Question 1

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

Accepted Answer

The answer of Express voluntary assumption of the risk is...

Question 2

Frank, after drinking too much alcohol, would be held to a lower standard of care than if he were sober, because a reasonable drunk person is less careful than a reasonable sober one.

Accepted Answer

Intoxication does not lower the standard of care expected; individuals are held to the same standard as a sober person in negligence cases.

Question 3

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

Proving proximate cause is a necessary element of a valid negligence action. The plaintiff must show that there was a causal connection between the defendant's negligent conduct and the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Additionally, the harm must be to a legally protected interest, such as physical injury, property damage, or emotional distress.

Question 4

Ray is informed that his six-year-old child is shooting in the street with a .22 rifle.Ray fails to take the gun away from the child.The child unintentionally shoots Bill, a pedestrian.Ray is liable to Bill.

Accepted Answer

As a parent, Ray had a duty to take the gun away from his six-year-old child and prevent them from shooting in the street. By failing to do so, Ray breached his duty of care and created an unreasonable risk of harm. The unintentional shooting of Bill by the child can be attributed to Ray's negligence, making him liable for Bill's injuries.

Question 5

If the tortious conduct of Mandy is insufficient by itself to cause Alex's harm, Mandy's conduct cannot be considered in combination with Brent's tortious conduct to determine factual cause of Alex's harm.

Accepted Answer

Mandy's conduct can be considered in combination with Brent's conduct to determine the factual cause of Alex's harm if both are contributing factors to the harm.

Question 6

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

The answer of There is an established rule in the...

Question 7

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

A possessor of land generally does not have a legal duty to warn business invitees of obvious dangers that the invitees should be able to discover themselves, as invitees are expected to take reasonable care for their own safety.

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

This is known as the last clear chance doctrine, which provides an exception to the contributory negligence defense. If the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the injury and failed to do so, the plaintiff may still be able to recover despite their own negligence.

Question 9

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

Accepted Answer

Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that they were not negligent, which makes it more difficult for them to prevail in a negligence action.

Question 10

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

The owner of a dog is responsible if their dog causes harm or damage to another person or their property. If the sheep dog's jumping causes injury or property damage, the owner could be held liable.

Question 11

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

Accepted Answer

While moral and ethical codes may encourage helping others in need, there is no universal legal obligation for bystanders to intervene. Some countries or states may have laws that require certain individuals, such as healthcare professionals or lifeguards, to render aid if they are present and able to do so. However, in general, there is no legal duty for bystanders to act.

Question 12

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

This is known as the "professional standard," which means that individuals with specialized knowledge or training will be held to a higher standard of care in situations that require their expertise. This can increase their chances of being found liable for negligence.

Question 13

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 a jury to infer negligence and causation when the type of event that occurred would not have happened without someone's negligence. It allows the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case without proving specific details of the defendant's conduct.

Question 14

Negligence per se is a defense in a negligence case.

Accepted Answer

Negligence per se is not a defense, but rather a doctrine that allows a finding of negligence without requiring proof of a specific breach of duty. It applies when a defendant violates a law or regulation designed to protect a certain class of people, and that violation is the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury.

Question 15

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

Accepted Answer

If an intervening cause is deemed to be a superseding cause, it may relieve the defendant of liability for that harm.

Question 16

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

The circus can still be held liable for the injury caused by the animal, even if they claim to have treated it well and not been negligent. They have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the public and take adequate precautions to prevent such incidents from happening.

Question 17

A person who negligently places another person in imminent danger is not liable for injury sustained by a third-party rescuer.

Accepted Answer

This statement is generally false. In most cases, a person who negligently places another person in imminent danger can be held liable for any injuries sustained by a third-party rescuer who tries to help. Exceptions may apply, depending on the specific circumstances of the case and the laws in the relevant jurisdiction.

Question 18

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

A licensee in tort law is someone who enters the property of another with the property owner's permission for their own purpose or business, not for the property owner's benefit, which contrasts with an invitee who is invited as a member of the public or for a business purpose that benefits the property owner.

Question 19

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

Accepted Answer

The "but for" test is a widely applied test for causation in fact.

Question 20

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

Accepted Answer

The reasonable person standard takes into account the circumstances that the defendant was facing at the time of the incident, including any emergency conditions that may have been present. Therefore, if a defendant acted in a way that would normally be considered unreasonable, but did so due to emergency conditions, this may be taken into account in determining whether their behavior was actually reasonable in the circumstances.

Quiz 8: Negligence and Strict Liability