Question 1

A sports fan,injured by a hockey puck that flew into the stands during an NHL game,would be subject to the defense of assumption of the risk in a suit to recover for her injuries.

Accepted Answer

Assumption of the risk is a defense used in cases where a plaintiff voluntarily exposes themselves to a known risk. In the case of a hockey game, fans are aware that pucks and other objects may fly into the stands during play. By attending the game, the fan assumes the risk of injury from such incidents. Therefore, the sports fan in this scenario would be subject to the defense of assumption of the risk in a lawsuit to recover for their injuries.

Question 2

In a strict liability case,the courts still consider if the defendant acted in a reasonable and prudent manner.

Accepted Answer

In a strict liability case, the focus is on the act itself rather than the defendant's intent or conduct; therefore, the courts do not consider if the defendant acted in a reasonable and prudent manner.

Question 3

Evaluate the following scenarios and determine which represents Micha's highest liability?

Accepted Answer

Juanita is a customer having a latte in the coffee shop Micha owns and operates. Micha has the highest liability to Juanita because she is a business invitee.

Question 4

In a negligence case,the plaintiff must establish

Accepted Answer

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must establish duty of due care, breach of that duty, factual cause (also known as causation in fact), proximate cause, and damages. Duty refers to the legal obligation to exercise reasonable care towards others. Breach means that the defendant failed to meet that duty. Factual cause means that the defendant's actions or omissions were the actual cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Proximate cause means that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions or omissions. Damages refer to the harm suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's actions or omissions. Therefore, the best answer is D.

Question 5

Most states recognize some form of comparative negligence.

Accepted Answer

Most states recognize some form of comparative negligence, which means that a plaintiff's damages may be reduced if it is found that their own negligence contributed to the harm they suffered.

Question 6

A defendant set off fireworks at a fully licensed Fourth of July show.The result of the activity caused harm to the plaintiff.In order for the plaintiff to win a case of negligence,he or she need only prove that it was foreseeable that the defendant's conduct might cause harm.

Accepted Answer

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Foreseeability of harm is part of establishing breach and causation, but proving foreseeability alone is not sufficient to win a negligence case.

Question 7

In strict liability,if a company sells a beverage in a can that has sharp edges and injures several consumers,it will be held liable even if it didn't know about the problem.

Accepted Answer

In strict liability, a company can be held liable for any damages or injuries caused by their products, regardless of whether they knew about the problem or not. Therefore, if a company sells a beverage in a can that has sharp edges and injures several consumers, it can be held liable under strict liability even if it didn't know about the issue.

Question 8

Palsgraf v.Long Island Railroad addressed the issue of furnishing alcohol to minors.

Accepted Answer

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad addressed the issue of proximate cause in tort law, not the issue of furnishing alcohol to minors.

Question 9

A defendant engaging in an ultrahazardous activity is almost always liable for any harm that results.

Accepted Answer

Ultrahazardous activities are activities that involve a high degree of risk and potential danger, such as blasting or keeping wild animals. Courts typically hold that anyone engaging in an ultrahazardous activity is strictly liable for any harm that results, meaning the defendant is responsible for the harm even if they were not at fault. Therefore, the statement that a defendant engaging in an ultrahazardous activity is almost always liable for any harm that results is true.

Question 10

Kenneth was exposed to radiation on his job in an environmental cleanup.In a lawsuit against his employer,the court must decide the full extent of both present and future damages rather than allowing Kenneth to return to court years later if medical problems develop at that time.

Accepted Answer

This is true because the court needs to determine the full extent of damages, including future damages, in order to ensure that Kenneth is fully compensated for his injuries and does not need to return to court years later to seek additional damages.

Question 11

Annette drove through an intersection without looking and hit Vincent's car that he had driven into the intersection without obeying a stop sign.Annette sued Vincent.The jury found that Annette's fault contributed 20 percent to the collision and determined that her total loss was $100,000.Under comparative negligence,the jury should award Annette

Accepted Answer

Under comparative negligence, Annette can recover damages reduced by her percentage of fault. Since Annette's fault contributed 20%, she can recover damages of 80% (100% - 20%) of the total loss, which is $100,000. Therefore, Annette should be awarded $80,000. Option A is wrong because $20,000 is the amount of damages that Annette would recover if she was found to be completely not at fault. Option C is wrong because the total loss amount of $100,000 was already determined by the jury, and that is not the amount that Annette should be awarded. Option D is also wrong because even though Annette's fault contributed to the collision, she should still be awarded damages reduced by her percentage of fault.

Question 12

Negligence concerns harm that

Accepted Answer

Negligence refers to a failure to exercise reasonable care that results in harm, and this harm usually arises accidentally. Therefore, option C is the appropriate choice since the harm arises unintentionally due to a lack of reasonable care. Options A and B are incorrect because negligence does not concern unforeseeable harm or intentional harm. Option D is also incorrect as the harm resulting from negligence can be minor or significant.

Question 13

Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant.

Accepted Answer

Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin term that means "the thing speaks for itself." In cases where this doctrine is applicable, the plaintiff does not have to prove negligence because the circumstances are such that negligence is presumed. Instead, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove that they were not negligent.

Question 14

The doctrine of contributory negligence is followed in most states.

Accepted Answer

Most states have adopted comparative negligence instead of contributory negligence, allowing for the apportionment of fault among parties.

Question 15

For the defendant to be liable in a negligence case,it must be proven that the defendant's conduct actually caused the injury.This is referred to as

Accepted Answer

Factual cause, also known as "but for" cause, means that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's conduct. This is the first element that must be proven in a negligence case before moving on to other elements like duty of due care, breach, and proximate cause.

Question 16

A landowner's highest duty is owed to licensees.

Accepted Answer

A landowner's highest duty is owed to invitees, not licensees. Invitees are individuals who have been invited onto the property for the benefit of the landowner, such as customers in a store. Licensees are individuals who are permitted onto the property but are not there for the benefit of the landowner, such as social guests.

Question 17

Silas asks his friend Shelby to come to his property to go fishing at his pond.If he fails to warn her that the pier has a rotten spot and she falls through and is injured,Silas would be held liable in most states.

Accepted Answer

Property owners have a duty of care to warn invitees of known hazards on their property. If Silas knows about the rotten spot on the pier and fails to warn Shelby, he could be held liable for her injuries. This is true in most states under the legal concept of premises liability.

Question 18

The duty of care that each of us must follow is to behave as a reasonable person.

Accepted Answer

The duty of care requires all individuals to behave as a reasonable person would in similar circumstances. This standard of care varies depending on the situation but generally requires people to act with prudence and caution to avoid harming others. Failure to meet this duty of care can result in legal liability for damages or injuries caused by one's actions.

Question 19

While hunting,Roger enters Adele's property without permission and is injured by falling into a ditch that was obscured by the underbrush.Under the common law,Adele is liable for Roger's injuries.

Accepted Answer

Under the common law, Adele would only be liable for Roger's injuries if she knew about the dangerous condition on her property and failed to warn Roger or take steps to make the property safe. As Roger entered her property without permission while hunting, he was considered a trespasser and Adele owed him no duty of care. Therefore, Adele is not liable for Roger's injuries in this scenario.

Question 20

Tort issues are firmly ingrained in law and do not change.

Accepted Answer

Tort law is constantly evolving and changing with new cases and interpretations of existing laws. New legal precedents can be set and laws can be amended, meaning that tort issues are not firmly ingrained and can evolve over time.

Quiz 9: Negligence, Strict Liability, and Product Liability