more than a mere buy-sell agreement  SW Bell   fiduciary, so reliance expected

___ 5 Ace defends: terms of K financial only, no tort claim Coyle (not scope of risks covered)


___ 5 Cat & Kid v. Ace  fraud intentional misrep

___ 10 misrep intent (sensible invest), reliance (discretionary authority), justified (CPA at Big 7), used for pers gain, was misrep (thinking goals furthered) substantial factor? Derry TRW

___ 5 A defends: his discretionary invest decisions made after C & K invested, w/no intent to defraud

___ 5 A defends: he wanted Cat & Kid to profit too

___ 5 misrep through concealment, nondisclosure of deviation from agreement Ollerman

___ 5 Cat & Kid v. Ace/E&Y  negligent misrepresentation

___ 5 profession, but supply false info for guidance

___ 5 Cat & Kid v. Ace  strict liability fraud

___ 5 fiduciary relationship & sales or exchange transaction? v. service

___ 5 Cat & Kid v. Ace  NIED (emotional injury, phys consequences)

___ 5 no impact for Kid or Cat v. Molien no phys inj required v. majority view

___ 10 Cat no phys conseq yet ("struggling to pay her portion" and transplant possib unknown),             so only fear of future harm; Kid (breaking out in sweats)

___ 10 Kid: preexisting mental instab Miley v. Rest. no liab. for  sensitivity unless known; Ace      prior knowledge of instab. but no prior incidents of peculiarities re money or guns

___ 5 Cat & Kid? v. Perry/E & Y negl supervision (Ace told P before scheme; "Be careful.         

Don't do anything illegal"  = foreseeable $ loss)

___ 10 Tarasoff duty to warn spec identifiable victim(s) (Cat or 100 clients) Thompson

___ 5 duty to control Ace  Rosales

___ 5 special (fiduciary and $) relationship with firm Farwell

___ 5 Perry/E&Y defend: nonfeasance, no risk creation, no prior ev of misfeasance

___ 5 Perry/E&Y defend: analogy to Olsen (like passenger, canít control crim. activity)  

___ 5 Cat & Kid v. P/E&Y  respondeat superior  vicarious liab

___ 5 within scope of emp when investing clients' $ (Perry aware, E&Y profits, during work hrs)

___ 5 Ds argue: IC, since lots of control Leaf River v. ee of E&Y w/a supervisor v. Becker

___ 5 Ds argue: Ace on a profit frolic v. Obst trend toward V/L, Faul dual purpose doctrine

___ 5 activity criminal embezzlement Lyons (emp. provided opportunity)

___ 5 Zack Terry v. Kid battery, assault, IIED, etc.

___ 5 Zack Terry v. Ace  negl. creation of a risk (monster)

___ 5 Tarasoff duty; DiMarco created a disease that spread

___ 5 foreseeability problematic (no physical violence priors)

___ 5 Zack Terry v. E & Y duty to protect via 3rd persons Nallan but no prior crimes ev

___ 5 E&Y defends: Parish employer in as much or more danger, no breach of duty

___ 5 Zack Terry wrongful death suit (not by Fe) (if assume homicide) prob. not stat. ben.

___ 5 Fe v. Kid NIED

___ 5 Fe v. Ace NIED (3 weeks later, foreseeable?)

___ 5 Dillon bystander (fiance of 7 years, present immed. after, emot.)

___ 5 Ace defends: Thing (not present or familial relationship)

___ 10 Fe v. Ace & Kid loss of consortium, derivative, Boucher not family, fiances

            marrying the next day not enough Butcher

___ 5 Cat & Kid v. Gil prof negl. misfiling complaint

___ 10  duty bases: no spec rel DeLong (took complaint from others Kircher), no reliance, began aff. act Newton  DeShaney

___ 5 Riss no liab for nonperformance of public duty

___ 10 immunity: resource allocation discretionary Lockett v. filing not discret but operational

___ 5 mere mistake v. considered policy judgment Dube Harry Stoller

___ 5 organization

___ 10 innovative arguments/thorough analysis





Question #2


___ 5 Howard v. Victor libel (book pub, defam content, falsity, identified Howard)

___ 5 defamatory (harmful to reputation as expert; loss of esteem)

___ 5 falsity? was it a misquote? was it a rational interpretation Masson


___ 10 damages NYT private person/private or public concern or  ltd purpose public figure             (voluntarily in public eye re Satanic abuse, defam relates to controversy of public import)

___ 5 malice? recklesss because no interview v. futility


___ 5 Victor defends: neutral reporting, newsworthy (question whether accurate; not intended to             be neutral), no interview, privileges lost if malice

___ 5 Victor defends: fair comment (but didnít check facts)

___ 5 fact or opinion? Moldea (intended as propaganda, not objective journalism)


___ 5 provable damages? presumed libel


___ 5 Howard v. Van Court libel

___ 5 editorial control and chain of publication v. no knowledge or RTK of defamatory content

___ 5 disseminator (reas. belief that Victor privileged)


___ 5 Howard v. Victor & Van Court false light

___ 5 elements ("witch hunt" = false light before public, off to RP)

___ 5 lack of interview and possible misquote = reckless

___ 5 defense: truth or reasonable interpretation

___ 5 newsworthiness not a defense


___ 5 innovative arguments/thorough analysis





Admissions  Students  Academics  Faculty and Staff  Law Library  Continuing Education  Career Services  Alumni

UMKC School of Law
5100 Rockhill Road, Kansas City, Missouri 64110 
Phone: 816-235-1644 Email:  

©  2002 UMKC Law School DMCA

Law School Catalog
Our Mission, Vision & Values
Page Updated: 12/29/2003

Web Comments: R. Leutzinger