Question 1

Product disparagement differs from defamation of a nonpublic figure in that:

Accepted Answer

Product disparagement requires intent to harm the economic interests of the product, whereas defamation of a nonpublic figure does not require intent.

Question 2

Persons who engage in abnormally dangerous activities such as crop dusting or blasting:

Accepted Answer

Persons who engage in abnormally dangerous activities are held strictly liable for any harm or injuries that result, regardless of whether they were at fault or not. This is because these activities are considered inherently dangerous and have a high risk of causing harm to others, and the person who undertakes the activity should be responsible for the risks and damages associated with it.

Question 3

Cindy was riding her bicycle on a paved bike path and had an accident with another cyclist.Cindy's $1,000 bicycle was destroyed in the accident.If the jury determined that Cindy was 60 percent at fault and the other cyclist 40 percent at fault,under which doctrines would Cindy be entitled to recover $400 from the other cyclist?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Cindy was riding her bicycle on a...

Question 4

Sam,who weighs 250 pounds,calls his 110-pound girlfriend,Alice,one morning while she is at work.He says,"You are to stay in your office until midnight.If you come to my house before midnight,I will make you sorry that you did." Assuming that Alice usually leaves her office at 5 p.m.but stays until midnight that night because of the threat,if Alice files a false imprisonment case against Sam,a court most likely will find which of the following?

Accepted Answer

False imprisonment occurs when one person intentionally restricts the freedom of movement of another person without justification or consent. In this case, Sam's threat of future harm if Alice left her office before midnight could be considered a form of intentional restriction of her freedom of movement. However, Alice had the option to leave the office and stay away from Sam's house, which means that she was not completely deprived of her freedom. Therefore, the court is likely to find that there was no false imprisonment in this case. The fact that Sam and Alice knew each other before the incident is irrelevant to the analysis.

Question 5

Which of the following is true about comparative negligence and contributory negligence?

Accepted Answer

Comparative negligence and contributory negligence are two different legal doctrines that address situations where both the plaintiff and defendant may have contributed to the plaintiff's injury. Contributory negligence is a harsher doctrine that bars the plaintiff from recovering any damages if they were at all responsible for their own injury, even if the defendant was also negligent. Comparative negligence, on the other hand, allows the plaintiff to recover damages proportional to the degree of fault assigned to each party. Therefore, the statement that "comparative negligence allows the plaintiff to make a partial recovery whereas contributory negligence does not" is true.

Question 6

Sam had just finished a great day of skiing as he walked toward the parking lot with his skis over his shoulders.While waiting to cross at a crosswalk,a car's horn honks down the street.He suddenly turns to see where the sound came from,and in doing so his skis swing around and hit Pam in the head,injuring her.Which of the following,if true,would give Sam the best chance of avoiding liability to Pam?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Sam had just finished a great day...

Question 7

A driver stopped at a convenience store to run inside briefly.The driver left the engine running and forgot to set the parking brake.The car suddenly started rolling toward two small children,and Vicki,a bystander,pulled the two children out of the way of the rolling car.Vicki is injured in the process.Can Vicki recover from the driver of the car?

Accepted Answer

The driver set up the dangerous situation by leaving the engine running and not setting the parking brake, which led to the car rolling towards the children. This negligence on the driver's part makes them liable for any resulting injuries, including Vicki's. The Good Samaritan rule and assumption of the risk do not apply in this scenario, and an intervening event did not prevent the driver's negligence from causing the harm.

Question 8

A plaintiff wants to sue on a negligence tort,but knows that he was partly as fault.Which of the following is true?

Accepted Answer

Under pure comparative negligence, the plaintiff can recover damages minus their percentage of fault, even if they are 5% at fault. Under partial comparative negligence, recovery is allowed only if the plaintiff's fault is below a certain threshold, but if it's only 5%, recovery would still be allowed.

Question 9

The proximate cause requirement for a negligence tort is most likely not met where:

Accepted Answer

The answer of The proximate cause requirement for a negligence...

Question 10

In the Palsgraf case,foreseeability was an issue.The question addressed by the court was:

Accepted Answer

The court focused on the foreseeability of harm to Ms. Palsgraf by the actions of the railroad employee. The question was whether the employee could have reasonably foreseen that assisting the passenger onto the train could lead to injury to bystanders like Ms. Palsgraf. The other choices are not directly relevant to the central issue of the case.

Question 11

Sandy lives on the top floor of a 10-story building in a big city.There is a 30-story apartment building under construction next door to her building.One morning while eating her corn flakes,a brand new toilet comes crashing through the roof of Sandy's apartment and injures her.She would like to sue the construction firm,but has no way of finding out or proving what persons were involved or exactly what happened.The doctrine that would most help Sandy is:

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows a plaintiff to infer negligence on the part of the defendant based on the circumstances of the accident. In this case, a toilet falling through the roof of a nearby building under construction would suggest negligence on the part of the construction firm. This doctrine would help Sandy establish liability even without specific evidence of who was responsible for the accident.

Question 12

A reporter appears on television and reports that a collegiate athlete is currently using steroids.The reporter has a sincere belief that the information is true.Subsequently,it is determined that the information is false and inaccurate.If the athlete files a lawsuit,most courts would find which of the following?

Accepted Answer

The answer of A reporter appears on television and reports...

Question 13

Which of the following is true about the case against McDonald's for serving very hot coffee?

Accepted Answer

The case against McDonald's for serving very hot coffee resulted in a jury awarding a large sum of money to the plaintiff. However, before the trial, McDonald's had turned down a pretrial offer of settlement which was much lower than the amount awarded by the jury. Therefore, choice C is the correct answer. A is incorrect because the plaintiff was not driving her car at the time of the incident, she was a passenger. B is also incorrect because it was found that McDonald's coffee was in fact much hotter than that served by its competitors. D is incorrect because McDonald's initially refused to pay the amount awarded by the jury and the case was eventually settled outside of court for an undisclosed amount.

Question 14

Burger Prince is one of the largest hamburger chains in the nation,and fiercely competitive with the well-known chain of Captain Hook Seafood House restaurants.Captain Hook has recently introduced a new line of hamburgers in order to expand beyond seafood.Burger Prince received information that it believed was reliable indicating that the Captain Hook's burgers contained substantial amounts of filler.Burger Prince then ran advertisements saying that its pure beef burgers were better than the Captain Hook's burgers that used filler.Which of the following is true?

Accepted Answer

Captain Hook's burgers are not being disparaged because the statement about the use of filler is true.

Question 15

If a plaintiff voluntarily enters into or participates in a risky activity that results in injury,what is the most likely defense that he or she may use in response to a defendant's claim that the plaintiff assumed the risk?

Accepted Answer

The answer of If a plaintiff voluntarily enters into or...

Question 16

Mary,a 68-year-old widow,hired an electrician to make some wiring repairs to her home.The electrician accidentally started a fire that destroyed her house.Mary was not injured,but watched her house burn along with all her possessions.It was emotionally devastating to watch as she lost a whole life's worth of memories.Can she recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress?

Accepted Answer

In order for Mary to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, she would need to meet all three elements: (1) the defendant's conduct was negligent, (2) the plaintiff suffered serious emotional distress, and (3) the negligent conduct caused the emotional distress. While Mary did suffer genuine emotional distress as a result of the fire, the electrician's conduct may not necessarily be considered negligent. Accidents and mistakes can happen, and it would need to be proven that the electrician's conduct was below a reasonable standard of care for Mary to have a case for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Furthermore, assuming the risk generally applies to physical injuries rather than emotional distress in this context, so choice (D) is not applicable.

Question 17

Jeff was in a department store standing near a clothing rack.Store security felt that he was acting suspiciously because he was standing close to the clothing rack and looking around.Soon after,store security notices that he quickly attempts to leave the store.Does store security have a right to stop and search Jeff according to these facts?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Jeff was in a department store standing...

Question 18

The legal effect of the presence of a superseding event is that:

Accepted Answer

A superseding event is an unforeseeable intervening event that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's harm. In such cases, the defendant is usually not held liable, even if the plaintiff has proved all the elements of negligence. This is because the superseding event is seen as the sole cause of the plaintiff's harm. Therefore, choice A is the correct answer.

Question 19

While Jack is attending a baseball game cheering for the home team,a fan of the other team sneaks up behind him and hits Jack on the head with a hard piece of pizza crust,injuring Jack.Jack has no idea he is about to be hit and is severely embarrassed when his friends see that he was injured by a pizza crust.Which of the following torts has the fan committed?

Accepted Answer

The fan has committed battery, which is the intentional and harmful or offensive touching of another person without consent. The fact that Jack was hit with a hard piece of pizza crust means that the touch was both intentional and potentially harmful. There is no assault in this scenario because Jack had no idea he was about to be hit, so there was no actual or threatened fear of harm. There is also no negligent infliction of emotional distress because Jack's embarrassment does not rise to the level of severe emotional distress required for this tort.

Question 20

Which best describes assumption of the risk in a negligence case?

Accepted Answer

Assumption of the risk is a legal defense where the plaintiff knowingly and willingly chose to subject themselves to a risk or danger. By doing so, they essentially waive their right to sue the defendant for any harm or injury that may occur as a result, even if all the elements of negligence are present.

Quiz 5: Intentional Torts and Negligence