Question 1

You see someone stealing the highly prized hubcaps off your car.You have the right to protect your property by using:
A)deadly force "in case of res judicata"
B)"all force necessary" to subdue the thief
C)force reasonable under the circumstances,which may include killing the thief
D)force reasonable under the circumstances,which would not include shooting the thief
E)force reasonable under the circumstances,which would include shooting the thief if you were concerned that the thief could be armed

Accepted Answer

While you do have the right to protect your property, using deadly force is not justified in this situation since it does not present a threat to your life. Option B may also be excessive force, and Option C is not justifiable as stealing hubcaps does not warrant killing the thief. Option E only applies if there is a legitimate reason to believe the thief is armed, which is unlikely in this scenario. Therefore, using force that is reasonable under the circumstances but does not involve shooting the thief (Option D) is the best choice.

Question 2

An accounting firm was sued for negligently preparing a financial report for a company.It causes losses to occur and the firm was found to have been negligent in its work.This meant that the firm would likely be:
A)not liable for damages since the problem was negligence,not intentional mistakes
B)responsible for losses not to exceed $1 million,the statutory limit on accountant liability in that state
C)not responsible for damages despite negligence,since reliance could not be shown
D)not responsible for damages despite negligence because of a lack of proximate cause
E)none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The accounting firm would likely be held liable for damages due to negligence in preparing the financial report, which caused losses. The options provided either incorrectly limit liability or incorrectly state the principles of negligence law. Negligence does not exempt a party from liability, statutory limits are not universally applicable, reliance is a factor in proving negligence (not a disqualifier), and proximate cause is a key element of negligence that, if proven, does not absolve the negligent party.

Question 3

If an accounting firm is sued for negligently preparing a faulty financial report for a company,it is likely that the accounting firm is:
A)not liable;a reasonable number of mistakes are expected to occur
B)liable if the mistake is one that an ordinary person (any person off the street)would have not made
C)held subject to a special statutory standard of care
D)held to have violated the principles of strict liability
E)none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The answer of If an accounting firm is sued for...

Question 4

Driving down the street you stupidly run a red light and hit a car legally going through a green light.You knock that car into a parked car,which knocks a loaded gun out of the parked car that falls on the street and fires a bullet that hits a person walking on the sidewalk.That person sues you in tort for damages.They will probably:
A)win because you were negligent and caused their injury
B)win because strict liability would apply to your actions
C)win because carrying a loaded gun is dangerous
D)lose because traffic violations may not be the basis for tort actions
E)none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The answer of Driving down the street you stupidly run...

Question 5

A man was injured while riding a mechanical bull owned by an independent contractor at a state fair.He paid to ride the bull and signed a form that he understood the risk of injury.After he was injured,he sued the fair that provided the ride for negligence.You would expect the court held that:
A)the fair was not liable because it did not own the ride;but the owner of the ride could be found liable in strict liability because it knew of the dangers
B)the fair was not liable because it did not own the ride;but the owner of the ride could be found liable in negligence because it knew of the dangers
C)the fair and the owner of the ride could both be liable in negligence
D)the fair was liable in negligence because it had the primary responsibility to its patrons not to provide dangerous amusements in a negligent manner
E)the man assumed the dangers voluntarily so could not sue for the injuries he suffered

Accepted Answer

The man voluntarily assumed the risks associated with riding the mechanical bull, as indicated by his signing a form acknowledging the dangers. This assumption of risk is a common defense in personal injury cases, which can absolve the provider of liability for injuries sustained during known risky activities.

Question 6

Joyce Water,Certified Public Accountant (CPA),is sued for negligent preparation of an income tax return.To determine if she was negligent,the court applies a standard of reasonableness which measures Joyce's conduct against that of:
A)the I.R.S.Commissioner
B)the average person
C)the typical member of Congress
D)a competent C.P.A.
E)all of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The court will measure Joyce's conduct against that of a competent CPA, as she is being sued for negligent preparation of an income tax return within her expertise. The standard of reasonableness is tailored to the specific expertise of the CPA in question.

Question 7

Jemal is playing basketball at a school's outdoor court.Kevin asks if he can join the game.Jemal agrees.After playing for 15 minutes,Kevin is knocked to the ground.His wrist breaks when he hits the concrete.If Kevin sues Jemal for his injury,a court will probably find:
A)Jemal guilty of carelessness
B)Jemal committed a negligence tort
C)Jemal not responsible due to Kevin's assumption of risk
D)Jemal strictly liable for Kevin's harms
E)Jemal's acts where the cause-in-harm of Kevin's injuries

Accepted Answer

By voluntarily playing basketball with Jemal, Kevin assumed the risk of injury. It is commonly understood that the sport can involve physical contact and potential injury. Jemal did not act with any unreasonable negligence or intent to cause harm, therefore he cannot be held liable for Kevin's injury.

Question 8

A man was injured while riding a mechanical bull owned by an independent contractor at a state fair.He paid to ride the bull and signed a form that he understood the risk of injury.After he was injured,he sued the fair that provided the ride for negligence.You would expect the court held that:
A)the fair was not liable because it did not own the ride;but the owner of the ride could be found liable in strict liability because it knew of the dangers
B)the fair was not liable because it did not own the ride;but the owner of the ride could be found liable in negligence because it knew of the dangers
C)the fair and the owner of the ride could both be liable in negligence
D)the fair was liable in negligence because it had the primary responsibility to its patrons not to provide dangerous amusements in a negligent manner
E)none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The answer of A man was injured while riding a...

Question 9

In one case a woman shopping at K-Mart was accused by a security guard,after she walked out of the store,of having put merchandise in her purse.She denied it and opened her purse so he could look in it.He still insisted she took things and told her to come back into the store.Eventually a manager intervened and let her leave.She sued and won $175,000 for false imprisonment.K-Mart appealed.You would expect the court to hold:
A)that no false imprisonment took place because the store had "reasonable suspicion" and released her after a short time
B)that no violation of privacy took place because her person was not touched
C)that a jury could reasonably have found a false imprisonment in this circumstance
D)that jury acted with prejudice against the right of the store to protect its property
E)the jury award ($175,000)was excessive and had to be cut

Accepted Answer

Based on the given information, it is clear that the security guard did not have enough evidence to accuse the woman of shoplifting and detain her without consent. Even though the woman allowed the guard to search her purse, she was still falsely imprisoned when he insisted she enter the store and would not let her leave. Therefore, a jury could reasonably have found false imprisonment in this circumstance. The other choices are not supported by the given information.

Question 10

Steve has a disorder that causes him to pass out randomly.While driving one day,he passes out,is in an accident,and injures Juan.
A)The black-out is an "act of God," so there is no liability
B)Steve is probably liable due to contributory negligence
C)Steve is probably liable due to strict liability
D)Juan is probably liable for being in Steve's way
E)none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The answer of Steve has a disorder that causes him...

Question 11

Steve has a disorder that causes him to pass out randomly.While driving one day,he passes out,is in an accident,and injures Juan.
A)The black-out is an "act of God," so there is no liability
B)Steve is probably liable due to negligence
C)Steve is probably liable due to contributory negligence
D)Steve is probably liable due to strict liability
E)Juan is probably liable for being in Steve's way

Accepted Answer

Steve knew about his disorder but still chose to drive, which shows negligence on his part. This resulted in the injury of Juan, making Steve liable for the damages.

Question 12

In one case,a man who was drunk wanted to recover money another man owed him.He pulled a gun and,in the course of a struggle,accidentally shot the man who owed the money.The man who was shot sued for battery.A court is likely to hold that the man with the gun:
A)did not commit a tort because he was drunk when the shooting happened,so did not have the necessary state of mind
B)did not commit battery because the shooting was an accident;he only intended to threaten the man,which may be assault,but he did not intend to shoot him
C)committed the tort of battery because he intended to invade Nelson's well-being
D)acted in self-defense once the struggle began,so was not responsible for the accidental shooting
E)none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The answer of In one case,a man who was drunk...

Question 13

Driving down the street you stupidly run a red light and hit a car legally going through a green light.You knock that car into a parked car,which knocks a loaded gun out of the parked car that falls on the street and fires a bullet that hits a person walking on the sidewalk.That person sues you in tort for damages.They will probably:
A)win because you were negligent and caused their injury
B)win because strict liability would apply to your actions
C)win because carrying a loaded gun is dangerous
D)lose because there is no proximate cause
E)lose because traffic violations may not be the basis for tort actions

Accepted Answer

The answer of Driving down the street you stupidly run...

Question 14

Kyla negligently starts a fire in a back of her restaurant.Lou is a customer at the restaurant.When he sees the flames filling the kitchen area,he rushes back to the kitchen to help put them out and to help get the kitchen staff out of harm's way.In the process Lou suffers some serious burn.If he sues Kyla,Kyla will:
A)win because she didn't ask Lou to help her
B)win because Lou was an intermeddler
C)lose because danger invites rescue
D)lose based on strict liability
E)lose because this was an intentional tort

Accepted Answer

The principle of "danger invites rescue" means that if someone creates a dangerous situation and a bystander, without being asked or expected to do so, chooses to intervene to help others and is injured in the process, the person who created the dangerous situation can be held liable for the injuries the bystander suffered. Since Kyla negligently started the fire that created the dangerous situation, and Lou, as a bystander, chose to intervene to help get the kitchen staff out of harm's way and put the fire out, Kyla can be held liable for the burn injuries Lou suffered. Therefore, Kyla will lose the lawsuit.

Question 15

Alicia,talking on her cell phone,foolishly runs off the road and over Eduardo's foot.The tort that Eduardo will most likely initiate is:
A)battery
B)assault
C)negligence
D)emotional distress
E)none,since Alicia's action was innocent

Accepted Answer

Negligence, as Alicia was not intentionally trying to harm Eduardo but her careless action caused harm to him.

Question 16

If an accounting firm is sued for negligently preparing a faulty financial report for a company that caused significant losses by those who relied on the accounting,the accounting firm is likely to be:
A)not liable;there is no promise that results will be perfect
B)held subject to the standard of care imposed on professional parties
C)held subject to a special statutory standard of care
D)held to have violated the principles of strict liability
E)none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

Accounting firms, as professional parties, are held to a standard of care when performing their duties. This means that if they are found to have acted negligently in preparing a financial report that caused significant losses to those who relied on it, they can be held liable for their actions. The standard of care is not a guarantee of perfect results, but it is a requirement that they act with the level of care and skill expected of a professional in their field.

Question 17

Jemal is playing basketball at a school's outdoor court.Kevin asks if he can join the game.Jemal agrees.After playing for 15 minutes,Kevin is knocked to the ground.His wrist breaks.If Kevin sues Jemal for his injury,a court will probably find:
A)The school liable for allowing the court to be used
B)Jemal committed a negligence tort
C)Jemal strictly liable for Kevin's harms
D)Jemal's acts where the cause-in-harm of Kevin's injuries
E)none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

Since Jemal did not intentionally cause Kevin's injury and did not act negligently that caused the injury, he cannot be held liable for Kevin's harm. There is no evidence that the school was also responsible for Kevin's injury.

Question 18

Alex sues Lisa for $60,000 for damages suffered as a result of her negligence because she failed to place a sign on the door of her restaurant warning customers to "Watch Your Step" as they exited the building.A jury awards Alex $40,000 because Alex's intoxication made him 33% responsible for his injuries.Lisa avoided full liability because she showed:
A)comparative negligence
B)intoxicating negligence
C)intervening conduct
D)assumption of risk
E)evil intent

Accepted Answer

Lisa avoided full liability because she showed comparative negligence, which means Alex's own negligence contributed to his injuries. The jury found that he was 33% responsible for his injuries due to his intoxication. Therefore, Lisa was only responsible for 67% of the damages, which amounts to $40,000.

Question 19

An accounting firm was sued for negligently preparing a financial report for a company.It causes losses to occur.At trial,the firm was found to have been negligent in its work.This meant that the firm would likely be:
A)responsible for losses suffered by its client that could be linked to reliance on the work
B)responsible for losses suffered by its client that could be linked to reliance on that work and to the firm whose books were audited since that firm's reputation was damaged
C)responsible for losses not to exceed $1 million,the statutory limit on accountant liability in that state
D)not responsible for damages despite negligence,since reliance could not be shown
E)not responsible for damages despite negligence because of a lack of proximate cause

Accepted Answer

Since the accounting firm was found to have been negligent in its work, they are likely responsible for losses suffered by their client that can be directly linked to reliance on that work. This is because the accounting firm had a duty of care to their client to provide accurate and reliable financial reports. The fact that the client suffered losses indicates that the firm breached that duty of care, and is therefore liable for the losses incurred.

Question 20

You see someone stealing the highly prized hubcaps off your car.You have the right to protect your property by using:
A)deadly force "in case of res judicata"
B)"all force necessary" to subdue the thief
C)force reasonable under the circumstances,which may include killing the thief
D)force reasonable under the circumstances,which would include shooting the thief if you were concerned that the thief could be armed
E)none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The correct answer is E, none of the other choices. The use of deadly force is generally not justified in protecting property alone, such as in the case of theft of hubcaps. The principle of using force reasonable under the circumstances typically does not extend to killing or shooting the thief, especially when the threat does not pose imminent danger to life. The options suggesting the use of deadly force or "all force necessary" do not align with legal standards in most jurisdictions, which emphasize proportionality and the necessity of the force used in relation to the threat faced.

Quiz 6: Elements of Torts

You see someone stealing the highly prized hubcaps off your car.You have the right to protect your property by using:

An accounting firm was sued for negligently preparing a financial report for a company.It causes losses to occur and the firm was found to have been negligent in its work.This meant that the firm would likely be:

If an accounting firm is sued for negligently preparing a faulty financial report for a company,it is likely that the accounting firm is:

A man was injured while riding a mechanical bull owned by an independent contractor at a state fair.He paid to ride the bull and signed a form that he understood the risk of injury.After he was injured,he sued the fair that provided the ride for negligence.You would expect the court held that:

Joyce Water,Certified Public Accountant (CPA) ,is sued for negligent preparation of an income tax return.To determine if she was negligent,the court applies a standard of reasonableness which measures Joyce's conduct against that of:

Jemal is playing basketball at a school's outdoor court.Kevin asks if he can join the game.Jemal agrees.After playing for 15 minutes,Kevin is knocked to the ground.His wrist breaks when he hits the concrete.If Kevin sues Jemal for his injury,a court will probably find:

A man was injured while riding a mechanical bull owned by an independent contractor at a state fair.He paid to ride the bull and signed a form that he understood the risk of injury.After he was injured,he sued the fair that provided the ride for negligence.You would expect the court held that:

Steve has a disorder that causes him to pass out randomly.While driving one day,he passes out,is in an accident,and injures Juan.

Steve has a disorder that causes him to pass out randomly.While driving one day,he passes out,is in an accident,and injures Juan.

In one case,a man who was drunk wanted to recover money another man owed him.He pulled a gun and,in the course of a struggle,accidentally shot the man who owed the money.The man who was shot sued for battery.A court is likely to hold that the man with the gun:

Alicia,talking on her cell phone,foolishly runs off the road and over Eduardo's foot.The tort that Eduardo will most likely initiate is:

If an accounting firm is sued for negligently preparing a faulty financial report for a company that caused significant losses by those who relied on the accounting,the accounting firm is likely to be:

Jemal is playing basketball at a school's outdoor court.Kevin asks if he can join the game.Jemal agrees.After playing for 15 minutes,Kevin is knocked to the ground.His wrist breaks.If Kevin sues Jemal for his injury,a court will probably find:

An accounting firm was sued for negligently preparing a financial report for a company.It causes losses to occur.At trial,the firm was found to have been negligent in its work.This meant that the firm would likely be:

You see someone stealing the highly prized hubcaps off your car.You have the right to protect your property by using: