Essay Question - Read the following fact pattern and answer the questions below.

Frankie and Sam are golfing friends, and play a lot of golf together. Sometimes they bet money on their golf games. One Sunday, Frankie and Sam decide to go golfing, and instead of betting money, they each decide to bet their cars. Specifically, Frankie, who owns a car dealership and sells used cars, has an old truck on his car lot, and tells Sam that if Sam beats him in the golf game, the truck is his. In return, Sam, who is an unemployed professional surfer, has an old VW bus, and tells Frankie that if Frankie beats him in the golf game, he can have the VW bus. They hold their golf match, and Sam wins! Frankie is a poor loser, and is very mad about this and accuses Sam of cheating. Sam tells Frankie to shut up and go home to get the truck ready for him. Sam tells Frankie he will be over to Frankie's house in 2 hours to pick-up the truck. Frankie goes home, and is still very mad and aggravated. In fact, he is so upset and aggravated about the matter, that before Sam comes over and picks-up the truck, Frankie decides to take out and drain most of the brake fluid from the truck's braking system so eventually the brakes will fail and no longer work. Sam arrives at Frankie's house to pick-up the truck, and they get into a shouting match, and Sam grabs the keys, jumps into the truck and drives off. Frankie does not mention or disclose to Sam anything about the brakes nor does he warn him that he may not want to drive the truck. As a result, Sam drives the truck for about 5 miles, and then the brakes fail, and Sam crashes in the truck and is seriously injured.

Sam wants to sue Frankie for his injuries. Aside from any criminal charges against Frankie, what theories of liability can Sam use to sue Frankie.

For this Question you are to complete the following:

First, identify at least TWO (2) torts or legal theories Sam can use to sue Frankie.

Second, provide the elements of each tort/legal theory you identified.

Third, provide an analysis and explain how each of the elements are satisfied by the facts of the situation. You can add facts if needed to help support your analysis. This part of the question should be similar to the "Analysis" Section of the IRAC system. You do not need to use the full IRAC system - just provide an analysis to show how each of the elements of the legal theories you have identified are met by the facts.