Question 1

Negligence per se is a defense in a negligence case.

Accepted Answer

Negligence per se is not a defense; it is a doctrine that establishes a breach of duty based on the violation of a statute or regulation.

Question 2

Ray is informed that his six-year-old child is shooting in the street with a handgun. Ray fails to take the gun away from the child. The child unintentionally shoots Bill, a pedestrian. Ray is liable to Bill.

Accepted Answer

Ray is liable because he failed to act reasonably by not taking the gun away from the child, which resulted in harm to Bill. This is a case of negligence.

Question 3

In determining a defendant's liability for negligence, his or her superior skill or knowledge will be attributed in applying the reasonable person standard, thus increasing the chance that the defendant may be held liable.

Accepted Answer

A defendant with superior skill or knowledge is held to a higher standard of care, as the reasonable person standard is adjusted to reflect what a reasonable person with similar skills or knowledge would do in the same situation.

Question 4

A widely applied test for causation in fact is the "but for" rule.

Accepted Answer

The "but for" rule is a common test used in tort law to determine causation in fact, assessing whether the harm would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct.

Question 5

There is an established rule in the law of torts that even one who has not created a peril has a duty to take affirmative action to assist an imperiled person, no matter what the relationship with that person, when the imperiled person can be saved from harm at little or no personal risk to the rescuer.

Accepted Answer

In tort law, there is generally no duty to rescue or assist someone in peril unless there is a special relationship between the parties or the rescuer has created the peril.

Question 6

If a defendant acts under emergency conditions, these conditions will be taken into account in applying the reasonable person standard.

Accepted Answer

Emergency conditions can affect what is considered reasonable behavior, and courts may consider these conditions when evaluating a defendant's actions against the reasonable person standard.

Question 7

A tiger gets loose from the tent of a circus and mauls a passerby. The circus claims it has always treated the animal well and that it was not at all negligent in its handling of the animal. The circus has no liability for the injury caused by the animal.

Accepted Answer

In many jurisdictions, circuses are held strictly liable for injuries caused by wild animals like tigers, regardless of how well they were treated or handled, due to the inherently dangerous nature of such animals.

Question 8

Even though contributory negligence is proven by a defendant in a state in which it acts as a complete bar to recovery, the plaintiff may still recover if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the injury.

Accepted Answer

In jurisdictions where contributory negligence is a complete bar to recovery, the doctrine of "last clear chance" allows a plaintiff to recover if the defendant had the final opportunity to prevent the harm but failed to do so.

Question 9

The plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligent conduct proximately caused harm to a legally protected interest in order to have a valid negligence action.

Accepted Answer

In a negligence action, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of harm to a legally protected interest, which is a key element in proving negligence.

Question 10

By law, bystanders are always required to help others in peril.

Accepted Answer

In many places, there is no legal obligation for bystanders to assist others in peril, although some jurisdictions have "Good Samaritan" laws that encourage or require assistance.

Question 11

Robert, a salesperson for Brightway Home Products, made a sales call at the Todds' house. The Todds have no duty of care toward Robert regarding the condition of their property since Robert was not an invitee or a licensee.

Accepted Answer

The Todds have a duty of care towards Robert as he is considered a business invitee, which requires them to ensure their property is reasonably safe for him.

Question 12

Express voluntary assumption of the risk is a defense to an action based upon strict liability.

Accepted Answer

Express voluntary assumption of the risk is a defense in strict liability cases because it shows that the plaintiff knowingly and willingly accepted the risk associated with the defendant's conduct or product.

Question 13

If an intervening cause is deemed to be a superseding cause, it does not relieve the defendant of liability for that harm.

Accepted Answer

A superseding cause is an unforeseeable intervening event that breaks the chain of causation, relieving the defendant of liability for the harm caused.

Question 14

Under the Second Restatement, a licensee for purposes of tort law is a person invited upon land as a member of the public or for a business purpose.

Accepted Answer

The Second Restatement defines a licensee as someone who is on the land with the possessor's consent but not for a business purpose or as a member of the public, which describes an invitee.

Question 15

If a person's 150-pound sheep dog has a propensity to jump enthusiastically on visitors, the animal's keeper would be liable for any damages done by the dog's playfulness.

Accepted Answer

In many jurisdictions, pet owners are responsible for injuries or damages caused by their pets, even if the animal's actions were playful rather than aggressive.

Question 16

In the majority of states, a defendant is liable for negligently inflicted emotional distress, even in the absence of resultant physical harm.

Accepted Answer

In most states, a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress typically requires some form of physical harm or impact, although some states have exceptions or allow claims under specific circumstances.

Question 17

Under the Second Restatement, a possessor of land has a legal duty to warn business invitees of obvious dangers that invitees should be able to discover themselves.

Accepted Answer

Under the Second Restatement, a possessor of land generally does not have a duty to warn business invitees of obvious dangers that they should be able to discover themselves.

Question 18

Res ipsa loquitur makes it easier for the defendant to prevail in a negligence action.

Accepted Answer

Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine that helps the plaintiff by allowing the presumption of negligence when the cause of an injury is not directly known but is within the control of the defendant.

Question 19

Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself" and it permits the jury to infer negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain types of events.

Accepted Answer

Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine that allows negligence to be inferred when an accident occurs under circumstances that typically would not happen without negligence, and the instrumentality causing the injury was under the defendant's control.

Question 20

The duty of employers includes the duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring, training, supervising, and retaining employees. This duty is independent of the vicarious liability of an employer for an employee's tortious conduct during the course of employment.

Accepted Answer

Employers have a direct duty to ensure they hire, train, supervise, and retain employees responsibly, which is separate from their vicarious liability for employees' actions during employment.

Quiz 8: Negligence and Strict Liability