Torts MC Midterm (Negligence) Practice Questions

¡Supera tus tareas y exámenes ahora con Quizwiz!

Which of the following elements of a negligence claim is an issue of law rather than an issue of fact? A. Duty B. Breach C. Actual cause D. Proximate cause

A. judge decides duty

What is generally the standard of proof for the elements of a negligence claim? A. The plaintiff must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. B. The plaintiff must prove each element by a preponderance of evidence C. The defendant must prove each element with clear and convincing evidence D. The defendant must prove each element with substantial evidence

Which of the following situations involves one of the traditional "special relationships" giving rise to a duty to aid or protect another person? A. The defendant is a worker in a factory, and the plaintiff is also a worker in that factory. B. The defendant is a homeowner, and the plaintiff is a guest who attends a dinner party at the defendant's home. C. The defendant is a manufacturer of goods, and the plaintiff is a consumer who purchased an item manufactured by the defendant. D. The defendant is a hotel and the plaintiff is one of the hotel's guests.

D. (innkeeper/guests)

A child fell off a bicycle and hit her head on a sharp rock. The child's head was cut and bleeding profusely. The child's mother rushed the child to the emergency room at a nearby hospital. The mother was permitted to remain in the treatment room, and hold the child's hand, while the emergency room physician cleaned and sutured the wound. During the procedure, the mother said that she was feeling faint and stood up to leave the room. While exiting the room, she fainted and fell, hitting her head on a metal fixture attached to the wall of the treatment room. The mother sustained a serious injury to her head as a result. If the mother sues the hospital to recover damages for her injury, will she prevail? A. Yes, if the hospital's personnel failed to take reasonable steps to anticipate and prevent her injury. B. Yes, if she can prove that the hospital knew about the metal fixture. C. No, because she voluntarily chose to stand and leave the room, even though she knew she was feeling faint. D. No, because the hospital did not owe a duty of care toward her.

A fire occurred at the gas pumps in the parking lot area in front of a convenience store. An oil company was delivering thousands of gallons of gasoline to the store. An employee of the oil company brought the gasoline in a large tanker truck, and he was transferring the gasoline from the tanker truck to fill up the store's underground gas storage tanks when he spilled a large quantity of the gasoline onto the ground. A few moments after the gas spilled, flammable vapors from the spilled gas ignited and created an enormous burst of flames. The evidence will establish that three people were standing near the gas pumps at the time, each was smoking a cigarette, and the vapors from the spilled gasoline were ignited by one or more of the cigarettes they were smoking. The fire caused severe burns to a teenager who happened to be walking across the parking lot at that moment. Seeking to recover damages for the injuries, negligence claims were asserted on behalf of the teenager against the oil company and all three of the people who were smoking. The evidence establishes that the oil company's employee was negligent when he spilled the gasoline and that each smoker was negligent for smoking so close to the gasoline pumps. The oil company agreed to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve the claim brought against it by the injured teenager. The teenager's claims against the three smokers are proceeding to trial. Which of the following is an accurate statement about the teenager's claim against the three smokers? A. The smokers may be held liable even if the teenager cannot prove specifically which cigarette or cigarettes started the fire. B. The smokers may be held liable under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. C. The smokers cannot be held liable unless the teenager proves that all three cigarettes simultaneously ignited the gas vapors. D. The smokers cannot be held liable because the oil company's decision to settle the claim against it is essential an admission that it was responsible for the accident.

A grocery store buys its zucchini from two large farms, Zucchini Acres and Zucchini Fields. Both farms spray their zucchini crops with a dangerous, illegal pesticide. Phyllis buys zucchini at the market, eats it, and dies because of the pesticide. Which of the following facts would make this an "alternative liability" case? A. Both farms grow green and yellow zucchini, Phyllis ate just one zucchini, and it was green. B. Zucchini Acres grows only green zucchini, Zucchini Fields grows only yellow zucchini, Phyllis ate one green zucchini and one yellow zucchini, and the pesticide in either zucchini was enough to kill Phyllis. C. Zucchini Acres grows only green zucchini, Zucchini Fields grows only yellow zucchini, Phyllis ate one green zucchini and one yellow zucchini and it took the pesticide in two zucchini to kill Phyllis.

A homeowner decided to put her house up for sale. She met a person who was interested in buying a house, and she invited this person over to visit her house and take a look at it. While touring the house, the visitor fell down a stairway leading to the basement and sustained serious injuries. The stairway did not have a handrail. If there had been a handrail, the fall and resulting injuries would not have occurred. The injured visitor sued the homeowner for negligence. The relevant county's building code prohibits anyone from constructing or maintaining a stairway in a house without a handrail. The homeowner was not aware that the building code required stairways to have handrails. Can the injured visitor prevail on a negligence per se claim against the homeowner? A. Yes, because the homeowner violated the building code by maintaining a stairway without a handrail. B. Yes, because the injured person was an invitee rather than a mere licensee. C. No, because the homeowner was unaware of the building code's requirements D. No, because the visitor did not own or live in the house and therefore was not a member of the class of persons meant to be protected by the building code.

A patient had surgery to repair an injured tendon in her shoulder. Three doctors were involved in performing the surgery. The patient was anesthetized and unconscious throughout the surgery. In the recovery room after the surgery, the patient discovered that she had a burn on one of her legs. The burn was not there prior to the surgery. The patient brought a medical malpractice action against each of the three doctors involved in the surgery. The patient argues that res ipsa loquitur should apply, and the doctors dispute this. Can res ipsa loquitur apply to the patient's claims against the doctors? A. Yes, because the operating room and all the instrumentalities in it that could have caused the injury were under the joint control of the three doctors. B. Yes, because it is likely that each of the three doctors failed to exercise reasonable care in some respect. C. No because even if one of the doctors must have done something negligent, the patient cannot prove which doctor was the negligent one. D. No, because res ipsa loquitur cannot be used in medical malpractice.

An architect and a banker had a tradition of playing practical jokes on each other. The tradition began many years ago, when the two were roommates in a dormitory during their first year at college. Both had found the pranks to be humorous and neither had ever been truly bothered or hurt by them in the past. Last month, it was the architect's birthday. The banker sent the architect a package of cookies. The banker put an ingredient in the cookies that the banker knew had made the architect very ill in the past when the architect had eaten some of it. The banker made it look like the cookies came from someone else, so the architect would not be suspicious. The architect ate some of the cookies, suffered severe abdominal pains, and was taken to the hospital in an ambulance. On the way to the hospital, the ambulance driver suffered a heart attack, lost consciousness, swerved off the road, and crashed into a tree. The architect suffered a broken leg in the crash. If the architect sues the banker to recover damages for the architect's broken leg, will the architect prevail? A. Yes, because the banker believed that the architect would get sick from eating the cookies, and getting sick led the architect to be in the ambulance that crashed. B. Yes, because the banker was substantially certain that there was a chance the ambulance could have an accident while rushing to the hospital. C. No, because the banker could not reasonably have foreseen that eating the cookies would lead to the architect suffering a broken leg. D. No, because the heart attack suffered by the ambulance driver was the proximate cause of the architect's broken leg.

An explorer fell while trying to climb a mountain, and lay unconscious and critically injured on a ledge that was difficult to reach. A hiker who was in the area attempted to rescue the explorer, but was seriously injured while trying to do so. The rescue attempt was unsuccessful, and the explorer died from his injuries before he could be reached. The hiker brought an action against the explorer's estate for compensation for his injuries. In this jurisdiction, the traditional common-law rules relating to contributory negligence and assumption of risk remain in effect. Will the hiker prevail in his action against the explorer's estate? A. Yes, if the explorer's peril arose from the explorer's failure to exercise reasonable care for his own safety. B. Yes, if the hiker's attempt to rescue the explorer was a reasonably foreseeable occurrence. C. No, because the hiker voluntarily chose to undertake the rescue attempt. D. No, because the hiker's attempt failed and therefore did not benefit the explorer.

David drives down Elm Street every day on his way home from work and knows that children frequently play there. One evening, as he drove down Elm Street, he saw a ball roll onto the street. A few seconds later, a two year old child ran into the street chasing after the ball. David was slow to apply his brakes, and his car struck the child. The state has a pure comparative fault system, and it imposes joint and several liability on negligent defendants. If a negligence claim is brought on behalf of the child, against David, the most likely result is: A. The child recovers her full damages, because it was reasonably foreseeable that a child would dart into the street. B. The child recovers only a portion of her damages, because she negligently ran into the street. C. The child recovers nothing, because David was not exceeding the posted speed limit.

In a negligence case, which of the following characteristics of a defendant are generally not taken into account in the standard of care applied to the defendant's conduct? A. Mental problems and voluntary intoxication. B. Physical problems and mental advantages. C. Physical advantages and mental problems. D. Physical problems and involuntary intoxication.

Preston has a large field in which he grows corn. He hires a crop duster to spray the field, but the crop duster mistakenly sprays a strong herbicide, rather than a pesticide, and kills all the corn plants in Preston's field. Several days later, a construction company building a house near Preston's field negligently hits a gas line and starts a fire that burns everything in the area, including the worthless remnants of dead corn left in Preston's field. If Preston brings negligence claims against the crop duster and the construction company in order to recover damages for the destruction of his corn crop, what is the most likely result? A. Only the crop duster is liable, because its negligence destroyed the corn crop before the construction company's negligence occurred. B. Only the construction company is liable, because its negligence would have destroyed Preston's corn crop no matter what the crop duster did. C. Both the crop duster and the construction company are liable, because each engaged in a negligent action that was sufficient to destroy Preston's corn crop. D. Neither the crop duster nor the construction company is liable, because neither is a "but for" cause of the harm.

Sally is 10 years old. Fireworks are prohibited in the town where Sally lives, but a friend gave her a small firecracker. Sally lit the firecracker and set it on a park bench next to a bottle of root beer. When the firecracker went off, it broke the bottle, causing a small splinter of glass to fly into Sally's eye. The state has a pure comparative fault system. If a negligence claim is brought, on Sally's behalf, against the person who gave her the firecracker, which of the following is true? A. If using illegal fireworks is considered a serious crime, Sally will recover nothing. B. Sally will be treated as negligent per se and her recovery will be reduced for her comparative fault. C. Sally's claim will be barred by express assumption of risk because she should have realized that firecrackers are potentially dangerous instruments. D. Sally will be unable to establish the proximate cause element of her claim because she was not using the firecracker in a manner in which it was intended to be used.

What effect does res ipsa loquitur have in most states? A. Res ipsa loquitur creates a permissible inference of negligence, which gives the jury the option of ruling in the plaintiff's favor. B. Res ipsa loquitur creates a prima facie case for the plaintiff, giving the defendant the burden of coming forward with some evidence to counter that prima facie showing. C. Res ipsa loquitur creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence, shifting to the defendant the burden of proof on the issue. D. Res ipsa loquitur creates an irrebutable presumption of negligence, requiring the jury to find that the defendant's conduct was negligent.

Which of the following is a correct statement about the "duplicative causation" rule? A. It covers situations in which there multiple things that combined to cause the plaintiff's injury, and each of them was sufficient to cause the injury. B. It covers situations in which there were multiple things that combined to cause the plaintiff's injury, and each of them was necessary to cause the injury. C. It covers situations in which there were multiple things that could have caused the plaintiff's injury, and it is unclear which of them actually caused the injury. D. It covers situations in which there were multiple things that could have caused the plaintiff's injury, and they were all under one defendant's control.

Which of the following is a true statement about the "but for" test? A. The "but for" test looks at whether the plaintiff's injury would have been avoided if the defendant had exercised reasonable care. B. The "but for" test looks at whether the defendant would have acted with reasonable care if the defendant had average mental and physical abilities. C. The "but for" test looks at whether the plaintiff's injury would have been reasonably foreseeable to a person in the defendant's situation. D. The "but for" test looks at whether the defendant would have owed a duty to the plaintiff if there was a special relationship between the plaintiff and defendant.

Which of the following is a true statement about the "firefighters' rule" in most states? A. It applies to police officers as well as firefighters. B. It applies to situations where a person recklessly or intentionally starts a fire that causes harm to a firefighter, as well as situations where the person negligently started the fire. C. It applies to injuries suffered by a firefighter who was off duty at the time the injury occurred, but not to injuries suffered while the firefighter was on duty. D. It applies to claims brought by state or local governments on behalf of fire departments, but not claims brought by individual firefighters.

A. It applies to police officers as well as firefighters.

A doctor negligently fails to diagnose and treat a disease in two different patients, both of whom die from the disease. If the first patient had been properly diagnosed and treated, he would have had a 40% chance of surviving the disease. If the second patient had been properly diagnosed and treated, she would have had a 60% chance of surviving. Neither patient was negligent in any way. The full amount of damages for either patient's death would be $1 million. Would the total amount of the doctor's liability for damages for these two deaths be higher in a state that has the traditional "all or nothing" approach to causation or in a state that has the "lost chance" approach? A. The total amount of the doctor's liability would be the same under the two approaches. B. The total amount of the doctor's liability would be higher in a state that has the traditional "all or nothing" approach to causation. C. The total amount of the doctor's liability would be higher in a state that has the "lost chance" approach. D. The doctor would not be liable for damages under wither approach because it is uncertain whether the docotr's negliegnce was an actual cause of either death.

A. All or nothing: 1st patient = $0 2nd patient = $1 million lost chance 1st patient = $400,000 2nd = $600,000

Which of the following is most likely to be considered an invitee? A. A person who goes into a shopping mall to take a walk for exercise, but has no money and no intention of purchasing anything. B. A person who is invited to come over to a friend's house and watch television. C. A person who briefly enters a neighbor's yard to retrieve a dollar bill that was accidentally blown out of the person's hand by the wind and landed a few feet inside the neighbor's yard. D. A person who gets lost while hiking and accidentally wanders onto someone else's land without realizing it is private property.

A. An invitee is someone who enters property for a reason that is potentially financially beneficial to the property owner or if the person enters property that is held open to the public.

Doug is an electrician. While doing electrical work on a movie set, he leaves a wire exposed that will shock anyone who steps on it. The voltage is enough to knock down and slightly burn an average person. An actor steps on the wire and receives a shock, which is fatal because the actor happens to have a metal plate in his head from an old war injury. Doug did not know the actor or know about the plate in his head. If the actor's estate and family sue Doug, what is the most likely result? A. Doug must pay damages for the actor's death. B. Doug must pay damages for the harm the actor would have received if he had been knocked down and suffered a slight burn. C. Doug does not have to pay any damages. D. It depends on whether Doug knew that someone was substantially certain to step on the wire.

A. Defendant would be liable even if the harm was worse than one would have expected or foreseen. thin skull or eggshell skull rule

Which of the following issues in a torts case would traditionally and ordinarily be decided by the judge, rather than by the jury? A. Whether the plaintiff was a trespasser, a licensee, or an invitee on the defendant's property at the time the plaintiff was injured. B. Whether the defendant is liable through res ipsa loquitur even though there is no proof about exactly what the defendant did that was negligent. C. Whether the plaintiff's injury would have been avoided or reduced in severity if the defendant had acted with reasonable care. D. Whether the defendant's negligence was a proximate cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

A. Duty is generally a legal issue

A plaintiff has sued a defendant for injuries that occurred while the plaintiff was trespassing on the defendant's land. Which one of the following is the most accurate statement about the traditional, general rules of tort law? A. The landowner could be held liable for conduct that was an intentional tort, but not for negligence. B. The landowner could be held liable for conduct that was negligent, but not for an intentional tort. C. The landowner could be held liable for an intentional tort or negligence. D. The landowner could not be held liable for negligence or an intentional tort.

A. For the rules about negligence that causes harm to trespassers, see Module K. Notice that this question asks about the "traditional, general" rules of tort law. When the question uses terms like "traditional" or "general" pay attention to that. Those words will help you to choose the right answer. "Traditional" means the question is looking for you to apply the traditional rules of tort law (such as the traditional rules about duties to invitees, licensees, and trespassers). "General" means the question is asking about the general rules that apply to something. In other words, there's often a general rule but then some exceptions. If the question asks you to base your answer on the "general rules," it means you should give an answer that is based on the general rules only, not the exceptions.

Harold negligently leaves the keys in the ignition of his unlocked truck outside his home. His ex-wife Wilma notices them when she stops by to drop off an alimony check, and she starts up the truck and uses it to spin several "doughnuts" in Harold's front yard, tearing up the grass that he works hard to maintain in perfect condition. Harold lives in a state with a "pure" comparative fault system. If Harold sues Wilma for the damages to his yard, the most likely result is: A. Harold recovers 100% of the damages for the harm to his property. B. Harold recovers damages for the harm to his property, but they are reduced to some extent to account for his negligence in leaving the keys in the truck. C. Harold recovers nothing because he assumed this risk by leaving the keys in the truck.

A. This is tricky because it is easy to be thinking about negligence here (And if Wilma negligently damaged Harold's property, then B would be correct). But here, Wilma's actions were an intentional tort because Wilma did this deliberately. Comparative fault is not a defense to an intentional tort claim. None of the things that are defenses to intentional tort claims would work here. For example, Harold obviously did not consent to this. Harold therefore would be able to recover the full 100% damages for the harm to his property

A doctor negligently prescribed the wrong medication for a patient. The error caused the patient to suffer hallucinations, delusions, and a severe mental breakdown. As a result, the patient felt an irresistible impulse to harm himself and he committed suicide. If a lawsuit is brought against the doctor, which of the following is most likely result? A. The doctor may be liable for patient's death because the doctor caused the patient's mental problems and resulting suicide. B. The doctor may be liable for patient's death because doctors owe a special duty to patients that makes them liable for medical negligence even if harm suffered by the patient was unforeseeable. C. The doctor will not be liable for the patient's death because the doctor did not know the patient was going to commit suicide D. The doctor will not be liable for patient's death because the patient's suicidal act is a superseding cause that breaks the chain of proximate cause between the doctor's negligence and the harm suffered.

A. (R-14 Note 1)

A mechanic at Dave's Tire Shop negligently over-inflates the new tires he installs on Phil's car. While Phil is driving to work the next day, one of the tires blows out. Phil loses control of the car, hits a guard rail by the side of the road, and suffers a broken leg. If Phil sues Dave's Tire Shop for negligence, which of the following is the minimum that Phil must prove to establish the "actual causation" element of his claim? A. If the mechanic had inflated the tires to the proper pressure, Phil definitely would not have had the tire blow out. B. If the mechanic had inflated the tires to the proper pressure, Phil probably would not have had the tire blow out. C. If the mechanic had inflated the tires to the proper pressure, there is a reasonable chance that Phil would not have had the tire blow out. D. If the mechanic had inflated the tires to the proper pressure, there is a material possibility that Phil would not have had the tire blow out.

A county needed a new courthouse facility, and it engaged a construction company to build the courthouse. The construction company began to build and ordered a large quantity of shingles to be used in making the roof of the courthouse. The building materials vendor that supplied the shingles agreed to have several of its employees deliver the shingles to the construction site. As the employees of the building materials vendor were in the process of unloading the shingles and stacking them on the partially unfinished roof of the courthouse building, one of the vendor's employees stepped on a piece of loose plywood covering a hole in the unfinished roof. He fell through the hole and suffered serious injuries when he landed on the concrete floor below. The injured worker sued the construction company, alleging that his injuries resulted from the construction company negligently maintaining the unfinished roof in a dangerous condition and failing to provide a warning about the dangerous condition of the roof. The injured worker can prove that having a loose board covering a hole in the roof violated the state's construction safety statute. That statute also contains a provision stating that "This Act shall be enforced by criminal and administrative sanctions and nothing in this Act shall be construed to enlarge or diminish or affect in any way the common law duties or liabilities of builders for injuries arising in the course of building construction." Count One of the injured worker's complaint is a negligence per se claim based on the violation of the state's construction safety statute, and Count Two of the complaint is an ordinary negligence claim. The construction company has moved for summary judgement on both claims. How should the court rule on the construction company's motion for summary judgement? A. The court should grant summary judgement for the construction company on both counts of the complaint, because the injured worker suffered his injuries in the course of his employment. B. The court should grant summary judgement for the construction company only on Count One of the complaint, because the state's construction safety statute was to have no effect on tort law and therefore negligence per se should not apply. C. The court should grant summary judgement for the construction company only on Count Two of the complaint, because the construction company violated a statute and its liability under a negligence per se theory supersedes any liability it would have for ordinary negligence. D. The court should not grant summary judgement for the construction company on either count of the complaint, because the injured worker is entitled to assert negligence per se and ordinary negligence as alternative possible theories under which he could recover.

A doctor wrote a prescription for medication for a patient who was suffering from a minor illness. The medication was available in pills containing several different levels of the medication's active ingredient. The prescription provided for the patient to receive seven pills, each containing 20 milligrams of the active ingredient, and the prescription instructed the patient to take one pill each day for a week. The pharmacist who filled the prescription negligently made a mistake and gave the patient seven pills that each contained 50 milligrams of the active ingridient. The patient took the medication and had a severe adverse reaction to it. The patient has sued the pharmacist for negligence. What additional information would be needed to determine whether that patient can prove the actual cause element of the patient's claim? A. Was this the only time the pharmacist ever made a mistake in filling a prescription? B. Would the patient have suffered the same adverse reaction if she had taken pills containing only 20 milligrams of the medication's active ingredient? C. Was it reasonably foreseeable to the doctor that the pharmacist might make a mistake in filling the prescription? D. Should the patient have realized that the pharmacist made a mistake in filling the presciption?

A grocery store buys its squash from two large farms, Squash Acres and Squash Fields. Both farms spray their squash crops with a dangerous, illegal pesticide. Phillip buys squash at the grocery store, eats it, and dies because of the pesticide. If Phillip's estate sues both farms for negligence, which of the following facts would make this a "duplicative causes" (or "multiple sufficient causes") case? A. Both farms grow green and yellow squash, Phillip ate just one squash, and it was green. B. Squash Acres grows only green squash, Squash Fields grows only yellow squash, Phillip ate one green squash and one yellow squash, and the pesticide in either squash was enough to kill Phillip. C. Squash Acres grows only green squash, Squash Fields grows only yellow squash, Phillip ate one green squash and one yellow squash, and it took the pesticide in two squash to kill Phillip.

A homeowner had some trees on her property that needed care. She went into her neighbor's garage, without permission, and took the neighbor's chainsaw. She then used the saw to clear broken branches from some of the trees on her property. As she was going to return the saw, she noticed that there were some broken branches on the neighbor's tree that were in danger of falling on the neighbor's roof. She decided to do the neighbor a favor and cut down the broken branches. While she was doing so, the saw broke. If the neighbor brings a lawsuit against the homeowner for conversion, what is the likely result? A. The homeowner will be liable for the amount of damage done to the saw. B. The homeowner will be liable for the value of the saw at the time the homeowner took it. C. The homeowner will not be liable, because the saw broke while the homeowner was using it do something for the benefit of the neighbor. D. The homeowner will not be liable, because the homeowner intended to return the saw after using it.

A truck owned and operated by a city's parks department was parked on the side of a street in the city. The truck had an auxiliary fuel tank in the bed of the truck, which was used to provide gas for lawn mowers being used by the parks department employees at various sites around the city. While the truck was parked there, a car crashed into the truck. The accident occurred because the driver of the car was negligently driving too fast and not paying attention to where he was going. The auxiliary fuel tank ruptured and caught on fire. In response to a call for emergency services, the city's police department and fire department were sent to the accident scene. The firefighters extinguished the fire, while police directed blocked and re-routed traffic. No one was injured in this accident, but the city's truck was destroyed. The city sued the negligent driver, seeking to recoer damages for the replacement cost of the truck and for the cost of the police and fire department services provided at the accident scene. Will the city prevail on its claim? A. The city will be able to recover damages for the cost of the truck and the emergency services provided, because the city was harmed by the driver's negligence. B. The city will be able to recover damages for the cost of the truck, but will not be able to recover damages for the cost of providing police and firefighting services. C. The city will be able to recover dmaages that provide a reasonable reimbursement for the costs of the police and firefighting services, but will not be able to recover damages for harm to an item of public property like the truck. D. The city will not be able to recover damages in this situation, because it is a governmental entity rather than a private industrial or entity.

An art collector purchased a valuable antique porcelain vase. The art collector displayed the vase in his home. He decided to have a dinner party so that his friends could come over to see the vase. Many guests attended the party. One of the guests got up very close to the vase to examine it, and this guest accidentally bumped the vase. The vase tipped over and fell to the floor, shattering into a hundred pieces. The vase was ruined beyond any possible repair. Later that night after the party had ended, a fire occurred in the art collector's home. The fire began because a chef who had been hired to prepare food for the party negligently forgot to turn off a stove in the kitchen when he left that night after the party. No one was injured in the fire, but a substantial portion of the art collector's home was destroyed by the fire, including everything in the room in which the vase had been displayed. The art collector asserted negligence claims against the guest and the chef. The art collector has persuasive evidence that both the guest and the chef failed to exercise reasonable care. Who is likely to be held liable for the destruction of the vase? A. The guest and the chef will each be liable for the destruction of the vase, because each engaged in negligent conduct that was sufficient to cause the destruction of the vase B. The guest will be held liable for the destruction of the vase, but the chef will not because his negligence occurred after the vase had already been destroyed. C. The chef will be held liable for the destruction of the vase, but the guest will not because the fire would have destroyed the vase even if the guest had acted with reasonable care. D. Neither the guest nor the chef will be liable for the destruction of the vase, because neither is a "but-for" cause of the harm to the vase.

Arthur stopped at a bar one afternoon and drank a large quantity of alcohol. He realized he was intoxicated, but nevertheless decided to drive home. On the way home, he lost control of his car and crashed into a utility lighting pole next to the road. He suffered only minor injuries, but his car was badly damaged, and the pole fell and was blocking part of the roadway. A passerby saw the accident and reported it. Police came to the accident scene, an ambulance took Arthur to the hospital, a tow truck came to remove the wrecked car, and a crew from the utility company came to retrieve the damaged pole and install a new one. Brenda lives a few blocks from the accident scene. She was driving home from work and was delayed by the accident, because the road was temporarily blocked by the police until the utility pole was cleared from the roadway. If not for the accident, she would have arrived home at 5:10 P.M., but because of the delay she instead arrived home at 5:25 P.M. and found that her house was on fire. A fire, caused by an electrical short circuit, had started in her house at 5:15 P.M. If she had been home at that time, she would have been able to quickly and easily put out the fire with a fire extinguisher. But because she was late getting home, it was too late for her to do anything other than call the fire department, and by the time they arrived and put out the fire, the fire had caused substantial damage to Brenda's house. If Brenda brings a negligence lawsuit against Arthur, who is likely to prevail? A. Arthur, because his drunk driving was not an actual cause of the damage to Brenda's house B. Arthur, because his drunk driving was not a proximate cause of the damage to Brenda's house. C. Brenda, because Arthur's drunk driving was negligent per se. D. Brenda, because the substantial damage to Brenda's house would not have occurred but for Arthur's unreasonably dangerous condcut.

In United States v. Carroll Towing Co. (2d Cir. 1947), Judge Learned Hand discussed a concept now commonly known as Learned Hand formula. Which of the following is a true statement about the application of that formula in the Carroll Towing case? A. The "B" in the formula represented the burden that it would have imposed on the plaintiff to find a menthod for transportation of flour that would be safer than shipment by barge. B. Learned Hand suggested that the "P" in the formula was higher in a harbor during a busy time when many barges were being moved around than it would be in a time when the harbor was relatively empty and quiet. C. The "L" in the formula represented the likelihood of an accident occuring. D. Learned Hand concluded that "B" was clearly greater than "P times L" in the Carroll Towing Case.

Priscilla goes to a doctor to have surgery on her knee. The doctor fails to sterilize the scalpel before doing the surgery, and Priscilla gets a severe infection as a result. If Priscilla sues the doctor for negligence, and the doctor argues that he cannot be held liable for nonfeasance, how is the court likely to rule? A. This was misfeasance, because the harm suffered was foreseeable. B. This was misfeasance, because the doctor did a negligent act, rather than merely failing to help the plaintiff. C. This was nonfeasance, because the negligence is the doctor's failure to sterilize the scalpel. D. This was nonfeasance, because the doctor did not have a duty to perform the operation unless it was an emergency.

Thorpe plays for the local high school basketball team. Before the game, he tells his coach that he knows the other team plays very rough and physical on defense, but he is ready for them. During the game, Thorpe runs down the court as part of a fast break. He receives a pass from his teammate Coolidge, and drives in for a lay-up. As he nears the basket, a player on the other team, Davis, hits Thorpe very hard across the arms to stop him from making the shot. Thorpe falls and hits his head on the floor. The referee calls a flagrant personal foul on Davis. Thorpe suffers a concussion. If Thorpe sues Davis for negligence, the most likely result is: A. Thorpe loses because there is "express assumption of risk" here. B. Thorpe loses because there is "primary implied assumption of risk" here. C. Thorpe wins because there is "reasonable secondary implied assumption of risk" here. D. Thorpe wins because there is no assumption of risk here.

Two men were hunting in a forest. Each carried a loaded rifle. They heard a sound. Thinking that it might be a deer, they each turned toward it and immediately fired a shot in the direction of the sound. The sound was made by a person who was hiking through the forest. The bullet from one hunter's rifle struck the hiker in the head, and at the same moment the bullet from the other hunter's rifle struck the hunter in the chest. The hiker died. Either shot would have been fatal. Assume that each hunter acted negligently by shooting without knowing who or what really made the sound, but the hiker did nothing that was negligent. If a lawsuit is brought against the two hunters on behalf of the deceased hiker, which of the following tort law concepts will be most relevant to the case? A. Alternative liability B. Duplicative causation C. Preemptive causation D. Res ipsa loquitur

Which of the following has traditionally been regarded as a "special relationship" under tort law that gives one person a duty to help or protect another person? A. The relationship between two people who are married to one another. B. The relationship between a parent and a young child. C. The relationship between an attorney and client. D. The relationship between two people who are co-workers.

Which one of the following is a true statement about joint and several liability? A. Joint and several liability can help the plaintiff in a case where there is only one defendant who is held liable to plaintiff. B. Joint and several liability can help the plaintiff in a case where there are multiple defendants who are held liable to plaintiff. C. Joint and several liability can hurt the plaintiff in a case where there is only one defendant who is held liable to plaintiff. D. Joint and several liability can hurt the plaintiff in a case where there are multiple defendants who are held liable to plaintiff.

A car accident, involving four vehicles, occurs in a state that has the following statute: "Fault by plaintiff shall bar recovery if plaintiff's proportionate share of fault is greater than the proportionate share of fault of the defendant against whom recovery is sought; otherwise fault by plaintiff shall diminish proportionately the amount awarded as damages for an injury attributable to the plaintiff's fault but shall not bar recovery." Driver A is injured in the crash, and sues Driver B, Driver C, and Driver D. The jury assigns 10% of the fault to Driver A, 2% to Driver B, 10% to Driver C, and 78% to Driver D. Assume that all of the drivers in the accident have ample auto insurance coverage. Driver A is most likely to do which of the following? A. Recover 98% of his damages. B. Recover 90% of his damages. C. Recover 88% of his damages. D. Recover 78% of his damages. Previous

While exiting a clothing store and heading to her car, a shopper stumbled and fell as she stepped from the concrete sidewalk to the asphalt parking lot surface. The shopper suffered a broken arm and brought a negligence action against the company that owns and operates the clothing store. The shopper's attorney sought to present the expert testimony of a construction safety engineer. This expert would testify that is was customary for retail stores and shopping centers to alert patrons to step from the sidewalk to the parking lot pavement by marking the curb with yellow paint. In the expert's opinion, the clothing store's failure to mark its curb with warning paint was negligent and was the proximate cause of the shopper's accident. The clothing store objects to this evidence about the practices of other retail businesses. Should the court admit the expert's testimony? A. The evidence should be admitted because the injured shopper is entitled to assert a negligence per se claim. B. The evidence should be admitted, because evidence of what is customary in an industry is relevant to determining whether a particular company in that industry acted with reasonable care. C. The evidence should be excluded, because departing from industry custom is not negligent per se. D. The evidence should be excluded, because the issue is whether the clothing store acted reasonably and what other businesses do is irrelevant.

While performing surgery on a patient, a doctor made a mistake that was negligent. As a result of the mistake, the patient went into cardiac arrest while surgery was still underway. The surgical team tried to save the patient but was unable to do so, and the patient passed away on the operating table. The patient's body was placed in a hearse in order for it to be transported to a funeral home. During the drive to the funeral home, the hearse was involved in a highway accident caused by the driver of a truck who negligently fell asleep at the wheel and crashed the truck into the hearse. The driver of the hearse was killed in the accident, and the impact of the truck hitting the hearse was so severe that no one in the hearse could have possibly survived the crash. Who will be liable for the patient's death? A. The doctor and the truck driver will both be liable, because each was negligent in a way that made the patient's death inevitable. B. The doctor will be liable, but not the truck driver, because the patient died at the hospital before being put in the hearse. C. The truck driver will be liable, but not the doctor, because the truck driver's negligence occurred later and was a more proximate cause of the patient's death. D. Neither will be liable, because neither was a "but for" cause of the patient's death.

What did Judge Cardozo mean when he wrote that "danger invites rescue"? A. People have a duty to rescue others who are in imminent peril, if they can do so without unduly endangering themselves. B. Rescues should always be treated as foreseeable, because dangerous situations create the need for rescues. C. One who voluntarily agrees to attempt a rescue cannot blame others for harm suffered during the rescue attempt, because rescues occur in situations inherently fraught with danger. D. Those who seek to rescue others from danger must exercise reasonable care in doing so, and the more dangerous the situation will be, the more care that is required.

B. Rescues should be treated as foreseeable because dangerous situations create the need for rescues.

The driver of a car negligently hit a pedestrian who was crossing a street. Which of the following would automatically be regarded as a foreseeable result of the driver's negligence? A. The fact that the pedestrian became severely depressed after the accident, and the pedestrian eventually died by suicide. B. The fact that the pedestrian had to be rushed to a hospital by helicopter, the helicopter crashed, and the pedestrian died in the crash. C. The fact that the pedestrian was carrying a box of dynamite, which exploded when the pedestrian was hit by the driver's car. D. The fact that a bystander suffered severe emotional distress because of seeing the car hit the pedestrian.

B. Subsequent actions are deemed as foreseeable even if they were really not.

Which of the following is the best statement of the rule that the Third Restatement recommends as a replacement for the traditional approaches to proximate cause? A. A defendant's conduct is a legal cause of the plaintiff's alleged harm if the harm would not have occurred but for the negligent character of the defendant's conduct. B. A defendant's liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the defendant's conduct tortious. C. A negligent act has a reasonable connection to a plaintiff's injury if the act was a substantial factor that contributed to the occurrence of the harm. D. A plaintiff must show that there was a natural and continuous causal connection between the plaintiff's injuries and the defendant's negligence.

B. The Third Restatement would replace proximate cause with the approach that asks if what happened was within the scope of the risks that made us say the defendant's conduct was negligent

Which of the following things may be treated as being foreseeable, for purposes of proximate cause, even when it actually was not foreseeable? A. A criminal attack. B. A rescue attempt. C. A false statement. D. A memory lapse.

B. rescue doctrine

In which of the following situations would a court be most likely to hold that the defendant had a duty to use reasonable care to prevent the plaintiff from being injured by a criminal attack by a third person? A. The defendant was a tenant in a residential apartment building, and the plaintiff was another tenant of the building who was attacked by a criminal in the hallway right outside the door to defendant's apartment. B. The defendant is a railroad, and the plaintiff was a passenger who was attacked by a criminal while riding on one of the defendant's trains. C. The defendant sold land to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was attacked by a criminal while visiting the property several weeks after purchasing it. D. The defendant hosted a party at his house, and the plaintiff was a party guest who was attacked by a criminal when he stepped outside to smoke a cigarette.

B. (common carries/passengers)

A city ordinance forbids washing vehicles parked on city streets. John washed his car while it was parked on the street in front of his home. The water formed a puddle in the street, which froze during the night. Early the next morning, Derek was driving his car down the street. Derek's car slid on the ice and crashed into a tree. Derek suffered a neck injury in the crash. If Derek sues John and asserts that John was negligent per se, what additional fact would help John the most? A. John was not aware of the ordinance. B. The city council enacted the ordinance after several incidents occurred in which people were hit by passing vehicles while they were washing their cars parked on city streets. C. The ordinance states that a person who violates the ordinance must pay a small fine to the city, but does not mention anything about tort liability. D. Derek is not a resident of the city.

B. (type of risk the legislature had in mind when they enacted the statute.

A car collided with a bicycle, causing the rider of the bicycle to fall and suffer a serious injury. The accident occurred when the car and the bicycle were heading in the same direction on a street. The bicycle was ahead of the car, and the driver came up behind the bicycle but did not see the bicycle and the car's front right end struck the bicycle's rear wheel. The accident occurred a half hour after sunset. Visibility at the time of the accident was limited by fog and moderate rain. State law requires bicycles operated at night to have a white headlight and a red rear light or reflector. The bicyclist complied with this law by having a white head light and a red rear reflector. The speed limit on the street was 35 miles per hour. At the time of the accident, the car was traveling at just under 35 miles per hour and the bicycle was moving at approximately 10 miles per hour. The bicyclist sued the driver for negligence, alleging that the driver would not have hit the bicycle if the driver had acted with reasonable care. The driver filed a motion for summary judgement on the ground that these facts establish, as a matter of law, that there was no negligence by the driver. How should the court rule on the driver's motion for summary judgement? A. The motion should be granted, because the driver did not exceed the posted speed limit. B. The motion should be granted, because the bicyclist would have been more visible if he had a red rear light rather than just a red rear reflector. C. The motion should be denied, because a jury could decide that the driver was negligent even if he complied with the speed limit and all other applicable statutes and regulations. D. The motion should be denied, because it is negligent per se for a driver to crash into something because he failed to see it ahead of him in the street.

A commercial aircraft crashed into a mountain, killing everyone on board. The weather at the time of the accident was good. Investigators were unable to determine why the crash occured. A wrongful death action was brought against the airline, with the legal representative of one of the deceased passengers as the plaintiff. At trial, the plaintiff presented no expert or other testimony as to the cause of the crash. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the airline brought a motion to have the case dismissed. How should the court rule on the motion? A. Grant the motion, because the plaintiff offered no evidence as to the cause of the crash. B. Grant the motion, because the plaintiff failed to present evidence negating the possibility that the crash was caused by an unavoidable mechanical failure. C. Deny the motion, because the jury may infer that the crash was caused by the airline's negligence. D. Deny the motion, because the plaintiff is not required to prove that the crash was the airline's fault.

A doctor negligently failed to realize that a patient was suffering from a life-threatening disease. As a result of the doctor's negligence, the patient received no treatment and died from the disease. The patient's estate brought a wrongful death action against the doctor. The evidence presented at the trial persuaded the jury that if the patient had been properly diagnosed and treated, he would have had a 35% chance of surviving the disease. The evidence also established that without a proper diagnosis and treatment, the odds of surviving the disease were reduced to 10%. The jury also concluded that $1 million was the amount of damages that would fully compensate the patient's estate for the patient's death. These events occurred in a state that applies the "lost chance" theory of recovery. What is the most likely result of the lawsuit? A. The patient's estate will be entitled to a judgement for $1 million in compensatory damages, because the doctor's negligence eliminated any chance that the patient had to receive proper treatment for the disease. B. The patient's estate will be entitled to a judgement for $350,000 in compensatory damages because the doctor's negligence caused the patient to lose a 35% chance of surviving the disease. C. The patient's estate will be entitled to a judgement for $250,000 in compensatory damages, because the doctor's negligence reduced the patient's chances of survival by 25%. D. The patient's estate will not be able to recover damages for the patient's death, because it cannot prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the patient was likely to survive the disease but for the doctor's negligence.

A pedestrian got hit by a car while crossing a street. The driver of the car suffered no harm, but the pedestrian was badly injured and filed a lawsuit against the driver. The pedestrian claims that the driver was driving too fast and should have seen the pedestrian and had time to stop and swerve to avoid the pedestrian. The driver denies that he was negligent. The driver also argues that even if he was negligent, it did not make a difference because he would have been unable to avoid hitting the pedestrian even if he was driving in a reasonably careful manner. Which of the following is most accurate statement about the burden of proof on the actual cause element in this case? A. The pedestrian will have the burden of proving that her injuries had a reasonably foreseeable connection to the driver's negligence. B. The pedestrian will have the burden of proving that the driver's negligence was a substantial factor in the occurrence of the accident. C. The pedestrian will have the burden of proving that her injuries would not have occurred but for the driver's negligence. D. The pedestrian will have the burden of proving that a reasonably person would attribute the accident to the driver's negligence.

A scientist was conducting an experiment in a laboratory. The experiment involved the use of highly volatile, toxic chemicals. The scientist accidentally mishandled some of the chemicals during the experiment, and there was an explosion which injured another person in the laboratory. If the injured person sues the scientist for negligence, claiming that the scientist should have been more careful in handling the chemicals, which of the following is the most accurate statement of the standard of care that will be applied to the defendant in this case? A. The defendant had a duty to prevent the plaintiff from being injured by ensuring that the experiment would be conducted in a manner that could not cause harm to anyone. B. The defendant had a duty to exercise the care that a reasonable average person generally would use to avoid causing harm to others. C. The defendant had a duty to exercise the care of a reasonable scientist who was conducting an experiment with highly volatile, toxic chemicals. D. The defendant had a duty to exercise an extraordinarily high degree of care while conducting potentially dangerous scientific experiments.

Which of the following is the best statement of what the court decided in the Bryne v. Boadle case? A. The court decided that speculation cannot serve as a substitute for strict proof when it is sought to fix a defendant with serious liability. B. The court decided that there are certain situations in which one may say "respondeat superior." C. The court decided that in some instances, the mere fact of the accident having occurred is evidence of negligence. D. The court decided that a plaintiff is not entitled to have a case decided by the jury unless the plaintiff provides at least some affirmative, specific evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.

A store had a large electronic sign attached to the outside of the store building. The sign was above a public sidewalk that was next to the building. The sign could be programmed to display text and images. Employees of the store installed, maintained, and operated the sign, using it to display messages such as announcements about sales or special events at the store. One evening, a pedestrian was walking past the store, using the sidewalk that ran beneath the electronic sign. The pedestrian stopped for a moment, to tie her shoe. The pedestrian heard a cracking sound above her, and then a loud cracking sound. The pedestrian looked up just in time to see the electronic sign falling off the building and coming down toward her. The pedestrian was unable to get out of the way in time and was hit by the sign. The pedestrian suffered severe injuries and brought a negligence claim against the store. At trial, the pedestrian proved all of the facts stated in the previous paragraph. After the presentation of the pedestrian's side of the case, the store made a motion for a directed verdict, asking the court to throw out the case. How should the court rule on the motion? A. The motion should be granted, because the evidence did not establish that the sign fell because of negligence. B. The motion should be granted because the liability, if any, would be put on the store's employees and not on the store itself. C. The motion should be denied, because an inference of negligence could be drawn under res ipsa loquitur. D. The motion should be denied, because it was negligence per se to have a heavy sign hanging above a sidewalk used by pedestrians.

Dr. Davis negligently fails to diagnose and treat a disease in two different patients, Morris and Lester, both of whom die from the disease. If Morris had been properly diagnosed and treated, he would have had an 85% chance of surviving the disease. Lester's illness was more advanced when he went to the doctor, and he would have had only a 25% chance of surviving if he had been properly diagnosed and treated. Neither patient was negligent in any way. If Dr. Davis practices medicine in a state that allows recovery based on a "lost chance" theory, which of the following is he most likely to be liable for? A. All of the damages for Morris's death, and 25% of the damages for Lester's death. B. All of the damages for Morris's death, and none of the damages for Lester's death. C. 85% of the damages for Morris's death, and 25% of the damages for Lester's death. D. 85% of the damages for Morris's death, and none of the damages for Lester's death.

In a negligence case, the plaintiff proved that the defendant violated a statute. Which of the following must be true in order for negligence per se to apply? A. The statute was a federal law, not merely a state or local law. B. The defendant was aware of the existence of the statute that was violated. C. The plaintiff was a member of the class of persons meant to be protected by the statute. D. The legislature that enacted the statute indicated that they wanted the statute to be a basis for tort liability.

In which of the following situations is express assumption of risk most likely to bar liability? A. Adam purchases a ticket for a ring-side seat for an "ultimate fighting" contest. He does not notice a disclaimer on the back of the ticket stating that spectators who attend the fight do so at their own risk and the fight organizers will not be liable for any injuries suffered by spectators. Adam's arm is fractured when a section of the cage surrounding the ring breaks lose during the fight and falls on the audience. B. A public school requires children and their parents to sign a form, releasing the school and its employees from liability for negligence, before the children can go on a field trip to a museum. The school's bus driver negligently crashes the bus on the way to the museum, injuring a child named Brian. C. A group hiking in the mountains asks their guide to take a detour from the path so they can walk near the edge of a high cliff and look over the edge. The guide says "OK, but it's dangerous, so don't blame me if you slip. If you want to take the safest route, stay on the path. Otherwise, follow me." Charlie hears the guide but says nothing. Charlie follows the guide to the edge of the cliff, slips, and falls off the cliff. D. David buys a new house and calls the local utility company to get the gas turned on. The company sends a representative to David's home. After giving a detailed explanation of the risks of gas, the representative explains that customers must agree to waive liability for ordinary negligence in order to have the gas turned on. David signs a release form that clearly explains the legal significance of the liability waiver. Several months later, the gas line leading into David's house explodes and he believes it is because the utility negligently installed the pipes.

John recently acquired a small grocery store. He is considering replacing the floor tile in the entrance area at the front of the store, since he is concerned about customers slipping and falling because the tile gets very slick when it rains and customers track water into the store. Currently, an average of 10 customers suffer injuries from slips and falls in this part of the store every year. Rite-Floor is the safest floor covering that John could buy, but it would cost $150,000. Trusty‑Floor is an alternative floor covering that would cost only half as much. John can accurately predict that installing Rite-Floor would reduce the number of injuries by 70% and that installing Trusty-Floor would reduce the number of injuries by 40%. The Rite-Floor and Trusty‑Floor products both have to be replaced every 10 years. John's current floor is very durable and it would last for another 10 years if he leaves it in place. The average cost of each injury, on any floor, is $2,000. John asks himself, "What would Learned Hand do?" According to the Learned Hand formula, what is the reasonable thing for John to do? A. Keep the current floor B. Have a Rite-Floor installed C. Have a Trusty-Floor installed

Lisa worked at a small airport outside a large city. A skydiving company operated at the airport, using it as the location for airplanes to take off and land when taking people up for skydiving. Lisa was interested in skydiving, but she knew little about it and was nervous about the idea of doing a jump from an airplane. She had access to a storage area where sky diving equipment was kept. Without authorization, she took a skydiving container (which is the pack, worn by a skydiver, that contains the parachute). She went to the roof of the tallest building in the city, put on the skydiving container and jumped off the building. She pulled the ripcord, but the parachute had not been properly packed into the container, so it did not open properly, and Lisa plummeted to her death. A lawsuit was brought against the skydiving company, by Lisa's family, alleging that the improper packing of the parachute was negligent. Experts on both sides of the case agree that if the parachute had been packed correctly, it would have opened properly. They further agree that even if the parachute had opened properly, Lisa probably would have died anyway, because that type of parachute is safe and effective only for jumps from much higher altitudes than the roof of the building. Which element of a negligence claim will the plaintiff have the most difficulty proving here? A. Duty B. Breach C. Actual Cause D. Proximate Cause

Mary showed unusually strong academic abilities at a young age, so she progressed through school much more quickly than normal. She finished high school at age 8, graduated from college at age 10, and completed medical school at age 14. At that point, she began working as a resident (or doctor in training) at a hospital. Which of the following is the most accurate statement of the standard of care that Mary must exercise in her work? A. Mary must exercise the amount of care that would be reasonable for an average person under the circumstances. B. Mary must exercise the amount of care that would be reasonable under the circumstances for someone who is 14 years old and has the same intelligence, education, and experience as Mary. C. Mary must exercise the amount of care that would be reasonable under the circumstances for an extremely intelligent person who has completed medical school and is working as a medical resident. D. Mary must exercise the high degree of care expected of medical professionals because of their duty to protect and care for their patients.

Susan was shopping at a grocery store when she fell and broke her hip. She fell when she tripped over a wooden pallet. (A pallet is a flat structure used to support goods while being lifted and transported by machines such as forklifts or pallet jacks.) The pallet was being used as part of a display of watermelons in the produce section of the store. The display consisted of a large cardboard box of watermelons that was resting on the wooden pallet. The pallet extended out about eight inches beyond the area of the cardboard box. Susan was walking by the display and did not notice the pallet. She tripped on the pallet and fell. Susan brought a negligence claim against the grocery store. The store seeks to present evidence that wooden pallets are commonly used in this way in grocery store displays. Which of the following is most likely to be true? A. Susan's claim will be dismissed before trial, because the defendant's evidence establishes that the use of pallets in grocery store displays is a widespread and commonly accepted practice. B. The defendant will be allowed to present the evidence about pallets often being used in displays, but the defendant will have the burden of showing that the specific way it used the pallet in the watermelon display in its store was reasonable. C. The evidence about how pallets are commonly used can be presented at the trial, and it will be up to the jury to decide if the defendant was negligent in this situation. D. The defendant will not be allowed to present evidence about what is commonly or customarily done in grocery stores, because that is irrelevant to the specific situation at issue in Susan's case.

Tom was having dinner at a restaurant with friends. He went to use the restroom, which was at the end of a short hallway at the back of the restaurant. He did not realize that the floor in the hallway had just been mopped and was slippery. A restaurant employee had mopped the floor because some food had been spilled there. The employee had briefly left the hallway to get a "caution - wet floor" sign from a supply closet that he could put in the hallway. Tom suffered an injury to his knee when he fell. The restaurant has a policy of marking the floor with a warning sign whenever it is mopped, but there is no statute or regulation that requires this. If Tom brings a negligence lawsuit, which of the following is true? A. Tom will prevail, because he can rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. B. Tom might prevail if he sues the employee, but not if he brings his lawsuit only against the restaurant. C. Tom might prevail if the jury in his case believes that a reasonable worker in a restaurant would not have left the slippery floor unattended and unmarked even for a brief amount of time. D. Tom will lose, because there is no law requiring a warning sign to be posted when the floor is mopped.

What does the algebraic variable "B" represent in the formula that Judge Learned Hand proposed using for negligence claims? A. "B" stands for the breach element of a negligence claim. B. "B" represents the severity of the burden that would be imposed on the defendant if it is held liable and required to pay damages to the plaintiff. C. "B" is a measure of how much it would cost the defendant to implement the additional safety precautions that the plaintiff claims the defendant should have taken. D. "B" represents the balancing aspect of the formula, which requires the decisionmaker in a negligence case to balance the risks and benefits of the defendant's actions.

Which of the following is a true statement about the Learned Hand approach to the breach element of negligence claims? A. It is a mathematical formula that has enabled courts to make mathematically precise assessments of negligence. B. supporters of the Learned Hand approach argue that it minimizes the extent to which decisions about negligence focus on economic considerations. C. Many judges have found that it is a useful tool or framework that can guide thinking about factors that are relevant to a judgment of negligence. D. Courts have unanimously agreed that the Learned Hand approach is the best available method of assessing negligence, but they have disagreed about the ideal wording of jury instructions that explain the approach to jurors.

Which of the following is an example of a situation involving "preemptive causation?" A. David visits Paul's apartment. He slips a drug into Paul's drink. David knows that the drug will cause no permanent harm, but it will render Paul unconscious for several hours. After Paul consumes the drink and passes out, David steals money and other valuable items from Paul's apartment and then leaves. While Paul is still unconscious, Donna negligently starts a fire that destroys the apartment building. Everyone in the building except Paul escapes the fire safely, but Paul dies from smoke inhalation because he is unconscious and does not hear the fire alarms going off. B. David stabs Paul in the abdomen with a knife. The wound is so severe that David will die from it within a few minutes. While David is still alive and bleeding from the stab wound, Donna shoots Paul in the head. This gunshot wound would be impossible for anyone to survive. When the bullet strikes him, Paul dies instantly. C. David shoots and kills Paul, just as Paul was about to take the first sip from a cup of tea in which Donna put a lethal does of poison. D. David and Donna negligently decide to practice archery in a public park. They shoot arrows toward a small group of trees. When they go to retrieve the arrows, they discover that Paul was taking a nap on a blanket on the ground under the trees, and Paul died because he was hit by one of David's or Donna's arrows. It is unknown which of the two (David or Donna) shot the arrow that killed Paul.

Which of the following is the best statement of what "nonfeasance" means A. An intentionally wrongful act B. An unreasonably dangerous act C. Failure to act D. Failure to foresee risks

Which of the following is the best statement of the reasoning underlying the court's decision to invent the doctrine of "alternative liability" in Summers v. Tice (Cal. 1948)? A. Where there is uncertainty about whether the harm suffered by the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable, the could should consider alternative bases for imposing liability. B. If the negligence of several defendants combine to cause harm to the plaintiff, the liability for the harm should be fairly allocated among the defendants. C. When it is unclear which of several wrongdoers caused the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff should not be deprived of a remedy for the injury. D. The traditional all-or-nothing approach to tort recovery unfairly prevents plaintiffs from recovering in situations where the defendant was probably negligent but the precise nature of that negligence is unknown.

C. Alternative liability is for situations where the plaintiff cannot determine which of several wrongdoers was the actual cause of harm.

The extent to which the plaintiff's harm was a foreseeable result of the defendant's negligence can be an important factor in the analysis of several of the elements of a negligence claim. For which of the following elements of a negligence claim is foreseeability of harm least likely to be important? A. Duty B. Breach C. Actual cause D. Proximate cause

C. Example: jack-o-lantern starts a fire at your house - the inventors of halloween/jack-o-lanterns could not foresee their invention would cause a fire at your house but it was still a but-for cause of the fire.

Homer Simpson parks his car by the side of a road at the bottom of a small hill, but negligently leaves the tail end of the car sticking out into the traffic lane. The first car to pass is driven by Ned Flanders, who drives extremely carefully but cannot swerve in time to avoid hitting the rear of Homer's car. Ned and Homer both get out of their cars to look at the damage. A few moments later, Montgomery Burns comes over the hill in his car. He is driving well above the speed limit, slams on his brakes when he sees the accident in the road ahead of him, manages to avoid hitting the cars, but runs over Ned and breaks his leg. Homer has no insurance and no money or other assets. Mr. Burns is very wealthy. The accident occurs in a state that imposes joint and several liability on negligent defendants and allows contribution claims based on relative fault. If Ned sues Mr. Burns and Homer for negligence, and the jury decides that Homer and Mr. Burns were negligent but Ned was not, the most likely ultimate result for Mr. Burns is that: A. Mr. Burns must pay damages for all of the harm to Ned's car and Ned's leg. B. Mr. Burns must pay all of the damages for the harm to Ned's car and Ned's leg, minus the portion of fault assigned to Homer. C. Mr. Burns must pay all of the damages for the harm to Ned's leg. D. Mr. Burns must pay all of the damages for the harm to Ned's leg, minus the portion of fault assigned to Homer.

C. Mr. Burns would only be liable for the broken leg and he might be forced to pay for all the damages for the broken leg under joint and several liability if Homer cannot pay his shares of the damages

Which of the following is a true statement about the signifigance of the "attractive nuisance" doctrine? A. The "attractive nuisance doctrine is an exception to the general rule that a private nuisance claim requires proof of intentional or negligent wrongdoing. B. The "attractive nuisance" doctrine is an exception to the general rule that precludes tort recovery by professional rescuers injured in the line of duty. C. The "attractive nuisance" doctrine is an exception to the general rule that a possessor of land owes no duty to a trespasser. D. The "attractive nuisance" doctrine is an exception to the general rule that negligence per se does not apply to children.

C. (K-11 Note 1)

Mary always had a very hard time learning in school because she is significantly below average in intelligence, but she is so graceful that she became a professional ballet dancer. One morning, Mary is rushing to her mother's house to deliver medicine that her mother needs right away. Mary collides with another pedestrian on the sidewalk. She knocks him down and he injures his knee. He sues her for negligence. Which of the following will be taken into account in determining whether Mary was negligent? A. The fact that she has an unusually low level of intelligence and the fact that she has an unusually high level of agility and coordination. B. The fact that she has an unusually low level of intelligence and the fact that she was rushing to deliver medicine to her sick mother. C. The fact that she has an unusually high level of agility and coordination and the fact that she was rushing to deliver medicine to her sick mother. D. The fact that she has an unusually low level of intelligence, the fact that she has an unusually high level of agility and coordination, and the fact that she was rushing to deliver medicine to her sick mother.

C. (physical characteristic and the reason why the woman was rushing is part of the circumstances taken into account - reasonable degree of care under the circumstances).

For a negligence claim, which of the following things generally would be taken into account in setting the standard or level of care that a defendant was expected to exercise? A. The fact that the defendant had a serious mental illness. B. The fact that the defendant voluntarily consumed a large quantity of alcohol and was very intoxicated. C. The fact that the defendant had very poor eyesight. D. The fact that the defendant's intelligence was significantly below average.

C. (physical problem taken into account in the standard of care).

A doctor negligently failed to realize that a patient was suffering from a very serious disease. If the patient had been properly diagnosed and treated, he would have had a 50% chance of surviving the disease. Without proper diagnosis and treatment, the odds of surviving this disease are zero. As a result of the doctor's negligence, the patient's estate brought a wrongful death action against the doctor. These events occurred in a state that adheres to all traditional rules concerning proof of causation. What is the most likely result of the lawsuit? A. The doctor will be liable for 100% of the damages attributable to the patient's death, because the doctor's negligence made it certain that the patient would die from the disease. B. The doctor will be liable for 50% of the damages attributable to the patient's death, because the patient's estate is entitled to recover damages for the portion of the harm that was caused by the doctor's negligence. C. The doctor will be liable for only a nominal amount of damages, because the doctor acted negligently but there is insufficient evidence that the doctor's negligence caused actual harm. D. The doctor will not be liable for any damages, because the patient's estate cannot prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the patient was likely to survive the disease but for the doctor's negligence.

A driver negligently drove his car into a pedestrian, breaking her leg. The pedestrian's leg was put in a cast, and she used crutches to get around. While shopping at her local supermarket, the pedestrian inadvertently placed one of her crutches on a banana peel that had been negligently left on the floor by the manager of the supermarket's produce department. The pedestrian's crutch slipped on the peel, and she fell to the floor, breaking her arm. Had the pedestrian stepped on the banana peel at a time when she did not have to use crutches, she would have regained her balance. The pedestrian sued the driver and the supermarket for her injuries. Which of the following is a complete statement of the liability for the pedestrian's injuries? A. The driver will be liable for her broken leg only , and the supermarket will not be liable for anything. B. The driver will be liable for her broken leg only, and the supermarket will be liable for her broken arm only. C. The driver and the supermarket will be jointly liable for her broken leg and broken arm. D. The driver will be liable for her broken leg and broken arm, and the supermarket will also be liable for her broken arm.

A farmer owned property that included a small pond of water. The farmer built a wooden dock over a portion of the pond and occasionally used the dock as a place to sit while fishing in the pond. One spring, the farmer decided to have the pond stocked with fish. He called a company that provides fish stocking services. A sales rep from the company came out to visit the farm to see the pond and recommend the type and quantity of fish that the farmer should order. A couple of steps onto the dock, the boards underneath the sales rep's feet gave away, and her left leg plunged through the dock up to her hip. As a result of the fall, the sales reps suffered a fracture of a bone in her leg. Shortly after this incident, the suffered a fracture of a bone in her leg. Shortly after this incident, the farmer had the dock removed because he decided that he would prefer to fish from the shore of the pond and so it was not worth it to have the dock repaired. A few months later, the sales reps filed a negligence suit against the farmer, seeking to recover damages for the injuries she suffered from her fall through the dock. As a result of the dock's destruction, there was no evidence as to what about the dock may have caused the sales representative's fall. The farmer stated that he had no reason to believe the dock was in need of repair or unsafe, and the sales rep did not recall the condition of the dock on the day she stepped out onto it. The farmer filed a motion for summary judgement on the ground that the sales rep had no evidence to show why the dock broke and what the farmer did that was negligent. How should the court rule on the motion? A. The court should grant the motion, because the sales rep had an obligation to be reasonably specific in identifying the farmer's alleged negligence. B. The court should grant the motion, because the farmer did not have a duty to ensure that the dock was strong enough for the sales rep to walk safely on it. C. The court should deny the motion, because the farmer had a duty to keep his property safe for visitors. D. The court should deny the motion, because a reasonable jury could infer that the farmer was somehow negligent in building or maintaining the dock.

A pedestrian suffered severe injuries when he was struck by a pickup truck. The truck was stopped by the edge of a street when it accelerated suddenly, hit the pedestrian, and pinned the pedestrian's legs between the front of the truck and a parked car. A driver and a passenger were in the truck at the time of the accident. The driver and the passenger admitted that the truck accelerated suddenly and hit the plaintiff, but they disagreed about what caused the truck to move. The driver claimed that the passenger negligently stepped on the truck's accelerator pedal when she moved over on the front seat, toward the driver, to make room in the truck for another person who was going to get in the truck. The passenger denied that her foot touched the accelerator and insisted that the driver must have stepped on the accelerator. The injured pedestrian brought a lawsuit against the pickup truck driver and the passenger, alleging that one of the two people in the truck must have negligently pressed the accelerator. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgement on the ground that it was uncertain who pressed the accelerator. How should the court rule on the motion? A. The court should grant the motion and dismiss the claims, because the injured pedestrian has no way to prove with certainty who pressed the truck's accelerator pedal. B. The court should grant the motion and dismiss the claims, because the sudden acceleration of the truck might have been caused by a mechanical malfunction rather than by the driver or passenger pressing the accelerator. C. The court should deny the motion and allow the case to proceed to trial, because the pedestrian is entitled to rely on the doctrine of alternative liability in these circumstances. D. The court should deny the motion and allow the case to proceed to trial, because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to who hit the accelerator.

A truck collided with several cattle which had escaped from a ranch pen and wandered onto a road. The truck driver sued the rancher for negligence and asked the trial judge to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The rancher argued that res ipsa loquitur could not apply, but the trial judge disagreed. Which of the following is most likely to be the proper instruction for the court to give to the jury about the effect of res ipsa loquitor? A. Res ipsa loquitur is proof of negligence, meaning that where res ipsa loquitur applies, that is a conclusive showing of negligence that the jury cannot ignore. B. Res ipsa loquitur creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence, meaning that it shifts the burden to the rancher to prove that he was not negligent. C. Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of going forward with evidence but not the ultimate burden of proof, meaning that the rancher must introduce some evidence to show that he acted with reasonable care and then the truck driver will have the burden of proving negligence. D. Res ipsa loquitur creates an optional or permissible inference, meaning that the truck driver has the burden of persuading the jury that it should infer that the rancher was somehow negligent.

A women was severely allergic to peanuts. She was careful to eat only food that was marketed as being free of nuts and safe for people with nut allergies. One evening, the woman stopped at a restaurant and placed a take-out order for a container of soup. A member of the restaurant's staff assured the woman that the soup was nut free. As the woman left the restaurant with the soup, she noticed the smell of fresh bread in the air and she was a bakery nearby. She went in and told the baker about her allergy, and she was assured that the bread was nut free. The woman purchased the bread, and then walked to a nearby park to sit down and eat. She ate the bread first, and then the soup. A few moments later, she started to feel bad, had an allergic reaction, and stopped breathing. Emergency medical personnel responded to the scene but were unable to revive her. The woman's family undertook an investigation and found that contrary to what the woman had been told, both the soup and the bread were contaminated with substantial amounts of peanut oil and dust residue. Medical expert concluded that the amount of nut contamination in the soup was by itself enough to cause the woman's death. Likewise, the medical experts found that the amount of nut contamination in the bread was by itself enough to cause the woman's death. The woman's family brought a wrongful death action accusing the soup restaurant and the bakery of negligence. The restaurant filed a motion for summary judgement on the ground that the soup did not cause the woman's death because she would have died from eating the bread even if she did not eat the soup. Likewise, the bakery filed a motion for summary judgement arguing that the bread did not cause the woman's death, because she would have died from eating the soup even if she did not eat the bread. How should the court rule on the motions? A. The court should grant both motions, because the plaintiff has the burden of proving causation and neither defendant's conduct was an actual but-for cause of the woman's death. B. The court should rule that only the restaurant can be held liable, because the woman purchased the soup before she purchased the bread. C. The court should rule that only the bakery can be held liable, because the woman ate the bread before she ate the soup. D. The court should deny both motions, because the soup and the bread were each sufficient to cause the woman's death.

Adam sold a firearm to Bob, despite having good reasons to know that Bob is a highly irresponsible and dangerous person who could not be trusted to safely own and use the gun. Bob carelessly used the gun. In doing so, Bob accidentally shot himself and a neighbor named Cathy. Which of the following is true? A. A negligent entrustment claim against Adam will fail, because Adam sold the firearm to Bob, rather than merely lending it to him temporarily, and therefore Adam lacked any way to control Bob's use of the gun. B. Cathy might prevail on a negligent entrustment claim against Adam, but Bob would not be able to recover because a negligent entrustment claim cannot be brought by the person to whom the item was entrusted. C. To prevail on a negligent entrustment claim against Adam, the plaintiff would have to prove that Adam knew what Bob planned to do with the gun. D. A negligent entrustment claim against Adam might be successful even if Adam's sale of the gun to Bob did not violate any statutes or regulations.

Alice, Bob, and Chris started a business together. Bob received an email message from Chris. In the message, Chris complained about Alice and made statements that could be interpreted as violent threats against Alice, but the statements were somewhat ambiguous rather than being clear and explicit violent threats. Bob read the email message and wondered if Chris could be violent, but Bob did not warn Alice or take any other action based on the email. A few days later, Chris attacked Alice. Although Alice was seriously injured, she survived and brought a negligence claim against Bob. Which of the following would be Bob's strongest argument for having the claim dismissed? A. The treats in the email message were ambiguous and not explicit. B. Bob was not aware of any similar past incidents in which Chris had been violent. C. There is no way to be certain about whether warning Alice would have prevented the violent attack from occurring. D. Business partners do not have a duty under tort law to help or protect one another.

An investor believed that he had been cheated out of a large amount of money by a stockbroker. The investor was very angry about this. One night, he went to the stockbroker's home and tried to talk to her, but she told him to go away. The investor walked to a gas station near the stockbroker's home. He looked through a trash can at the gas station and found an empty white plastic bucket. The investor used one of the gas pumps to put gasoline into the bucket. The gas station attendant saw the investor doing this and asked why he was doing this. The investor said that he had run out of gas nearby and needed only a small amount of gas to start his car and drive it to the gas station. After purchasing the gas, the investor went back to the stockbroker's home and used the gas to start a fire. The stockbroker was severely injured in the fire and her home was destroyed. These events occurred in a state that has a statute, entitled the Gasoline Receptacle Labeling Act, which provides that "No gasoline shall be dispensed at any service station except directly into the fuel tanks of motor vehicles or into containers that conform to the requirements of this statute." The statute requires that gas containers must be metal cans that are red in color, have the word "gasoline" printed on them, and that have a flash arresting screen and a closing lid and spout cover. The stockbroker sued the gas station, on a theory of negligence per se, for allowing a person to purchase gasoline in the plastic bucket. Can the stockbroker prevail on her negligence per se claim against the gas station? A. Yes, because the fire at the stockbroker's home was directly linked to the purchase of the gasoline. B. Yes, because the gas station attendant knowingly permitted a person to purchase gasoline in a container that did not comply with the statute's requirements. C. No, because arson is a far more serious criminal offense than violation of the gasoline container statute. D. No, because the gasoline container statute was not intended to prevent arson.

Chandler was driving his car one afternoon. As he approached an intersection with a green light ahead of him, a car driven by Janet ran through a red light and into the intersection. As soon as he saw Janet's car in his path, Chandler stepped on the brakes, but he was unable to stop in time and the cars collided. Chandler and Janet were both injured. Assume that these events occur in a state that has "pure" comparative fault. If Chandler sues Janet, the additional fact that would help Janet the most is: A. Chandler was committing a crime by driving ten miles per hour over the speed limit. B. Chandler had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. C. Janet ran the red light because she was born with an eye disorder that occasionally causes her vision to blur. D. Janet ran the red light because she was suddenly struck without warning by a severe mental illness that made her forget how to drive as she approached the intersection.

One evening, Bob decided to drive to the store to purchase milk, because his wife Mary forgot to buy milk on her way home from work. Bob had been drinking some liquor and was very intoxicated. Although it was getting dark, he forgot to turn on his car's headlights. He also did not have a valid driver's license, because his license had expired recently and he had not renewed it. On the way to the store, Bob stopped at a stop sign at an intersection. There were no other cars on the road in the area. As he waited for a pedestrian who was crossing the street in the crosswalk in front of him, a sudden gust of intense wind caused a large limb to fall off a tree. The limb fell and hit the windshield of Bob's car. Jagged pieces of the broken glass went flying in all directions, and some struck and cut the face of the pedestrian. Which of the following factors is an "actual cause" of the pedestrian's injury? A. The fact that Bob was intoxicated rather than sober. B. The fact that Bob's driver's license was expired rather than valid. C. The fact that Bob had forgotten to turn on his car's headlights. D. The fact that Mary had forgotten to buy milk.

Shortly after Patrick locks up his tavern for the night, a fire burns the tavern to the ground. The fire investigators determine that the blaze was started by a cigarette left on a couch located against the tavern's back wall, behind the pool tables. All witnesses agree that three people were sitting on the couch at closing time, and that two of them were smoking. It is legal to smoke in bars, but investigators determine that all three of these people were under age and used fake IDs to get into the bar. If Patrick sues the two people who sat on the couch and were smoking, which legal rule is most likely to apply to his case? A. Negligence per se. B. Duplicative causation. C. Alternative liability. D. Res ipsa loquitur.

Trae suffered a serious injury while participating in an impromptu basketball game at a public park. The style of play in the game was aggressive and rough, with a lot of physical contact between the players, including the use of elbows and knees to ward off other players. Trae was one of the players who made liberal use of these tactics. While going after a rebound, Trae was hit by the elbow of another player. Trae suffered an injury from this and brought a lawsuit against the player who struck him. In this action, will Trae prevail? A. Yes, if the opposing player intended for his elbow to strike Trae. B. Yes, if the opposing player failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid making contact with other players. C. No, unless the opposing player's action would constitute a foul that would be penalized under the rules of basketball. D. No, unless the opposing player intentionally used force that exceeded the players' implicit understanding of what level of physical play is acceptable in a pick-up basketball game.

Which of the following is a true statement about the "firefighter's rule" and "rescue doctrine"? A. The "firefighter's rule" protects professional rescuers from being held liable for negligence, while the "rescue doctrine" extends similar protection to amateur or non professional rescuers. B. The majority of states have abandoned the "firefighter's rule" and replaced it with the "rescue doctrine." C. The "firefighter's rule" is relevant only to intentional tort claims, while the "rescue doctrine" applies only to negligence claims. D. The "firefighter's rule" provides that a person generally does not have a duty to prevent harm to a professional rescuer, while the "rescue doctrine" provides that it is reasonably foreseeable that someone will attempt a rescue when a danger exists.

Which of the following is a true statement about the extent to which circumstantial evidence can be used in a negligence case? A. Negligence claims must be proven by trustworthy evidence, so circumstantial evidence is not a valid way to prove a negligence claim. B. Circumstantial evidence can be used to prove a negligence claim only if the requirements for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are satisfied. C. Circumstantial evidence can be used to prove the breach element, but not the other elements of a negligence claim. D. The evidence used to prove a tort claim can be direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of the two.

Which of the following is the best explanation of the concept of proximate cause? A. Proximate cause is about whether the defendant's actions were an essential factor without which the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred B. Proximate cause is about the extent to which it was foreseeable that the defendant's behavior would fall below the standard of what a reasonably careful person would have done. C. Proximate cause is about the nature and severity of the injury suffered by the plaintiff and the degree to whivch it is a type of harm that merits a legal remedy. D. Proximate cause is about the strength and closeness of the casual connnection between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's harm.

Buckingham owns an old, run-down building in a town that occasionally has minor earthquakes. The building's walls are unstable and beginning to buckle. Buckingham knows about the building's poor condition, but he does not want to spend the money to repair it. Tom drives a gasoline tanker truck, delivering gasoline to filling stations. Deciding to stop and check one of his tires, Tom parks the truck in the nearest empty space, which happens to be next to Buckingham's building. Although there are parking meters along the street where Tom parks the truck, he decides not to put any money into the meters, because he figures that he can just move the truck if a parking enforcement officer comes by and starts to write him a ticket for illegal parking. While Tom is checking his truck's tire, there is a minor earthquake. It is not strong enough to damage structurally sound buildings, but it makes the walls of Buckingham's building collapse. The building falls on top of Tom's truck, ripping a large hole in the tank. Gasoline spills out and streams down the street and into a storm drain. Floating on top of water in the underground drainage tunnel, the gasoline moves quickly until some of it reaches the point where the tunnel empties into a small lake on the outskirts of town. Paul is fishing from a canoe at a point near where the tunnel empties into the lake. Unaware that gasoline is gathering on the surface of the lake around his canoe, Paul tosses a lit cigarette butt into the lake, igniting the gasoline. The sudden burst of flames around the canoe startles Paul, causing him to fall out of his canoe and drown in the lake. If Paul's estate sues Buckingham for negligence, what is the most likely result? A. Paul's estate wins, because Paul would not have been harmed if Buckingham had maintained the building in a reasonably safe condition. B. Paul's estate wins, because a minor earthquake was reasonably foreseeable in this area. C. Paul's estate loses, because Paul voluntarily chose to assume the risks of smoking cigarettes. D. Paul's estate loses, because Paul's drowning was not a reasonably foreseeable result of Buckingham's carelessness.

D. proximate cause establishes a reasonable connection between an act or omission of a defendant and the harm suffered by a plaintiff

Which of the following is a true statement about negligence per se? A. If you violate a state or local law, that is negligent per se, but the doctrine of negligence per se does not apply to federal statutes, because tort law is a matter of state law. B. If you were not aware of the existence of the law that your conduct violated, you have a reasonable excuse for violating the law and you will not be deemed to be negligent per se. C. A child who violates a statute is negligent per se if a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence, maturity, and experience would have complied with the statute. D. To determine if the violation of a statute was negligent per se, one must attempt to determine why the legislature enacted the statute.

D. To find negligence per se, you have to decide that the situation involves the type of person and type of injury that the legislature had in mind.

A construction company was doing work near some high-voltage electric power lines. Which of the following is the best statement of duty owed by the construction company? A. The company had a duty to guarntee that its activities would not cause harm to anyone. B. The company had a duty to exercise an extraordinary high degree of care because of the significant risk posed by powerful electric forces. C. The company had a duty to exercise the care that a reasonable average adult person would use under the circumstances. D. The company had a duty to exercise the care that a reasonable construction company would use under the circumstances.

D. When person has above average knowledge or expertise the person has a duty to exercise the care of a reasonable person with such knowledge or expertise.

You go to a large picnic event where they are serving egg salad sandwiches. The sandwiches were provided by three different catering companies. The sandwiches all look the same and are served on the same type of trays, so it is not possible to tell which catering company made a particular sandwich. After eating a sandwich, you become sick with food poisoning, and it is determined that the sandwich you ate was contaminated with poisonous bacteria. Will you be able to recover damages from one or more of the catering companies? A. Yes, because the sandwich was the actual and proximate cause of the harm you suffered. B. Yes, because a reasonable jury could infer that someone must have been negligent C. No, because you did not have a special relationship with any of the three catering companies D. No, because there is no evidence that all three catering companies were negligent

D. alternative liability requires all defendants were negligent not just one of them.

Some members of a state legislature became concerned after several accidents occurred in which pedestrians suffered fatal injuries when struck by automobiles. These legislators drafted a bill stating that "every driver of a motor vehicle in the state must exercise a very high degree of care to avoid colliding with any pedestrians" and that "in any negligence case concerning injuries suffered by a pedestrian who was hit by a motor vehicle, the burden will be on the driver of the vehicle to prove that the driver acted with care of a very careful and prudent person." The legislature passed the bill, the governor signed it, and it became a law. Which of the following is a true statement about the validity of this statute? A. The statute is invalid, because there is a single standard of care for all negligence claims, and the standard is the care of a reasonable person under the circumstances. B. The statute is invalid, because the plaintiff bringing a negligence claim has the burden of proving that negligence occurred. C. The statute is valid because the majority of courts have held that the operator of a motor vehicle must exercise a very high degree of care where injuries to pedestrians are reasonably foreseeable. D. The statute is valid because legislatures can enact statutes that override the common-law rules of tort law.

D. statute can always override common-law rules of tort law (H-7 note 4).

Ver todos los conjuntos de estudio

Torts MC Midterm (Negligence) Practice Questions

Conjuntos de estudio relacionados

Chapter 9: The Progressive Era

Normalization

Pharmacology Ch 45 (3)

Chapter 25: The Fetal Face & Neck

MAN3802.0M1 Chapter 1 - 6

Renewable and Non Renewable Energy

ACESS PRACTICE EXAM

Art Chapter 4

4. Prepositions 전치사 - on 착! 달라붙어 있는 ~(위)에

Analysis of Form and Content

pediatric final exam

NSG 170 lecture *EXAM 4 (sexuality/reproduction)

Bone Terms

Chapter 1 Hello, how are you?

Lesson 11 (1 - 3) Sequences and Summation Notation/Arithmetic and Geometric Sequences

Dermatology for my beezies

Chapter 1,2,3

SS Review Chapter 6

4. The Mesolithic Age: Tools, Inventions & Archaeology

iMANAGE DEVOPS