Business Law

Business

Quiz 9 :

Negligence, Strict Liability, and Product Liability

Quiz 9 :

Negligence, Strict Liability, and Product Liability

Question Type
search
arrow
For this question, assume the same facts as in Question 4. Now determine which of the following can be considered a proximate cause of Carl's injuries. (a) Randy (b) Mark (c) Both Randy and Mark (d) None of the above
Free
Multiple Choice
Answer:

Answer:

Proximate cause arises if for the offender to be legally responsible, the kind of damage should have been sensibly predictable.
Therefore, in this case M will be considered for proximate causes because the damage could have been predicted as the can was dropped from the third floor. Also, C was his ex-girlfriend so it could be considered that M had intentionally dropped the can. Therefore, the option B is the right choice.

Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Imagine an undefeated high school football team on which the average lineman weighs 300 pounds. Also, imagine an 0-10 team on which the average lineman weighs 170 pounds. The undefeated team sets out to hit as hard as they can on every play and to run up the score as much as possible. Before the game is over, 11 players from the lesser team have been carried off the field with significant injuries. All injuries were the result of "clean hits"-none of the plays resulted in a penalty. Even late in the game, when the score is 70-0, the undefeated team continues to deliver devastating hits that are far beyond what would be required to tackle and block. The assumption of the risk doctrine exempts the undefeated team from liability. Is this reasonable?
Free
Essay
Answer:

Answer:

"Assumption of risk":
"Assumption of risk" states that an individual finds out the danger related to a situation or activity or action that the individual is involved.
The assumption of risk doctrine applies to the claimant who does not meet assured elements, if the claimant wishes to win situation.
However, the doctrine activities do not apply if someone is injured, in a way that is not an inherent part of dangerous activity.
The football players presume substantial risk each time they take the field, but some injuries fall outside the rule.

Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Zack lives in a state that prohibits factory laborers from working more than 12 hours in any 24-hour period. The state legislature passed the law to cut down on accidents caused by fatigued workers. Ignoring the law, Zack makes his factory employees put in 14-hour days. Eventually, a worker at the end of a long shift makes a mistake and severely injures a coworker. The injured worker sues Zack. Which of the following terms will be most relevant to the case? (a) Res ipsa loquitur (b) Assumption of the risk (c) Negligence per se (d) Strict liability
Free
Multiple Choice
Answer:

Answer:

Negligence per se :
Negligence per se is referred as when a legislature sets a minimum standard of care for activity to protect people, and a violation of the legal injuries a member, the defendant has committed negligence per se.
The state legislative passed a law to cut down labor working hours not more than 12 hours. Z makes his factory employees put in 14-hours. Due to this long shift, a worker makes mistake and injuries to self or others. The injured worker sues Z because he has committed Negligence per se activity. Hence, option
img is correct.
The state legislative passed a law to cut down labor working hours not more than 12 hours. Z makes his factory employees put in 14-hours. Due this long shift a worker makes mistake and injuries to self or others. The injuries worker sues Z because he has not committed Res ipsa loquitur activity. Hence option
img is incorrect.
The state legislative passed a law to cut down labor working hours not more than 12 hours. Z makes his factory employees put in 14-hours days. Due this long shift a worker makes mistake and injuries to self or others. The injuries worker sues Z because he has not committed Assumption of the risk activity. Hence option
img is incorrect.
The state legislative passed a law to cut down labor working hours not more than 12 hours. Z makes his factory employees put in 14-hours days. Due this long shift a worker makes mistake and injuries to self or others. The injuries worker sues Z because he has not committed strict liability activity. Hence option
img is correct.

Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Ryder leased a truck to Florida Food Service; Powers, an employee, drove it to make deliveries. He noticed that the strap used to close the rear door was frayed, and he asked Ryder to fix it. Ryder failed to do so in spite of numerous requests. The strap broke, and Powers replaced it with a nylon rope. Later, when Powers was attempting to close the rear door, the nylon rope broke and he fell, sustaining severe injuries to his neck and back. He sued Ryder. The trial court found that Powers's attachment of the replacement rope was a superseding cause, relieving Ryder of any liability, and granted summary judgment for Ryder. Powers appealed. How should the appellate court rule?
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Should the law hold landowners to different standards of care for trespassers, social guests, and invitees? Or do the few states that say, "Just always be reasonable," have a better rule?
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Assume the same facts as in Question 1, except now Barney lives in a state that follows comparative negligence. Now Barney will recover________. (a) $0 (b) $10,000 (c) $50,000 (d) $90,000 (e) $100,000
Multiple Choice
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Are strict liability rules fair? Someone has to dispose of chemicals. Someone has to use dynamite if road projects are to be completed. Is it fair to say to those companies, "You are responsible for all harm caused by your activities, even if you are as careful as you can possibly be?"
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
At approximately 7:50 p.m, bells at the train station rang and red lights flashed, signaling an express train's approach. David Harris walked onto the tracks, ignoring a yellow line painted on the platform instructing people to stand back. Two men shouted to Harris, warning him to get off the tracks. The train's engineer saw him too late to stop the train, which was traveling at approximately 55 mph. The train struck and killed Harris as it passed through the station. Harris's widow sued the railroad, arguing that the railroad's negligence caused her husband's death. Evaluate her argument.
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Randy works for a vending machine company. One morning, he fills up an empty vending machine that is on the third floor of an office building. Later that day, Mark buys a can of Pepsi from that machine. He takes the full can to a nearby balcony and drops it three floors onto Carl, a coworker who recently started dating Mark's ex-girlfriend. Carl falls unconscious. Which of the following can be considered a factual cause of Carl's injuries? (a) Randy (b) Mark (c) Both Randy and Mark (d) None of the above
Multiple Choice
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Texaco, Inc., and other oil companies sold mineral spirits in bulk to distributors, which then resold to retailers. Mineral spirits are used for cleaning. Texaco allegedly knew that the retailers, such as hardware stores, frequently packaged the mineral spirits (illegally) in used half-gallon milk containers and sold them to consumers, often with no warnings on the packages. Mineral spirits are harmful or fatal if swallowed. David Hunnings, aged 21 months, found a milk container in his home, swallowed the mineral spirits, and died. The Hunnings sued Texaco for negligence. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the Hunnings appealed. What is the legal standard in a negligence case? Have the plaintiffs made out a valid case of negligence? Remember that at this stage, a court is not deciding who wins, but what standard a plaintiff must meet in order to take its case to a jury. Assume that Texaco knew about the repackaging and the grave risk but continued to sell in bulk because doing so was profitable. (If the plaintiffs cannot prove those facts, they will lose even if they do get to a jury.) Would that make you angry? Does that mean such a case should go to a jury? Or would you conclude that the fault still lies with the retailer, the parents, or both?
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
YOU BE THE JUDGE WRITING PROBLEM When Thomas and Susan Tamplin were shopping at Star Lumber with their six-year-old daughter Ann Marie, a 150-pound roll of vinyl flooring fell on the girl, seriously injuring her head and pituitary gland. Ann was clearly entitled to recover for the physical harm, such as her fractured skull. The plaintiffs also sought recovery for potential future harm. Their medical expert was prepared to testify that although Ann would probably develop normally, he could not rule out the slight possibility that her pituitary injury might prevent her from sexually maturing. Is Ann entitled to damages for future harm? Argument for Ann: This was a major trauma, and it is impossible to know the full extent of the future harm. Sexual maturation is a fundamental part of life; if there is a possibility that Ann will not develop normally, she is entitled to present her case to a jury and receive damages. Argument for Star Lumber: A plaintiff may not recover for speculative harm. The "slight possibility" that Ann could fail to develop is not enough for her to take her case to the jury.
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
A new truck, manufactured by General Motors Corp. (GMC), stalled in rush hour traffic on a busy interstate highway because of a defective alternator, which caused a complete failure of the truck's electrical system. The driver stood nearby and waved traffic around his stalled truck. A panel truck approached the GMC truck, and immediately behind the panel truck, Davis was driving a Volkswagen fastback. Because of the panel truck, Davis was unable to see the stalled GMC truck. The panel truck swerved out of the way of the GMC truck, and Davis drove straight into it. The accident killed him. Davis's widow sued GMC. GMC moved for summary judgment, alleging (1) no duty to Davis, (2) no factual causation, and (3) no foreseeable harm. Comment.
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
In the near future, we will rely increasingly on robots in daily life. Honda has predicted that by the year 2020, it will sell as many personal robots as it does cars. It is likely that these robots will be capable of many household tasks, such as folding laundry and tidying rooms. How do these automated beings fit into existing tort law? When a robot malfunctions unforeseeably and causes harm, who should be at fault?
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Two cars, driven by Fred and Barney, collide. At trial, the jury determines that the accident was 90 percent Fred's fault and 10 percent Barney's fault. Barney's losses total $100,000. If he lives in a state that uses contributory negligence, Barney will recover________. (a) $0 (b) $10,000 (c) $50,000 (d) $90,000 (e) $100,000
Multiple Choice
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
Boboli Co. wanted to promote its "California-style" pizza, which it sold in supermarkets. The company contracted with Highland Group, Inc., to produce 2 million recipe brochures, which would be inserted in the carton when the freshly baked pizza was still very hot. Highland contracted with Comark Merchandising to print the brochures. But when Comark asked for details concerning the pizza, the carton, and so forth, Highland refused to supply the information. Comark printed the first lot of 72,000 brochures, which Highland delivered to Boboli. Unfortunately, the hot bread caused the ink to run, and customers opening the carton often found red or blue splotches on their pizzas. Highland refused to accept additional brochures, and Comark sued for breach of contract. Highland defended by claiming that Comark had breached its warranty of merchantability. Please comment.
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
People who serve alcohol to others take a risk. In some circumstances, they can be held legally responsible for the actions of the people they serve. Is this fair? Should an intoxicated person be the only one liable if harm results? If not, in what specific circumstances is it fair to stretch liablility to other people?
Essay
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu
arrow
CPA QUESTION Which of the following factors is least important in determining whether a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort for a defective product? (a) The negligence of the manufacturer (b) The contributory negligence of the plaintiff (c) Modifications to the product by the wholesaler (d) Whether the product caused injuries
Multiple Choice
Answer:
Tags
Choose question tag
close menu