Negligence - General Duty Rules MPC
A 13-year-old boy who lived on a farm with his parents in a rural area had learned to drive the family's tractor when he was 11. A state statute permitted persons without a driver's license to operate farm vehicles on public roads for short distances. One morning the boy took the tractor onto a public road to reach one of the outlying fields a few hundred yards away. As he neared the field he was distracted by a girl riding by on a bicycle, and cut in front of a milk delivery truck that was starting to pass him. The truck swerved off the road, injuring the driver. If the driver sues the boy to recover damages for his injuries, which of the following statements is most correct regarding the standard of care to be applied? A) The state statute replaces the general common law standard of care with a statutory standard. B) The trier of fact should take into account the boy's experience at driving a tractor when considering the applicable standard of care. C) Persons 13 years of age or older are held to the same standard as adults. D) An adult standard of care will not be applied because it is common in that region for children of that age to be operating tractors.
B
A boy was playing softball in a neighborhood park when a ball was hit over the fence and into a neighbor's yard. The boy knocked on the neighbor's door and obtained permission from her to retrieve the ball from her yard. As he bent to retrieve the ball in some bushes, the boy brushed against an exposed electric wire that was partially hidden by the bushes and received a severe electric shock and burns. The neighbor had failed to maintain the bushes, allowing them to become overgrown, and was not aware of the exposed wire. If the boy sues the neighbor in a jurisdiction that applies the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, what is the likely result? A) The neighbor is liable because the boy entered with her permission. B) The neighbor is liable because she failed to repair a dangerous condition on her property. C) The neighbor is liable because she failed to reasonably inspect the property, which would have made her aware of the dangerous condition of the wire. D) The neighbor is not liable because she did not know of the condition of the wire.
D
A 14-year-old was the youngest licensed pilot in the state. On a foggy day when pilots were being advised to fly only if necessary, the pilot took his plane out so that he could fly low over the football field where his friends were practicing. When he attempted to land on his return to the airport, he ran off the runway due to the fog and damaged an executive's airplane, which was in the parking area. If the executive sues the pilot for damage to his airplane and prevails, what is the likely reason? A) A reasonable pilot would not have flown that day. B) A pilot with the same age, education, and experience would not have flown that day. C) It was not necessary for the pilot to fly that day. D) The flying of a plane by a 14-year-old is an inherently dangerous activity, and the pilot is strictly liable for the damage.
A
A landowner invited some friends, including his neighbor, to a party in his backyard. All the friends showed up, except for the neighbor. That evening, a guest produced and lit a large skyrocket. The skyrocket failed to climb properly and crashed into the neighbor's garage, burning the garage to the ground. A local ordinance made it a misdemeanor to sell fireworks within the city limits. If the neighbor sues the landowner for the damage to his garage in a jurisdiction that applies the traditional liability rules for landowners and possessors of land, on which theory is he most likely to prevail? A) The landowner failed to exercise due care to control the acts of his guests. B) The landowner is strictly liable for harm resulting from abnormally dangerous activities performed on his land. C) Because he had been invited to the landowner's party, the neighbor, as an invitee, was owed by the landowner a duty to discover and guard against activities on his land involving an unreasonable risk of harm. D) The landowner is liable on a negligence per se theory because of the local ordinance banning the sale of fireworks within the city.
A
A patient went to a dermatologist for treatment of a skin condition on his face that had resisted standard treatment. The dermatologist prescribed a new topical antibiotic cream that was recommended by her associate. She gave the patient instructions on how and when to apply the cream but did not discuss potential side effects. The patient purchased the cream at his local pharmacy and applied it as instructed. Shortly thereafter his skin turned a distinct shade of green and he felt a strong burning sensation when he tried to wash it off. The color took almost a week to fade away, during which time he avoided going out in public and took time off from work. The cream was packaged with a lengthy printed insert that detailed a number of possible side effects of varying degrees of probability. A "green pallor" and "irritation" were listed as uncommon side effects. The patient sued the dermatologist for prescribing the medicine and established the above facts. He also testified that he would not have taken the medicine had he been informed of all of the potential side effects. If the dermatologist is found to be not liable to the patient, it will be because: A) A reasonable person in the patient's position would have used the cream even when told of the potential side effects. B) The printed insert that came with the cream listed possible side effects similar to the reaction the patient experienced. C) The severity of the reaction the patient experienced was unforeseeable. D) The jurisdiction does not apply a "national" standard of care to the dermatologist.
A
A pregnant woman in her seventh month of pregnancy was prescribed a drug by her family doctor for arthritis relief. The literature provided to physicians by the drug manufacturer warned that the drug should not be prescribed for pregnant women because it invariably caused enlargement of the ears of male children at puberty. Studies confirming this result were published in various medical journals. The pregnant woman gave birth to a son soon thereafter. His ears grew disproportionately large when he reached the age of 13, and he has suffered severe emotional distress because of his appearance. If the son brings an action against the doctor, who will likely prevail? A) The son, because he can establish that most doctors would not have prescribed the drug for his mother. B) The son, because the doctor is strictly liable as a commercial supplier of a dangerously defective product. C) The doctor, because the son has suffered no physical harm. D) The doctor, because no duty is owed to an unborn child.
A
A shopper at a grocery store slipped and fell when he stepped in some water that had seeped out from a malfunctioning freezer case. The fall caused the shopper to break an ankle, so he filed suit against the store in a jurisdiction applying the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land. At trial, the shopper presented evidence of the above facts, and testified that the floor around the water appeared dirty. To survive a motion for summary judgment by the store, what additional evidence must the shopper present? A) No additional evidence. B) He was planning to make a purchase at the store. C) The store employees knew that the freezer case was leaking. D) His attention was diverted by store displays so that he did not notice the water on the floor.
A
An electric company is the sole distributor of electrical power in the city. The company owns and maintains all of the electric poles and equipment in the city in compliance with government standards. The electric company has had to replace insulators on its poles repeatedly because unknown persons regularly shoot at and destroy them, which causes the power lines to fall to the ground. On one of these occasions, a five-year-old child who had wandered out of his yard intentionally touched a downed wire, and was seriously burned. If a claim on the child's behalf is asserted against the electric company, will the child recover? A) Yes, if the electric company could have taken reasonable steps to prevent the lines from falling when the insulators were destroyed. B) Yes, because a supplier of electricity is strictly liable in tort. C) No, unless the electric company failed to exercise reasonable care to stop the destruction of the insulators. D) No, because the destruction of the insulators was intentional.
A
The superintendent of a waste management company that operated a landfill noted that some children who lived in a nearby residential development had taken to sledding down the snow-covered mounds of dirt that were piled on the site. A construction company needing dirt fill for a highway project had offered to remove the mounds of dirt at minimal cost but the superintendent had not yet arranged for their removal. In the meantime he posted numerous signs around the landfill site that stated in bold letters, "NO TRESPASSING—NO SLEDDING." Despite the signs, which he saw and read, a 10-year-old neighborhood child sledded down one of the mounds of dirt and was propelled onto a busy highway adjacent to the landfill, where he was struck by a car and seriously injured. In a jurisdiction that retains traditional contributory negligence rules, is the waste management company liable for the child's injuries? A) Yes, because the company could have had the piles of dirt removed at minimal cost. B) Yes, because the company created a public nuisance. C) No, because the child was a trespasser. D) No, because the child read and understood the warning signs and appreciated the danger.
A
A 15-year-old boy living at home with his parents, who were having a dinner party, set up a practical joke where a bucket of water is balanced on a partially open door so that the next person to enter the room through that door is drenched. The boy set up the filled bucket on the partially open door of the guest bedroom, knowing that his father would take the guests' coats in there. The boy's father did not use the guest bedroom for the coats, but, later that evening, an invited guest of the boy's parents mistakenly wandered into the room. As the guest opened the door to the guest bedroom, the bucket of water plunged down on him, opening a four-inch cut in his scalp that required stitches. In an action by the guest against the boy and his parents for personal injuries, the court should determine the boy's culpability according to: A) The presumption against negligence afforded to all minors. B) The age, experience, and intelligence of an ordinarily prudent minor in circumstances similar to the boy's. C) The standard applicable to adults, since the boy is nearly grown. D) Strict liability, because the practical joke turned out to be so dangerous.
B
A boy mowing his lawn noticed a strong vibration from the engine but continued to mow. The engine housing suddenly broke apart and pieces flew off the lawnmower. One piece struck the boy in the head, seriously injuring him. The boy's mother was inside the house and heard yelling from the backyard. She went to the window and saw her son lying on the ground by the lawnmower and a friend of his kneeling over him. She became very upset and fainted. Subsequent investigation showed that a negligent repair by a local mechanic caused the engine housing to shatter. The mother brought a lawsuit against the mechanic, seeking recovery for her son's injury and the emotional distress she suffered. Can the mother recover damages for her emotional distress? A) No, because her son's continuing to mow after noticing the vibration was a superseding cause of the harm. B) No, because the mother was not within the zone of danger from the mechanic's negligence. C) Yes, because the mother was closely related to someone in the zone of danger from the mechanic's negligence. D) Yes, because her son was injured by the mechanic's negligence.
B
A driver was driving his car negligently along a mountain road. He lost control of his car and careened over the side of a cliff. A jogger saw the driver's car go off the cliff and stopped to see if he could help. The jogger started to climb down the cliff to render aid to the driver. In doing so, the jogger slipped and broke his leg. The jogger sued the driver to recover damages for his broken leg. Regarding any defenses the driver might raise, which of the following statements is correct? A) A rescuer acts at his own peril. B) The excitement of the accident and the speedy response of the rescuer would be considered in a case such as this. C) Assumption of the risk cannot be invoked against rescuers. D) The driver would not have a valid defense.
B
A homeowner lived in a house on a large corner lot located a few hundred feet from a convenience store that was frequented by many people in the neighborhood. Everyone took a shortcut across the homeowner's front yard rather than staying on the sidewalk that bordered her lawn. The heavy foot traffic wore a path through her lawn, and people left soft drink cans and candy wrappers strewn all over her front yard. Fed up, the homeowner hired a local contractor to build a fence around her front lawn. The next afternoon, the contractor started the job by surveying the property and digging post holes, but left to do another small job in that area. He left behind a wheelbarrow with a shovel leaning against it. After noticing the items, the homeowner called the contractor's office and spoke to his wife. The contractor's wife said that he was on another job in the area and would pick up the wheelbarrow and shovel on his way back, but he never did. A neighbor who was walking to the convenience store to pick up a six-pack of beer after work took his usual shortcut when he came to the neighbor's corner. As he was walking by the wheelbarrow, a police car with siren wailing went by on the main street, distracting him. As he followed the police car with his eyes, he tripped over the shovel leaning against the wheelbarrow and fell, breaking his arm. Is the homeowner liable to the neighbor for his broken arm and related damages? A) No, because she did not create the condition that harmed him. B) No, because the danger to which he was exposed was open and obvious. C) Yes, because she was aware of the condition that harmed him. D) Yes, because she knew that he frequently cut across her lawn on the way to the convenience store.
B
A landowner owned a large commercial building downtown and the vacant lot next to his building. The landowner agreed to let a Scout troop use the vacant lot to practice outdoor-type activities. One weekend while the landowner was away on business, the Scout leader asked the landowner's building manager if he would permit the Scouts to practice their archery. The building manager agreed, but insisted that the targets be set up against the building so that an errant shot would merely strike concrete and not injure someone on the streets bordering the lot. The building manager supervised the set-up of the targets and ensured that responsible adults were present to assist the Scouts, then left the area. One of the Scouts jokingly shot an arrow up into the sky, and it came down on the street next to the vacant lot, striking and injuring a motorcyclist who was riding past. Which of these statements, if true, would defeat an action by the motorcyclist against the landowner for personal injuries? A) The landowner had no personal knowledge of the archery practice by the Scouts. B) The precautions taken by the landowner's building manager were those a reasonable person would have taken. C) The Scout acted recklessly by shooting the arrow into the air. D) The failure of the adults present to prevent the Scout's action was an intervening cause of the injury.
B
A pedestrian walking along an unpaved road on his way to work saw a school bus coming in the opposite direction suddenly begin to careen toward him. The bus driver had momentarily lost control of the bus while attempting to light a cigarette. To avoid being hit by the bus, the pedestrian jumped off the road into a landowner's yard. Unfortunately, he landed in a bed of prize-winning zinnias and damaged them extensively. In a suit by the landowner against the bus driver for the damages to her zinnias, what is the likely result? A) The bus driver is liable for trespass because his driving caused the pedestrian to enter the landowner's yard and damage her zinnias. B) The bus driver is liable on the theory of negligence. C) The bus driver is not liable because the landowner's zinnias were not within the scope of any duty he owed in operating a bus on a public road. D) If the bus driver is held liable on any theory, he is entitled to indemnity from the pedestrian, who did the damage.
B
A swimmer went to a privately owned lake resort whose owner charged a fee for admission. The beach had a roped-in swimming area and large signs directing swimmers not to swim anywhere but within the ropes. The lifeguards regularly enforced this rule. The resort also rented canoes and rowboats to its patrons, who could take them anywhere on the lake. The swimmer and two of his friends had rented a canoe and started to paddle out toward the other side of the lake when the swimmer saw a volleyball game starting on the beach that he wanted to join. He left his friends in the canoe and started swimming to shore. He was only a few yards outside of the roped-in swimming area when he started, but he angled away from the swimming area toward the area of the beach where the volleyball net was set up. Although the lifeguard on duty saw him, she did not warn him to return to the swimming area. When the depth of the water was about four feet, he put his foot down and was severely cut by the jagged edge of a rusted metal stake protruding a few inches out of the bottom of the lake. The swimmer had not seen the stake even though the water was clear and it was visible if he had looked down. If the swimmer sues the resort in a jurisdiction that applies the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, is he likely to recover? A) No, because the stake could have been seen by the swimmer. B) No, because he was swimming outside of the roped-in area. C) Yes, because the lifeguard on duty saw him and did not warn him to return to the swimming area. D) Yes, because he is a public invitee of the resort.
B
In response to the latest energy crisis, an oil company began testing a new method of extracting oil from certain types of subsurface rock. The process used concentrated sound waves to pulverize the rock and draw out the oil. The tests, conducted in a sparsely populated area, caused heavy vibrations in the ground and the slumping of subsurface earth structures surrounding the test site. This led to the collapse of a water well on a rancher's property. If the rancher brings a negligence action against the oil company, which of the following would be most helpful to the oil company in avoiding liability? A) The subsurface earth structures that collapsed as a result of the tests were unstable before the tests took place. B) The rancher's property is located at such a far distance from the test site that no risk to the rancher was foreseeable. C) The oil company exercised due care in selecting the personnel who chose the test site and conducted the tests. D) The oil company built its test site and conducted the tests in conformity with safety procedures and standards used by all other companies engaged in similar tests.
B
A car owner lent her automobile to her girlfriend for the specific purpose of picking up a pizza that the owner and the girlfriend had ordered for dinner. The girlfriend drove to the shopping mall where the pizzeria was located and parked the owner's car there. Instead of going directly to the pizzeria, the girlfriend went into a bookstore, browsed, and eventually purchased a book. The girlfriend then went to the pizzeria and picked up the pizza, which had been ready for 15 minutes. Just as the girlfriend left the pizzeria to return to the car, another car struck the owner's parked car, causing extensive damage to the car. The owner did not carry collision insurance, and the car required $800 worth of body work. If the owner sues the girlfriend on a negligence theory for damage to the car, who will prevail? A) The owner, because the girlfriend exceeded her authority when she went to the bookstore. B) The owner, because but for the girlfriend's delay in getting the pizza, the owner's car would not have been damaged. C) The girlfriend, because she did not create a foreseeable risk of damage to the owner's car. D) The girlfriend, because the family car doctrine imputes any of the girlfriend's negligence to the owner.
C
A company operated a fleet of touring buses. It owned its own garage for repairing and maintaining its fleet. Behind this garage was a large vacant lot in which the company stored old, discarded, and wrecked buses, which it salvaged for parts or sold for scrap. This area was fenced in by a five-foot-high chain link fence, but the company was aware that children from the neighborhood would climb the fence and play among the junked buses. Consequently, the company would have one of its employees walk through the storage area during the day to chase away any children who may have scaled the fence. One Saturday afternoon, when the company's garage had closed for the weekend, a group of children climbed over the storage area's fence to play army among the junked buses. One of the children (who had been chased away from the lot before and who also had been warned by his parents not to play in these buses) was trying to climb onto the roof of one of the old buses, when he slipped on the front bumper of the bus and his arm broke through the front windshield, causing severe lacerations. Through an appropriate guardian, the child brought suit against the company for his injury. Which of the following, if established, would most aid the child in showing that the company breached a duty owing to him? A) It would have been economically feasible to remove the windows from all of the abandoned buses. B) This area would be classified more as a residential neighborhood than an industrial area. C) The company could have eliminated the risk of injury without unduly interfering with its normal operations. D) The company improperly maintained the fence that surrounded the lot with the discarded and abandoned buses.
C
A hiker in an isolated area encountered a cross-country skier who had broken her leg. The hiker created a makeshift sled and began pulling the skier to the nearest road. As the hiker was pulling her across the ice of a lake, the ice gave way and they went into the water. The hiker was unable to get out of the water and drowned. The skier was able to pull herself to shore and eventually was rescued. However, she suffered severe hypothermia and lost some of her toes to frostbite as a result of being in the water. Does the skier have a cause of action for damages against the hiker's estate? A) No, because the hiker had no duty to come to the skier's aid. B) No, because the hiker did not survive the accident. C) No, unless the hiker acted negligently in attempting to cross the ice. D) No, unless the hiker acted with gross negligence in his attempt to cross the ice.
C
A mother brought her nine-year-old son to an indoor shopping mall. She was not planning on making any purchases that day, just spending some time with her son. When her son needed to use the men's restroom, his mother did some window shopping at the adjacent store. A criminal cornered the boy in the men's room and assaulted him. The criminal then quickly left the mall and has not been apprehended. The mother filed suit against the mall's owner on behalf of her son for the injuries he suffered. If the mall is found not liable, what is the likely reason? A) The mother was negligent in supervising her son. B) The mother was not planning on making any purchases. C) The criminal's act was a superseding force. D) The son was not a customer of the mall.
C
A pilot was flying his airplane, which he always kept well maintained. Due to a flock of birds that suddenly got in his way, the pilot was forced to seek an emergency landing area and glided toward a field where children were playing. As the pilot made his landing, he was unable to avoid striking and injuring one child. If the parents of the child bring an action against the pilot to recover for the child's personal injuries, what is the pilot's best defense? A) He did not act willfully and wantonly. B) He could not reasonably foresee that he would have to make an emergency landing. C) He used reasonable care in the maintenance of his airplane. D) His conduct was not the cause of the injury to the child.
C
A plaintiff's friend told her that she could use his lakeside cabin for the weekend. Her friend gave the plaintiff instructions on how to find his cabin, but once the plaintiff arrived at the lake, she found that all the cabins looked very similar. The plaintiff rechecked her friend's instructions and then entered the cabin that she thought belonged to her friend. In fact, the cabin belonged to a different cabin owner. After the plaintiff unpacked her luggage, she realized that the cabin was quite cold. Thus, she gathered some wood from the woodpile and started a fire in the fireplace. Unbeknownst to the plaintiff, the fireplace flue was blocked and so an explosion ensued, and the plaintiff was injured by the explosion. The cabin owner had known that the flue was blocked, but he had not gotten around to having the problem fixed because he was not going to be at the cabin for several weeks. If the plaintiff sues the cabin owner for her injuries, who will prevail? A) The plaintiff, because the cabin owner knew that the flue was defective. B) The plaintiff, because the cabin owner had a duty to warn of the defect. C) The cabin owner, because he had no reason to anticipate that anyone would be in the cabin. D) The cabin owner, because the plaintiff was a trespasser.
C
A woman was driving carefully but with an expired driver's license, in violation of a statute requiring license renewal. When she stopped at a stop sign, another driver, who was speeding, crashed into her car. The woman suffered injuries and sued the other driver. What is the best reason why the fact that the woman had an expired driver's license will not affect her claim against the other driver? A) The other driver's negligence occurred after the woman's. B) The driver should have known that there are some unlicensed drivers on the road. C) The prevention of accidents of this sort is not the reason that drivers are required to renew their driver's licenses. D) There is a greater chance of causing injury when a driver speeds than when a person drives with an expired license.
C
A woman was jogging along a jogging path. Suddenly, a driver pulled out of an alley perpendicular to the jogging path and failed to stop at a stop sign. He hit her with his car, injuring her. The woman sued the driver. A city code provided that drivers must stop at all stop signs perpendicular to the jogging path. On the basis of which standard of care will the driver be judged? A) Strict liability, because an automobile is an inherently dangerous instrument. B) That of a reasonable and prudent person under the facts of this situation. C) The standard set by the city code. D) The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, because it can be presumed that nobody would fail to stop at a stop sign in the absence of negligence.
C
An architect who specialized in the design of large buildings designed a resort hotel for a hotel chain. The architect took into account weather conditions where the hotel was to be built, and came up with two designs that would cost approximately the same amount to construct to specifications. One of them had the four large supporting pylons set so that it could withstand winds 20% higher than the region had experienced in the 85 years that the weather bureaus kept records for the area. The other design set the pylons farther apart, but they would withstand winds 50% higher than the region had experienced. The architect decided to go with the first (20% margin) design, because he felt it was more aesthetically pleasing, and also because a 20% safety margin was usually considered adequate. Officers of the hotel chain reviewed and approved the architect's plans, and the hotel was constructed according to the plans. Two years after the hotel opened, a freak storm struck, bringing with it winds of hurricane force. The hotel suffered significant damage, which would have been avoided had the supporting pylons been placed farther apart. If the hotel chain sues the architect for the damage to the hotel, who will prevail? A) The architect, because the hotel chain reviewed and approved the plans. B) The architect, because innkeepers, rather than architects, are subject to strict liability. C) The architect, if he acted in the manner of a reputable member of his profession. D) The hotel chain, because the placement of the pylons resulted in extensive damage to the hotel.
C
An inventor operated a shortwave radio in his home. The inventor maintained a large radio antenna on the rear part of his lot. One day the inventor noticed that the guy-wires holding the antenna in place were frayed. He hired a contractor to replace the guy-wires with new, stronger wire. The contractor replaced all of the guy-wires as per his agreement with the inventor. Four days after the contractor finished his work and the inventor had paid him, the antenna fell over onto the inventor's neighbor's house, causing severe damage. If the neighbor brings suit against the inventor for damages to his home, why is the neighbor likely to prevail against the inventor? A) The doctrine of respondeat superior applies. B) He assumed responsibility when he paid the contractor for the repair. C) He was in possession of the property from which the antenna fell. D) The contractor was engaged in an inherently dangerous activity.
C
An ordinance of a city makes it unlawful to park a motor vehicle on a city street within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. At 1:55 p.m., a man, realizing he must be in the bank before it closed at 2 p.m. and finding no other space available, parked his automobile in front of a fire hydrant on a city street. The man then hurried into the bank, leaving his elderly neighbor as a passenger in the rear seat of the car. About five minutes later, and while the man was still in the bank, a woman was driving down the street. The woman swerved to avoid what she mistakenly thought was a hole in the street and sideswiped the man's car. The man's car was turned over on top of the hydrant, breaking the hydrant and causing a small flood of water. The man's car was severely damaged and the elderly neighbor was badly injured. If the elderly neighbor asserts a claim against the man, will the elderly neighbor recover? A) Yes, because the man's action was negligence per se. B) Yes, because the man's action was a continuing wrong that contributed to the elderly neighbor's injuries. C) No, because a reasonably prudent person could not foresee injury to the elderly neighbor as a result of the man's action. D) No, because a violation of a city ordinance does not give rise to a civil cause of action.
C
At the end of the season, the owner of a private beach stacked up his rental canoes onto a trailer, and arranged for them to be moved the next day into a storage shed for the winter. That evening, two nine-year-old boys came onto the owner's property even though they knew that the lake was closed to the public for the season. Both of them had used the canoes (with an adult) several times during the past summer. They unhooked one of the canoes from the rack, lifted it down, and pushed it into the water. Although the life vests were sitting in an open bin nearby, neither boy put one on. When they were out in the middle of the lake with the canoe, they tried to switch seats and caused the canoe to capsize. They both tried to swim to shore. One was able to make it, but unfortunately the other boy could not make it and he drowned. Had he been wearing a life vest, he would have survived. The boy's parents bring a wrongful death action against the beach owner. If the beach owner prevails, what will be the likely reason? A) Children of the boy's age, intelligence, and education would not likely take the canoe out without a life vest. B) The owner took precautions to make the canoes inaccessible. C) The boy appreciated the risk of taking the canoe out onto the lake without a life vest. D) The boy was not lured onto the owner's property by the canoes.
C
The owner of a valuable painting hired professional movers to transport it to an auction house when she decided to sell it. As the movers were carrying it to their van, a window air conditioner that a tenant had been trying to install fell out of his second floor window and crashed through the painting and onto the ground. The owner had been watching from her apartment across the street and saw her painting destroyed. She became extremely upset and needed medical treatment for shock. If the owner brings a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the tenant, is she likely to recover? A) Yes, because she suffered physical symptoms from her distress. B) Yes, because she was a foreseeable plaintiff. C) No, because she was not within the zone of danger. D) No, because she suffered no physical impact.
C
While a high school soccer game was in progress, members of one of the teams rolled three extra balls onto the field as a prank to distract opposing players. The referee ran over and angrily kicked the balls over to the sideline. He kicked the third ball with extreme force and it went into the bleachers and hit the mother of one of the players in the head, breaking her nose and knocking her off the bleachers. Standing with friends behind the bleachers, her teenage daughter saw what happened and rushed to her mother's aid. Paramedics were called to treat the woman and transfer her to a local hospital for treatment of possible spinal cord injuries. The incident caused the daughter to suffer shock to her nervous system that required treatment by a psychologist. The mother, on behalf of her daughter, brought an action against the referee for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The referee moved to dismiss the action, claiming there was no basis for recovery. Which party will likely prevail? A) The referee, because the daughter did not suffer any physical harm. B) The referee, because the daughter was not a foreseeable plaintiff. C) The daughter, because she personally observed the injury to her mother. D) The daughter, because the referee's negligence posed a direct threat of harm to her.
C
With his father's permission, a 14-year-old boy and his friend decided to take the family's small powerboat out on a lake near their summer home. The boy had accompanied his parents on the boat many times and was familiar with operating it. However, he had never operated the boat alone. After an hour on the lake, the boy was returning to the marina when he entered the 5 mph no-wake zone required by state law and posted at the entrance to the marina. The boy was going 15 mph when he entered the no wake zone and forgot to slow down. As a result, he was unable to avoid colliding with another boater, causing injury to that boater. The boater brought a personal injury action against the boy. State law requires that operators of powerboats under the age of 16 be accompanied by an adult. Which party is likely to prevail in this action? A) The boy, because he was acting as a reasonable child of like age, experience, and intelligence. B) The boy, because his negligence would be imputed to his father for failing to adequately supervise him in violation of state law. C) The boater, because the boy violated state law by going 15 mph in the no wake zone. D) The boater, because the boy violated state law by operating the powerboat unaccompanied by an adult.
C
A homeowner born on the fourth of July celebrated his birthday in his backyard with an assortment of fireworks and skyrockets, despite a severe drought and watering ban that left the grass extremely dry. One of the fireworks landed in a pile of dry grass clippings behind his garage, but the homeowner neglected to check whether it was extinguished. The grass clippings ignited, and the fire eventually spread to the rear wall of the garage. By the time the homeowner discovered the fire and called the fire department, the flames were reaching as high as the vacant apartment on the second floor of the garage. The first firefighter to arrive rushed with a hose to the back of the garage. As he went up the outside stairs leading to the back door of the apartment, one of the steps broke, causing him to fall to the ground and break his leg. Unbeknownst to the homeowner, the wood on the underside of the step had rotted away. In a suit by the firefighter against the homeowner, will the firefighter likely prevail? A) Yes, because the homeowner was negligent in allowing the fire to start. B) Yes, because it was foreseeable that the homeowner's shooting off the fireworks would necessitate the assistance of the fire department. C) No, unless the jury determines that the homeowner could have discovered the condition of the step with a reasonable inspection. D) No, because a firefighter cannot recover for negligent conduct of another that causes him to be injured from risks that are inherent to his duties.
D
A homeowner looked out his front window one day and saw a neighbor standing on a narrow ledge on the second story of the house across the street. He also saw a ladder lying on the ground beneath where the neighbor was stranded. The homeowner ran out and picked up the ladder and placed it against the side of the house. However, he set it atop a patch of ice. As the neighbor started down the ladder, a rotten rung broke and he fell to the ground and was injured. If the neighbor sues the homeowner for damages for his injuries, will he recover? A) Yes, because the homeowner's action caused the injury to the neighbor. B) Yes, because the homeowner assumed the duty of aiding the neighbor. C) Yes, because it was foreseeable that the neighbor would be injured as a result of the homeowner's negligent conduct. D) No, because the homeowner's negligence did not cause the injury to the neighbor.
D
A trainer of homing pigeons brought several of them to a park that he often used for training. He had trained this group of pigeons carefully and was confident that they would readily find their way home. When they were released, one of the pigeons inexplicably turned in the opposite direction from home. Several blocks away at the other end of the park, it collided with a radio-controlled model airplane that its owner had just purchased and was trying out for the first time. The collision sent the airplane out of control; it dipped low across a highway and was struck and run over by a truck. The airplane owner sued the pigeon trainer for the destruction of his airplane. The parties stipulated to the above facts and the airplane owner presented evidence of his damages. The trainer then moved for a directed verdict. Should it be granted? A) No, because the trainer's pigeon caused the destruction of the airplane. B) No, because the jury could find negligence on the trainer's part under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. C) Yes, because the truck, rather than the pigeon, was the direct cause of the airplane's destruction. D) Yes, because the trainer took reasonable care in training his pigeons.
D
When a diner began choking on a piece of shrimp, a waitress rushed to the diner's assistance. Before she could reach the diner, the waitress slipped on some pudding that a busboy had failed to remove from the floor. The waitress fell on top of another restaurant patron, injuring him. If the injured patron sues the waitress for his injuries, can he recover? A) Yes, because the waitress had no duty to rescue. B) Yes, because the waitress assumed the risk. C) No, because the touching was unintentional. D) No, but he may recover against the restaurant.
D