AMP Negligence: Duty of Care
Which of the following persons is considered to be an invitee of the landowner? A. A child accompanying a customer of the landowner. B. A hiker hiking on the landowner's open land with permission. C. A customer of the landowner who goes through a door marked "employees only". D. A firefighter fighting a fire on the landowner's property.
Correct Answer: A
Which of the following statements is not true as to the "reasonable person" standard for evaluating whether a defendant's conduct was negligent? A. The "reasonable person" is considered to have the same mental characteristics as the defendant. B. The "reasonable person" is considered to have the same physical characteristics as the defendant. C. The defendant is expected to know his physical handicaps and to exercise the care of a person with such knowledge. D. The defendant is deemed to have knowledge of things known by the average member of the community.
Correct Answer: A A "reasonable person" is not considered to have the same mental characteristics as the defendant. A defendant must act as a person with average mental ability would act. The defendant's individual mental handicaps are not considered; a low IQ is no excuse, and insanity is no defense. The "reasonable person" is an objective standard, but the "reasonable person" is considered to have the same physical characteristics as the defendant. The defendant is deemed to have knowledge of things known by the average member of the community, and the defendant's individual shortcomings are not considered. Although a person with a physical disability is held to the reasonable person standard, he is expected to know his physical handicap and is under a duty to exercise the care of a person with such knowledge.
Which of the following is correct regarding a landowner's duty to an invitee under traditional landowner liability rules? A. An invitee may lose that status if she exceeds the scope of her invitation B. A firefighter engaged in fighting a fire on the landowner's premises is an invitee C. The landowner does not owe an invitee a duty to make inspections D. The landowner must repair dangerous conditions to satisfy his duty to invitees
Correct Answer: A An invitee may lose that status if she exceeds the scope of her invitation. A person loses her status as an invitee if she exceeds the scope of the invitation, such as if she goes into a portion of the premises where her invitation cannot reasonably be said to extend. A firefighter engaged in fighting a fire on the landowner's premises is NOT an invitee. Under the "firefighter's rule," police officers and firefighters are generally treated like licensees rather than invitees, based on public policy or assumption of risk grounds. They cannot recover for a landowner's failure to inspect or repair dangerous conditions that are an inherent risk of their law enforcement or firefighting activity. A landowner DOES owe an invitee a duty to make inspections. The landowner owes an invitee a general duty to use reasonable and ordinary care in keeping the property reasonably safe for the benefit of the invitee. This general duty includes the duties owed to licensees (to warn of nonobvious dangers known to the landowner and to use ordinary care in active operations on the property), plus a duty to make reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions and make them safe. However, the duty to "make safe" does not require that the landowner must repair dangerous conditions to satisfy his duty to invitees. Depending on the nature of the danger, it is usually sufficient if a reasonable warning has been given.
Which of the following is correct regarding the duties of a lessor of realty? A. If the lessor voluntarily decides to make repairs on the premises, he is liable if he does so negligently B. A lessor leasing the entire premises still has a duty to maintain the premises C. The lessor is obligated to repair existing defects before transferring the premises to the lessee
Correct Answer: A If the lessor voluntarily decides to make repairs on the premises, even though under no obligation to do so, he is liable if he does so negligently. It is not necessary that his negligent repairs make the condition worse. A lessor leasing the entire premises does NOT still have a duty to maintain the premises. The lessee, coming into occupation and control of the premises, becomes burdened with the duty to maintain the premises in such a way as to avoid unreasonable risk of harm to others. If the owner leases only portions of the premises, he continues to be subject to liability for unreasonably dangerous conditions in the portions he retains, like corridors, entry lobbies, elevators, etc. The lessor is NOT obligated to repair existing defects before transferring the premises to the lessee. The landowner as lessor need only give warning to the lessee of existing defects in the premises of which the lessor is aware or has reason to know and which he knows the lessee is not likely to discover on reasonable inspection.
One who enters a landowner's property __________ does not qualify as an invitee. A. In response to a dinner invitation from the landowner B. In response to a sale at the landowner's shopping mall C. To view an exhibition at the landowner's public art gallery
Correct Answer: A One who enters land in response to a dinner invitation from the landowner does not qualify as an invitee; social guests are treated as licensees. Under traditional landowner liability rules, a licensee is one who enters on land with the landowner's permission, express or implied, for her own purpose or business, rather than for the landowner's benefit. An invitee is a person who enters onto the premises in response to an express or implied invitation of the landowner. There are two classes of invitees: (i) one who enters land for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public, e.g., to view an exhibition at the landowner's public art gallery; and (ii) one who enters land for a purpose connected with the business of the landowner, e.g., in response to a sale at the landowner's shopping mall.
Which of the following persons is considered a licensee of the landowner? A. A friend of the landowner invited in after giving the landowner a ride home. B. A member of the public visiting a free museum. C. A trespasser who the landowner knows regularly crosses over a section of the landowner's land. D. A health inspector determining whether to renew the landowner's food service license.
Correct Answer: A The friend of the landowner is a social guest and therefore a licensee. Under traditional landowner liability rules, a licensee is one who enters on the land with the landowner's permission, express or implied, for her own purpose or business rather than for the landowner's benefit. Even though a host may also derive some benefit from the presence of a social guest, including receiving the performance of minor services by the guest, this does not make the guest an invitee. A trespasser who the landowner knows regularly crosses over a section of the landowner's land is an anticipated trespasser and not a licensee. The duty owed to discovered and anticipated trespassers is not as high as the duty owed to licensees. A health inspector determining whether to renew the landowner's license is not a licensee. Persons who enter the premises for a purpose connected with the landowner's business are invitees and are owed a higher duty. Similarly, a member of the public visiting a free museum is an invitee. Invitees include those who enter the premises for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public.
If a statute providing for a criminal penalty is applicable to a common law negligence case, the statute's specific duty will replace the more general common law duty of care. Which of the following does a plaintiff not need to show to prove the availability of the statutory standard? A. The plaintiff suffered physical injury because of the defendant's violation of the statute. B. The standards set out in the statute are clearly defined. C. The statute was designed to prevent the type of harm that the plaintiff suffered. D. The plaintiff is in the class intended to be protected by the statute.
Correct Answer: A The plaintiff need not suffer physical injury from the defendant's violation of the statute. While damages is an element of the prima facie case for negligence, any type of damages, including property damages, will suffice. To prove the availability of the statutory standard, a plaintiff must show that the standards set out in the statute are clearly defined. For the statute to apply: The plaintiff must be in the class intended to be protected by the statute; andThe statute must have been designed to prevent the type of injury that he suffered.
Which of the following is correct as to lessors of realty? A. Liability for conditions on the leased premises hinges on who occupies and controls the premises B. A lessor cannot pass the burden of maintaining the premises onto the lessee C. A lessor leasing the entire premises ordinarily remains jointly liable with the lessee for dangerous conditions
Correct Answer: A With regard to the duties of a lessor of realty, liability for conditions on the leased premises hinges on who occupies and controls the premises. Thus, when the owner leases the entire premises, the lessee, coming into occupation and control, becomes burdened with the duty to maintain the premises in such a way as to avoid unreasonable risk of harm to others. A lessor CAN pass the burden of maintaining the premises onto the lessee, and he does so when the lessee leases the entire premises. Hence, it is not true that a lessor leasing the entire premises ordinarily remains jointly liable with the lessee for dangerous conditions. Although exceptions exist, the general rule is that liability is passed solely to the lessee when the lessor leases the entire premises.
Which of the following is a duty owed to a trespasser by a landowner? A. To warn a discovered trespasser of highly dangerous natural conditions that are unknown to the trespasser B. To warn an anticipated trespasser of highly dangerous artificial conditions known to the landowner C. To make reasonable inspections to identify highly dangerous artificial conditions D. To ascertain whether trespassers are coming onto his property
Correct Answer: B A landowner has a duty to warn an anticipated trespasser of highly dangerous artificial conditions known to the landowner. The majority of states treat anticipated trespassers generally on the same basis as discovered trespassers. Once a landowner discovers the presence of a trespasser, he is under a duty to exercise ordinary care to warn the trespasser of or make safe artificial conditions known to the landowner that involve a risk of death or serious bodily harm and that the trespasser is unlikely to discover. The landowner has no duty to ascertain whether trespassers are coming onto his property or to make reasonable inspections to identify highly dangerous artificial conditions. There is also no duty owed for natural conditions, even if they are highly dangerous and unknown to the trespasser.
Which of the following correctly states the duty of a landowner? A. The landowner's duty to warn of or make safe highly dangerous artificial conditions applies only to those trespassers he discovers on the land B. The landowner has a duty to inspect his land for the presence of trespassers C. The landowner owes the same duty to anticipated trespassers as he does to discovered trespassers
Correct Answer: C A landowner owes the same duty to anticipated trespassers as he does to discovered trespassers. The majority of states now treat anticipated trespassers on generally the same basis as discovered trespassers in terms of the duty owed them by the landowner. Hence, it is not correct that the landowner's duty to warn of or make safe highly dangerous artificial conditions applies only to those trespassers he discovers on the land. Typically, once a landowner discovers the presence of a trespasser, he is under a duty to warn the trespasser of or make safe a highly dangerous condition. However, a trespasser is not considered "discovered" only if the landowner actually notices the trespasser. A trespasser is viewed as discovered if the landowner is notified by information sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that someone is on the property. A landowner does NOT owe a duty to inspect his land for the presence of trespassers. A landowner owes no duty to an undiscovered trespasser, and he has no duty to inspect in order to ascertain whether persons are coming onto his property.
If a condition on a landowner's property creates a danger to those off the premises: A. He does not owe a duty to anyone B. He owes a duty to invitees to take precautions C. He owes a duty to passersby to take due precautions
Correct Answer: C If a condition on a landowner's property creates a danger to those off the premises, he owes a duty to passersby to take due precautions to protect those persons from the dangerous conditions. This is essentially an application of the regular duty of care standard. For example, he should erect a barricade to keep people from falling into an excavation at the edge of his property. Thus, it is incorrect to state that he does not owe a duty to anyone. It is also incorrect to state that the landowner owes a duty to invitees to take precautions. "Invitee" is a legal status of certain persons who enter onto the landowner's property. The term is not used for those outside the premises, who may be owed a duty regardless of their status.
A bailee is liable to the bailor only for gross negligence if the bailment is for: A. the sole benefit of a third party. B. the mutual benefit of the bailor and bailee. C. the sole benefit of the bailor. D. the sole benefit of the bailee.
Correct Answer: C If the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailor, the bailee is liable only for gross negligence. An example of a bailment for the sole benefit of the bailor is someone taking in the mail of a vacationing neighbor (the bailor). If the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailee, the bailee is liable even for slight negligence. An example of a bailment for the sole benefit of the bailee is the owner of a lawnmower letting a neighbor (the bailee) borrow it. If the bailment is for the sole benefit of a third party, the bailee may be liable to the bailor for ordinary negligence. Similarly, if the bailment is for the mutual benefit of the bailor and bailee, the bailee is liable to the bailor for negligence. An example of a bailment for the mutual benefit of the bailor and bailee is a computer owner (the bailor) delivering it to a repair shop (the bailee).
If a statute providing for a criminal penalty is applicable to a common law negligence case, a clearly stated specific duty imposed by the statute will replace the more general common law duty of care. Most courts hold that violation of an applicable statute __________. A. is only prima facie evidence of negligence B. raises a rebuttable presumption as to duty and breach C. is negligence per se D. raises a rebuttable presumption as to breach
Correct Answer: C Most courts still adhere to the rule that violation of an applicable statute is "negligence per se." This means that the plaintiff will have established a conclusive presumption of duty and breach of duty by showing a violation of the statute. (The plaintiff still must establish causation and damages to complete the prima facie case for negligence.) For a statute to apply in a negligence case: (i) The plaintiff must show that she is in the class intended to be protected by the statute; and(ii) The plaintiff must show that the statute was designed to prevent the type of harm that the plaintiff suffered.The minority view holds either that: (i) a rebuttable presumption as to duty and breach arises, or (ii) the statutory violation is only prima facie evidence of negligence.
Which of the following is correct regarding children and the applicable standard of care for negligence? A. The standard of care for a child is based on an objective standard of an ordinary child B. Children below the age of 10 do not have the capacity for negligence C. A child will be treated as an adult, regardless of age, if engaged in an adult activity
Correct Answer: C Regarding the applicable standard of care, a child will be treated as an adult, regardless of age, if engaged in an adult activity. When a child engages in an activity that is normally one that only adults engage in, most cases hold that he will be required to conform to the same standard of care as an adult in such an activity. Children below the age of 10 DO have the capacity for negligence. There is a minimum age for which it is meaningful to speak of a child being capable of conforming his conduct to a standard of care. Most courts, however, do not fix this age at an arbitrary figure. To the extent that courts would find a child under a certain age as not having the capacity to be negligent, it would be a child below the age of five, not 10. The standard of care for a child is NOT based on an objective standard of an ordinary child. A majority of courts take the view that a child is required to conform to the standard of care of a child of like age, education, intelligence, and experience. This permits a subjective evaluation of these factors.
A bystander who witnesses the defendant negligently injuring another can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress in most states by showing: A. a close relationship between the bystander and the person injured, the bystander's presence within the zone of danger from physical injury, and the bystander's observation or perception of the event. B. the bystander's presence within the zone of danger from physical injury, and the bystander's observation or perception of the event. C. a close relationship between the bystander and the person injured, and the bystander's observation or perception of the event. D. a close relationship between the bystander and the person injured, the bystander's presence at the scene of the injury, and the bystander's observation or perception of the event.
Correct Answer: D A bystander must show a close relationship between the bystander and the person injured, the bystander's presence at the scene of the injury, and the bystander's observation or perception of the event to recover. Traditionally, a bystander outside the "zone of danger" of physical injury who sees the defendant negligently injuring another could not recover damages for her own distress. A majority of states now allow recovery in these cases as long as: The plaintiff and the person injured by the defendant are closely related; The plaintiff was present at the scene of the injury; and The plaintiff personally observed or perceived the event. The bystander's presence within the zone of danger from physical injury is no longer required for a bystander to recover for witnessing an injury to another.
