Question 1

Which of the following is an example of an inherently dangerous activity?

Accepted Answer

Inherently dangerous activities include dynamite blasting in a populated area.

Question 2

Under which of the following does the court determine the percentage of the fault of the defendant with the defendant then being liable for that percentage of the plaintiff's damages,with no requirement that the defendant be more than 50% at fault?

Accepted Answer

According to a pure comparative negligence defense, the court determines the percentage of fault of the defendant, and the defendant is then liable for that percentage of the plaintiff's damages.

Question 3

Which of the following is true regarding negligence under South African Law?

Accepted Answer

In South Africa one way of finding negligence is determined by whether the defendant could have prevented the consequent damages.

Question 4

In reference to the case in the text,Ex Parte Emmette L.Barran,III,what was the result after the plaintiff sued the national and local Kappa Alpha organization following hazing activities?

Accepted Answer

The appellate court stated that "the trial court correctly determined that reasonable people could reach no conclusion other than that Jones voluntarily exposed himself to the hazing."

Question 5

Which of the following is a doctrine available to defendants whereby a defendant may avoid liability by establishing that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm that the defendant caused?

Accepted Answer

To use the assumption of the risk defense successfully, a defendant must prove that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm the defendant caused.

Question 6

Which of the following is true regarding whether Wendy and Sam had a duty to come to the assistance of the divers in peril?

Accepted Answer

In most situations, the law holds that individuals have no duty to rescue strangers from perilous situations.

Question 7

Under which of the following does the court determine the percentage of fault of the defendant requiring that the defendant be more than 50% at fault before the plaintiff can recover?

Accepted Answer

In modified comparative negligence the defendant must be more than 50 percent at fault before the plaintiff can recover.

Question 8

Which of the following is liability without fault?

Accepted Answer

Strict liability is liability without fault.

Question 9

Which of the following was the result in District of Columbia v.Wayne Singleton,the case in the text involving whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to a negligence action involving a single-vehicle accident?

Accepted Answer

According to the court, "Respondents' perhaps unnecessarily bare-bones case-in-chief failed to eliminate sufficiently other causes of the accident, and failed to evince that the bus driver's negligence was the most probable causative factor."

Question 10

Which is the most difficult part of establishing the defense of assumption of the risk?

Accepted Answer

The most difficult part of establishing assumption of the risk is showing that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the actual harm suffered.

Question 11

Which of the following are laws holding that people in peril who receive voluntary aid from others cannot hold those offering aid liable for negligence?

Accepted Answer

Good Samaritan statutes attempt to encourage selfless and courageous behavior by removing the threat of liability.

Question 12

What was the final result on appeal in the Case Opener involving whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to the lawsuit brought against landowners after the plaintiff fell through a wooden dock located on the defendants' property?

Accepted Answer

The court on final appeal ruled that the plaintiff could rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Question 13

Which of the following is an unforeseeable event which interrupts the causal chain between the defendant's breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered?

Accepted Answer

The defendant in a negligence suit can also avoid liability by establishing a superseding cause meaning an unforeseeable event that interrupts the causal chain between the defendant's breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered.

Question 14

Which of the following occurs when a plaintiff implicitly assumes a known risk?

Accepted Answer

Implied assumption of the risk means that the plaintiff implicitly assumed a known risk.

Question 15

Why have most states replaced the contributory negligence defense with a comparative negligence theory?

Accepted Answer

Because of many situations in which an extremely careless defendant causes a great deal of harm to a plaintiff who is barred from recovery due to minimal contributory negligence, most states have replaced the contributory negligence defense with either pure or modified comparative negligence.

Question 16

Which of the following occurs when a plaintiff expressly agrees,usually in a written contract,to assume the risk posed by the defendant's behavior?

Accepted Answer

Express assumption of the risk occurs when the plaintiff expressly agrees (usually in a written contract) to assume the risk posed by the defendant's behavior.

Question 17

Which of the following is a condition required for the imposition of strict liability?

Accepted Answer

The law holds an individual liable without fault when the activity in which he or she engages satisfies three conditions: (1) It involves a risk of serious harm to people or property; (2) it is so inherently dangerous that it cannot ever be safely undertaken; and (3) it is not usually performed in the immediate community.

Question 18

Billy,the diver who had damaged equipment because of the shark incident wants to sue Mike for damages.Which of the following is the most likely result?

Accepted Answer

To win a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages. A plaintiff who can establish all four of these elements is entitled to a recovery.

Question 19

Billy and Susie are annoyed that Mike did not come to their assistance.Which is true regarding Mike's duty to provide assistance during the dive?

Accepted Answer

The courts generally hold that businesses have a duty of care to protect their customers against foreseeable risks about which the owner knew or reasonably should have known.

Question 20

Which of the following is true regarding whether Mike is liable for the injuries Sam sustained in coming to the rescue of the divers in distress?

Accepted Answer

If bystanders are injured while attempting to rescue individuals put in danger by a negligent party, many courts will hold the negligent party liable for the rescuers' injuries under what is known as the danger invites rescue doctrine.

Quiz 9: Negligence and Strict Liability