Question 1

A(n) __________ is a sudden, unexpected event calling for immediate action, that is considered when determining whether conduct was reasonable in a negligence lawsuit.
A) res ipsa loquitur .
B) duty to act.
C) emergency.
D) unintentional tort.

Accepted Answer

An emergency is a sudden, unexpected event calling for immediate action. In a negligence lawsuit, the existence of an emergency may be considered when determining whether a person's conduct was reasonable under the circumstances. Res ipsa loquitur refers to a presumption of negligence based on the type of injury or harm caused, duty to act refers to the legal obligation to take action to prevent harm, and unintentional tort refers to harm caused by an unintended act or omission. While all of these concepts may be relevant in a negligence lawsuit, an emergency specifically relates to the sudden and unexpected nature of the situation.

Question 2

Violation of a statute designed to protect underage, unlicensed drivers, as well as innocent third parties, from the consequences of juvenile car theft and "joy riding," by prohibiting car owners from leaving the keys in their car if the car is unattended, is likely to be characterized as:
A) negligence per se.
B) res ipsa loquitur.
C) contributory negligence.
D) assumption of risk.

Accepted Answer

Violating a statute designed to protect a specific group of people (in this case, underage, unlicensed drivers and innocent third parties) is likely to be characterized as negligence per se. This means that the defendant breached their duty of care by violating a statute and that the violation caused the plaintiff's injuries.

Question 3

Defenses to an action in strict liability include:
A) contributory negligence only.
B) contributory negligence and comparative negligence.
C) comparative negligence only.
D) express voluntary assumption of risk and in some states comparative negligence.

Accepted Answer

Defenses to an action in strict liability include express voluntary assumption of risk and in some states comparative negligence. Contributory negligence is not a defense to strict liability as it is a defense to negligence.

Question 4

The rule which permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain events is:
A) proximate cause.
B) res ipsa loquitur .
C) causation in fact.
D) comparative negligence.

Accepted Answer

The rule which permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain events is called res ipsa loquitur. This rule applies where the incident causing injury is one which ordinarily does not happen in the absence of negligence, and where the defendant has exclusive control over the instrumentality causing the injury.

Question 5

Which of the following is/are considered in determining the application of the reasonable person standard?
A) Physical disability.
B) Superior skill or knowledge.
C) Emergency circumstances.
D) Each of these are considered.

Accepted Answer

The reasonable person standard takes into account physical disabilities, superior skills or knowledge, and emergency circumstances when determining what a reasonable person would do in a given situation.

Question 6

Seventeen-year-old Brice has just received his driver's license.He is driving a little too fast one day and slams into the back of another car, which has just stopped for a stop sign.In most states:
A) since Brice is engaging in an adult activity, he will be held to the same standard as an adult.
B) since Brice is a minor, he will have no responsibility for his torts.
C) Brice's parents are responsible for any torts he commits.
D) the driver of the other car would bear a portion of the liability.

Accepted Answer

In most states, when a minor engages in an adult activity such as driving a car, they are held to the same standard of care as an adult. Therefore, Brice would be responsible for any damages or injuries he caused in the accident. However, depending on the specific circumstances, the driver of the other car may share a portion of the liability. Brice's parents may also be held responsible if they were negligent in entrusting Brice with the car or if they co-signed on his car loan.

Question 7

The harshness of the contributory negligence doctrine has been mitigated by:
A) the last clear chance rule.
B) comparative negligence.
C) assumption of risk.
D) both comparative negligence and the last clear change rule.

Accepted Answer

The harshness of the contributory negligence doctrine, which bars a plaintiff from recovering any damages if they are found to be even slightly at fault, has been mitigated by both the last clear chance rule and comparative negligence. The last clear chance rule allows a plaintiff to recover damages if the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident, while comparative negligence allows for the apportionment of fault between the plaintiff and defendant, enabling the plaintiff to recover a portion of the damages even if they are partially at fault.

Question 8

As a general rule:
A) the defenses available to intentional torts and negligence are interchangeable.
B) if a plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence all the required elements of a negligence action, the plaintiff will automatically recover damages.
C) any defense to an intentional tort is also available in an action for negligence.
D) more defenses are available for intentional torts than are available in negligence cases.

Accepted Answer

The answer of As a general rule:
A) the defenses available...

Question 9

If a statute is found to be applicable to a fact situation, then the courts will hold that an unexcused violation of that statute which causes an injury to another is:
A) strict liability.
B) res ipsa loquitur.
C) negligence per se.
D) assumption of the risk.

Accepted Answer

Negligence per se applies when a statute is violated and that violation causes an injury. The statue establishes a standard of care, and the violation of that standard constitutes negligence. This is different from strict liability, where there is no need to prove negligence or fault, and res ipsa loquitur and assumption of the risk, which are not applicable in this situation.

Question 10

Stan doesn't like having neighborhood teenagers walk across his yard at night.He rigs an animal trap on the path the teenagers usually use to cross his land.One night, Tim and his friends are walking across the yard when Tim gets caught in the trap.He is taken to the hospital for his injuries.Stan:
A) has the right to strongly discourage anyone from trespassing, and Tim was a trespasser.
B) has no duty toward Tim.
C) is not free to inflict intentional injury on a trespasser.
D) is liable to Tim only if he had not warned Tim that he was putting a trap there.

Accepted Answer

While Stan has the right to discourage trespassing on his property, he does not have the right to intentionally harm someone who enters his property without permission. Therefore, he is not free to inflict intentional injury on a trespasser. The fact that Tim was a trespasser does not absolve Stan of liability for any harm he intentionally caused.

Question 11

Sarina goes to Marlin's Department Store to look for clothes.The store happens to be in the process of remodeling, and there is a lot of clutter in the aisle.Sarina trips over the clutter and is injured.Under the Second Restatement, Sarina's status with regard to the store is that of:
A) licensee.
B) business visitor.
C) public invitee.
D) trespasser.

Accepted Answer

Sarina is considered a business visitor because she entered the store for the purpose of shopping, which is directly related to the store's business activities. The store has a duty to ensure safe conditions for customers like Sarina.

Question 12

The local supermarket has a large, glass front door which is well lighted and plainly visible.Nelson, who is new in the neighborhood, mistook the glass for an open doorway and walked into it, shattering the door and injuring himself.Under the Second Restatement, the store:
A) is strictly liable to Nelson.
B) is not liable to Nelson since the door was well lighted and plainly visible.
C) would be liable under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
D) has no duty to Nelson.

Accepted Answer

The store is not liable to Nelson since the door was well lighted and plainly visible, indicating that the store took reasonable measures to make the door visible, and the accident was due to Nelson's mistake rather than any negligence on the part of the store.

Question 13

The legal doctrine upon which Justice Cardozo based his decision in the Palsgraf case is the doctrine of:
A) res ipsa loquitur.
B) foreseeability.
C) negligence per se.
D) assumption of the risk.

Accepted Answer

Justice Cardozo based his decision on the principle of foreseeability. He concluded that the railroad company's employees were not liable for Mrs. Palsgraf's injuries because they had no way of foreseeing that their actions would cause harm to her. The legal principle of foreseeability asks whether the harm caused was foreseeable based on the circumstances at the time of the incident, and whether the defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiff. In this case, Cardozo determined that the defendants did not owe a duty of care to Mrs. Palsgraf.

Question 14

Which of the following would not be considered an abnormally dangerous activity, subjecting the person who carries it out to strict liability?
A) Pile driving.
B) Transmitting gas through a gas pipe.
C) Collecting water in a dangerously large quantity.
D) Emitting noxious fumes in a subdivision.

Accepted Answer

Transmitting gas through a gas pipe is not considered an abnormally dangerous activity because it is a common and necessary activity in our modern society. The other choices involve activities that are inherently dangerous or pose a high risk of harm to others, such as the potential for causing property damage or bodily injury.

Question 15

William, who is a waiter, is injured when an unopened bottle of cola explodes in his hand while he is putting it into the restaurant's cooler.If William wants to sue the bottling company for his injuries:
A) he will lose, because it will be impossible for him to prove that the bottle was overpressurized by the bottler.
B) he will lose, because the bottling company has no duty to him.
C) he will probably win if the court allows him to use the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
D) he will win based on the last clear chance rule.

Accepted Answer

The res ipsa loquitur doctrine allows for an inference of negligence when the plaintiff cannot prove how the accident occurred, but it is likely that it was caused by the defendant's negligence. In this case, the unopened bottle exploding could be evidence of a defect in the bottle or overpressurization by the bottling company, making it possible for William to win the case. However, it ultimately depends on the specific facts and evidence presented in court.

Question 16

An action for negligence consists of which of the following elements which the plaintiff must prove?
A) Injury.
B) Res ipsa loquitur .
C) A reasonable person.
D) All of these.

Accepted Answer

The plaintiff must prove injury as one of the essential elements in a negligence claim. Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine that infers negligence from the nature of the accident, and a reasonable person is a standard used to judge conduct, not an element to prove.

Question 17

Cal sprayed pesticide on his crops in a very careful manner on a windless day.Nevertheless, some of the pesticide spray fell on his neighbor's side of the fence and contaminated the cracked corn for the chickens.The chickens died and the neighbor sues.What is the likely result?
A) Cal is not liable because he was not negligent in his spraying operation.
B) Cal is not liable because the neighbor assumed the risk of damage to the feed by placing it so close to the fence.
C) Cal is liable because spraying pesticides is an abnormally dangerous activity.
D) Cal is not liable for the damage because of contributory negligence.

Accepted Answer

Spraying pesticides is considered an abnormally dangerous activity and the law applies strict liability to individuals engaged in such activities. Therefore, Cal would likely be held liable for the damages to his neighbor's chickens, even if he was extremely careful in his spraying operation. The neighbor placing the feed close to the fence or Cal's lack of negligence would not be relevant to determining liability in this case.

Question 18

Pat and Sally started a charcoal fire for Sally's backyard barbecue and left it uncovered.Then Sally went into the kitchen to make hamburger patties.While Sally was inside, Pat backed up to catch a football and hit the grill, knocking the coals onto his feet.In a pure comparative negligence state, who is liable?
A) Sally is liable for ALL of Pat's injuries.
B) Sally is liable for Pat's injuries in proportion to the degree of fault or negligence found against her.
C) Sally is not liable for any of Pat's injuries.
D) Sally is liable for Pat's injuries only if Pat was more negligent than Sally.

Accepted Answer

In a pure comparative negligence state, liability is determined based on the degree of fault or negligence found against each party. In this case, Pat's backing up without checking his surroundings could be deemed partially at fault for the accident, while Sally's decision to leave the grill uncovered could also be deemed partially at fault. As such, liability would be apportioned proportionally based on each party's degree of fault or negligence.

Question 19

A form of strict liability applies to all except which of the following situations?
A) A lawnmower sold in a defective condition that injures its owner.
B) A fireworks factory that blows up and injures townspeople and their property.
C) Abnormally risky medical procedures.
D) A herd of goats that walk onto a neighbor's property and trample and eat the neighbor's roses.

Accepted Answer

Strict liability does not apply to abnormally risky medical procedures, as the law recognizes that there are certain inherent risks involved in medical treatments and procedures that cannot always be avoided. In all other situations listed, strict liability applies, meaning that the responsible party is held liable for any damages or injuries caused by their product, property, or actions, regardless of fault or negligence.

Question 20

In determining the duty of care owed by a defendant using the reasonable person standard, the court will consider which of the following factors?
A) The existence of emergency conditions.
B) A physician's training and years of experience.
C) A person's severe mental retardation.
D) Both the  existence of emergency conditions and also a  physician's training and years of experience.

Accepted Answer

The reasonable person standard in law considers what a typical person would do under similar circumstances, including special skills or knowledge (such as a physician's training) and the presence of emergency conditions. However, it generally does not consider individual characteristics like severe mental retardation, as the standard is objective rather than subjective.

Quiz 8: Negligence and Strict Liabilitypart Iii: Contracts

A(n) __________ is a sudden, unexpected event calling for immediate action, that is considered when determining whether conduct was reasonable in a negligence lawsuit.

Violation of a statute designed to protect underage, unlicensed drivers, as well as innocent third parties, from the consequences of juvenile car theft and "joy riding," by prohibiting car owners from leaving the keys in their car if the car is unattended, is likely to be characterized as:

Defenses to an action in strict liability include:

The rule which permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain events is:

Which of the following is/are considered in determining the application of the reasonable person standard?

Seventeen-year-old Brice has just received his driver's license.He is driving a little too fast one day and slams into the back of another car, which has just stopped for a stop sign.In most states:

The harshness of the contributory negligence doctrine has been mitigated by:

As a general rule:

If a statute is found to be applicable to a fact situation, then the courts will hold that an unexcused violation of that statute which causes an injury to another is:

Stan doesn't like having neighborhood teenagers walk across his yard at night.He rigs an animal trap on the path the teenagers usually use to cross his land.One night, Tim and his friends are walking across the yard when Tim gets caught in the trap.He is taken to the hospital for his injuries.Stan:

Sarina goes to Marlin's Department Store to look for clothes.The store happens to be in the process of remodeling, and there is a lot of clutter in the aisle.Sarina trips over the clutter and is injured.Under the Second Restatement, Sarina's status with regard to the store is that of:

The local supermarket has a large, glass front door which is well lighted and plainly visible.Nelson, who is new in the neighborhood, mistook the glass for an open doorway and walked into it, shattering the door and injuring himself.Under the Second Restatement, the store:

The legal doctrine upon which Justice Cardozo based his decision in the Palsgraf case is the doctrine of:

Which of the following would not be considered an abnormally dangerous activity, subjecting the person who carries it out to strict liability?

William, who is a waiter, is injured when an unopened bottle of cola explodes in his hand while he is putting it into the restaurant's cooler.If William wants to sue the bottling company for his injuries:

An action for negligence consists of which of the following elements which the plaintiff must prove?

Cal sprayed pesticide on his crops in a very careful manner on a windless day.Nevertheless, some of the pesticide spray fell on his neighbor's side of the fence and contaminated the cracked corn for the chickens.The chickens died and the neighbor sues.What is the likely result?

A form of strict liability applies to all except which of the following situations?

In determining the duty of care owed by a defendant using the reasonable person standard, the court will consider which of the following factors?