BLAW Exam 2

Which of the following is NOT an example of a trial court of limited jurisdiction? Question options:] A probate court A juvenile court A small claims court A general civil division court

A general civil division court

Which of the following cases is a criminal case and not a tort case? Question options: Guadalupe throws a rock at Simon, hitting him in the back. Simon sues Guadalupe for his medical bills and lost wages. Guadalupe throws a rock at Simon, hitting him in the back. Simon files a private complaint with the county attorney, who in turn prosecutes Guadalupe for battery. Guadalupe throws a rock at Simon, hitting him in the back. Simon does not suffer any injuries and does not sue Guadalupe. Guadalupe throws a rock at Simon, hitting him in the back. Simon sues Guadalupe for his medical bills and lost wages, and the parties mediate the case in an effort to resolve it.

Guadalupe throws a rock at Simon, hitting him in the back. Simon files a private complaint with the county attorney, who in turn prosecutes Guadalupe for battery.

Which of the following cases is a tort case and not a criminal case? Question options: Guadalupe throws a rock at Simon, hitting him in the back. Simon sues Guadalupe for his medical bills and lost wages. Guadalupe throws a rock at Simon, hitting him in the back. Simon files a private complaint with the county attorney, who in turn prosecutes Guadalupe for battery. Guadalupe throws a rock at Simon, hitting him in the back. The police investigate and charge Guadalupe with battery. Guadalupe throws a rock at Simon, hitting him in the back. The police investigate and file a police report on the incident.

Guadalupe throws a rock at Simon, hitting him in the back. Simon sues Guadalupe for his medical bills and lost wages.

Holt and Collins decide to have their dispute arbitrated by Corrales. Which of the following will NOT be a result of the arbitration? Question options: Corrales will render a binding decision. Holt and Collins will not have the chance to present their cases. Holt and Collins give up the right to discovery. Corrales need not give reasons for the decision.

Holt and Collins will not have the chance to present their cases.

Evaluate the following scenarios and determine which represents Micha's highest liability. Question 4 options: Rose is lost and pulls her car into Micha's driveway for a moment to get her bearings. Chao is a 12-year-old neighbor of Micha's who has snuck into Micha's backyard to swim in his pool. Juanita is a customer having a latte in the coffee shop Micha owns and operates. Ron is Micha's friend whom Micha has invited to his home to watch the Super Bowl.

Juanita is a customer having a latte in the coffee shop Micha owns and operates.

A plaintiff sues in negligence but has no direct proof that the defendant behaved unreasonably. Which of the following is most likely to help the plaintiff? Question 5 options: Res judicata Stare decisis Res ipsa loquitur Mens rea

Res ipsa loquitur

Arbitration clauses are generally enforced if Question options: at least one party has agreed to submit disputes to arbitration. both parties have agreed to submit disputes to arbitration and the contract provides a neutral forum and reasonable rules to govern the arbitration. one party has the right to choose the forum and impose reasonable rules to govern the arbitration. the parties live in a state where arbitration clauses are mandated.

both parties have agreed to submit disputes to arbitration and the contract provides a neutral forum and reasonable rules to govern the arbitration.

In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove the case Question options: by a preponderance of the evidence. by submission to an arbitrator. beyond a reasonable doubt. by no standard because the burden of proof is on the defendant.

by a preponderance of the evidence.

The idea behind punitive damages is that Question options: torts that occur in a commercial setting are far more serious than torts affecting private individuals. certain behavior is so unacceptable that society must make an example of it. the right to free speech is not absolute and must sometimes be restricted. defendants must be restored to the position they were in before the injury.

certain behavior is so unacceptable that society must make an example of it.

A tort is a Question options: criminal wrong. civil wrong. criminal right. civil right.

civil wrong.

The elements in a defamation case are Question options: defamatory statement; falsity; communication; injury. a contract; knowledge of the contract; improper inducement; injury. false or misleading fact statements; statements in commercial advertising; likelihood of harm. duty; breach of duty; proximate causation; damages.

defamatory statement; falsity; communication; injury.

If a court applies res ipsa loquitur, the Question 7 options: plaintiff needs to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence. plaintiff must prove the case by clear and convincing evidence. defendant has the burden of proving they are not liable. defendant is strictly liable.

defendant has the burden of proving they are not liable.

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must establish Question 1 options: duty, strict liability, causation, and injury. mens rea, breach, foreseeable harm, and injury. duty, actus reus, foreseeable harm, and causation. duty of due care, breach, factual cause, proximate cause, and damages.

duty of due care, breach, factual cause, proximate cause, and damages.

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 Question 2 options: factual cause. duty of due care. proximate cause. breach.

factual cause.

To proceed on a res ipsa loquitur case, the plaintiff must prove that the harm normally would not have occurred without negligence, that the defendant Question 14 options: shared control of the thing that caused the harm with only one other person, and that the plaintiff had no role in causing the harm. had exclusive control of the thing that caused the harm, and that the defendant had no role in causing the harm. had exclusive control of the thing that caused the harm, and that the plaintiff had no role in causing the harm. had exclusive control of the thing that caused the harm, and that the plaintiff had only a minimal role in causing the harm.

had exclusive control of the thing that caused the harm, and that the plaintiff had no role in causing the harm.

In alternative dispute resolution (ADR), most cases are resolved through Question options: litigation. negotiation. mediation. lawsuits.

negotiation.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad established the rules Question 13 options: regarding commuter train travel. regarding strict liability. of tort law. of negligence.

of negligence.

A customer in a restaurant would be considered an invitee, to whom the restaurant owner owes a duty Question 10 options: to warn of known dangers. of reasonable care. only to avoid intentionally injuring him. of strict liability

of reasonable care.

The ruling in the landmark case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was that a public official can win a defamation case Question options: without proving the defendant acted with reckless disregard of the truth. only by proving the defendant's actual malice. without proving the defendant knew their statement was false. only by proving the defendant has a history of reckless behavior.

only by proving the defendant's actual malice.

In awarding punitive damages, a court must consider the Question options: reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct and whether punitive damages have been awarded by the court recently. ratio between the harm suffered and the award and whether the parties are in federal or state court. reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio between the harm suffered and the award, and the difference between the punitive award and any civil penalties used in similar cases. difference between the punitive award and any civil penalties used in similar cases as well as any compensatory damages awarded.

reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio between the harm suffered and the award, and the difference between the punitive award and any civil penalties used in similar cases.

In awarding punitive damages, a court considers all of the following EXCEPT the Question options: difference between the punitive award and any civil penalties used in similar cases. ratio between the harm suffered and the award. reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct. reprehensibility of the plaintiff's conduct.

reprehensibility of the plaintiff's conduct.

The single recovery principle Question options: allows victims of torts to sue only one person at a time. allows victims of torts to sue for only one tort at a time. requires an attorney to represent only one client per case. requires a court to settle a legal case once and for all by awarding a lump sum for past and future expenses.

requires a court to settle a legal case once and for all by awarding a lump sum for past and future expenses.

The general goal of compensatory damages is to Question options: find a way to help defendants avoid jail time for their crimes. restore plaintiffs to the position they were in before the injury. punish defendants for extreme and outrageous behavior. make defendants suffer as much as the plaintiffs suffered.

restore plaintiffs to the position they were in before the injury.

Written defamation is libel, while oral defamation is Question options: conversion. fraud. trespass to reputation. slander.

slander.

A branch of tort law that imposes a much higher level of liability when harm results from ultrahazardous acts or defective products is referred to as Question 11 options: res ipsa loquitur. strict liability. heightened liability. strict negligence.

strict liability.

Some activities are so naturally dangerous that the law places an especially high burden on anyone who engages in them. This is referred to as Question 15 options: negligence. an intentional tort. strict liability. a crime.

strict liability.

A ruling by the court that no trial is necessary because there are no essential facts in dispute is a Question options: default judgment. long-arm statute. federal question. summary judgment.

summary judgment.

What is the primary trial court in the federal system? Question options: Municipal Court U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Claims Court U.S. District Court

U.S. District Court

Which of the following statements about torts is correct? Question options: A tortious act is always a criminal act. A criminal act is always a tortious act. A tortious act may also be a criminal act. A tortious act is the same as a contract dispute.

A tortious act may also be a criminal act.

Most courts have adopted one of two tests for design and warning cases. What are these tests? Question 18 options: Consumer expectation and a risk-utility test Contributory negligence and comparative negligence Strict liability and product liability Design defects and warning defects

Consumer expectation and a risk-utility test

Which of the following is not an example of ultrahazardous activity? Question 16 options: Emma combines toxic chemicals to make cleaning products for her house cleaning service. Matt keeps a wallaby as a pet. Takumi uses dynamite to demolish a building to prepare for new construction. Dillon drives very fast on the highway to see how far his speedometer can go on his new car.

Dillon drives very fast on the highway to see how far his speedometer can go on his new car.

The test of "foreseeability" is generally used to determine the existence of which element of a negligence case? Question 12 options: Duty of due care Breach Factual cause Negligence per se

Duty of due care

Which of the following statements about business and strict liability is correct? Question 17 options: Businesses are subject to strict liability when engaged in ultrahazardous activities and when responsible for a defective product in the market. Businesses are subject to strict liability only when engaged in ultrahazardous activities. Businesses are subject to strict liability only if responsible for a defective product in the market. Businesses are never subject to strict liability; only individuals are.

Businesses are subject to strict liability when engaged in ultrahazardous activities and when responsible for a defective product in the market.

What must the defendant successfully prove, no matter how slight the plaintiff's negligence, for the plaintiff to be denied any recovery of damages? Question 8 options: Contributory negligence Comparative negligence Res ipsa loquitur Negligence per se

Contributory negligence

Which of the following statements is correct regarding the difference between tort and criminal law? Question options: Tort and criminal law both impose a punishment for the defendant including prison and/or a fine. Tort law is prosecuted by the government. In criminal law, it is up to the injured party to seek compensation. Criminal law is prosecuted by the government.

Criminal law is prosecuted by the government.

Of all forms of dispute resolution, which likely offers the strongest "win-win" potential due to its goal of voluntary settlement? Question options: Litigation Arbitration Jurisdiction Mediation

Mediation

The Supreme Court consists of how many justices? Question options: Seven Eight Nine Twelve

Nine

As it applies to landowners, which of the following statements regarding liability to a licensee is correct? Question 9 options: Whether the landowner is responsible for injury depends on whether the licensee is an adult or a child. The landowner is liable to a licensee for injuries caused by hidden dangers only. Since the licensee is a trespasser on the landowner's property, the landowner is not responsible for injury. Since a licensee has permission to be on the landowner's property, the landowner is responsible for all injury whether hidden or obvious.

The landowner is liable to a licensee for injuries caused by hidden dangers only.

To establish res ipsa loquitur in most states, the plaintiff must demonstrate all but which of the following? Question 6 options: The defendant's lack of due care is supported by direct evidence. The harm ordinarily would not occur in the absence of negligence. The plaintiff had no role in causing the harm. The defendant had exclusive control of the thing that caused the harm.

The defendant's lack of due care is supported by direct evidence.

In order to win a case of false advertising under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must prove what elements in addition to that the defendant made false or misleading statements about its product or those of its competitor? Question options: The defendant used the statements in commercial advertising or promotions, and the statements created the likelihood of harm. The statements were material and likely to influence purchasing decisions, and the statements created the likelihood of harm. The statements were material and likely to influence purchasing decisions, the defendant used the statements in commercial advertising or promotions, and the statements created the likelihood of harm. The statements were material and likely to influence purchasing decisions, and the defendant used the statements in commercial advertising or promotions.

The statements were material and likely to influence purchasing decisions, the defendant used the statements in commercial advertising or promotions, and the statements created the likelihood of harm.

Negligence concerns harm that Question 3 options: is unforeseeable. arises intentionally. arises by accident. is always substantial.

arises by accident.

Jurisdiction can be described as Question options:the study of law. the authority of a court to hear and decide a particular type of case. court cases involving the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute. the burden of proof.

the authority of a court to hear and decide a particular type of case.

The First Amendment allows one to Question options: yell "fire!" in a crowded theater even though no fire is present. tell a crowd they should burn their neighbors' homes if angry with the actions of their neighbors. write an article about an unpopular political opinion. use someone else's writing as their own if they agree with what that person has written.

write an article about an unpopular political opinion.