Chapter 9

If the legislature passes a statute creating an elevated duty of care for a particular activity in order to protect a particular subset of the population, any defendant who violates this statute is most likely guilty of

negligence per se

T/F A defendant who exercised extreme care while engaged in an ultrahazardous activity will not be held liable for any damage that results.

False

T/F If a defendant fails to prove one element of his negligence claim he can still win the case.

False

T/F To win a strict liability claim involving a defective product, the plaintiff must have bought the product directly from the defendant.

False

Landowners have a _______ duty to invitees than they do to licensees. A(n) ________is someone who has a right to be on the property because it is a public place or a business. A(n) _______ is someone on the land for his or her own purposes but with the owner's permission. A(n) _______is considered a licensee whereas a(n) __________ is an invitee.

higher invitee licensee social guest store customer

T/F A person at work has a heightened duty of care.

True

T/F Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant.

True

In terms of duty of care, while on the job a person must act as

a reasonable person in his or her profession

Jeremy goes to a professional baseball game, and has priority seating very close to the field. A foul ball flies into the stands and strikes Jeremy, shattering his nose. If Jeremy sues the baseball league, what will the result be? a. Jeremy will win under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. b. Jeremy will win, because the foul ball was both the factual and proximate cause of his injury. c. Jeremy will lose, because he assumed the risk by going to the game. d. Jeremy will win because baseball is an ultrahazardous activity.

c. Jeremy will lose, because he assumed the risk by going to the game.

Most states adhere to the theory of __________ because the earlier version of the rule was considered unreasonable.

comparative negligence

Under ________ , a plaintiff may generally recover even if he or she is partially responsible. Under _________ , if the plaintiff is even slightly negligent, he or she recovers nothing.

comparative negligence contributory negligence

Negligence could be called an "unintentional" tort because it

concerns harm that arises by accident

Under the single recovery principle, the court must decide at trial the full extent of

present and future damages

In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, the relative negligence of the plaintiff and the defendant will be determined by

the jury

If a plaintiff fails to prove proximate causation, even though the defendant's conduct was the factual cause of her injury, it probably means that

there was a superseding case

Under the consumer expectation test, the court will find a product manufacturer liable for defective design if

it is less safe than a reasonable consumer would expect

A landowner has the highest liability if which of the following is injured on his or her property? a. Licensee b. Trespassing child c. Invitee d. Trespassing adult

c. Invitee

Beryl is injured in a car accident. The jury finds her 30% liable and awards $100,000 in damages. The suit takes place in a comparative negligence jurisdiction. How much money will she receive? a. $70,000 b. $50,000 c. $100,000 d. $30,000 e. No money

a. $70,000

Under what principle is a plaintiff barred from recovery when he voluntarily puts himself in a situation that has an obvious danger? a. Assumption of risk b. Comparative negligence c. Res ipsa loquitur

a. Assumption of risk

In determining the extent of a person's duty to other people, the court generally applies a test of

foreseeability

Alonzo decides to have a yard sale to sell some of his personal items. At the sale, Alonzo sells Ralph a big screen television for $40. Ralph is very pleased with the deal until an electrical issue in the television causes the television to catch fire two days later. The resulting fire burns Ralph's house to the ground. Ralph sues Alonzo alleging strict liability. Why does Ralph lose his suit? a. Because Alonzo is not in the business of selling televisions b. Because the television was not unreasonably dangerous c. Because the television was probably not defective when it left Alonzo's hands d. Because Alonzo exercised all possible care in selling the television

a. Because Alonzo is not in the business of selling televisions

Which of the following does a plaintiff NOT have to prove when he alleges that the defendant was engaged in an ultrahazardous activity? Select all that apply. a. Foreseeable harm b. Duty c. Damages d. Proximate causation e. Breach f. Factual causation

a. Foreseeable harm b. Duty e. Breach

If a defendant is engaging in conduct that is obviously dangerous, but his actions harm a plaintiff in a way that is not foreseeable, can the plaintiff still recover? a. No, because the conduct was not the proximate cause of the injury b. Yes, if the defendant's actions were the factual cause of plaintiff's injuries c. Yes, if they are in a comparative negligence jurisdiction

a. No, because the conduct was not the proximate cause of the injury

Select the criteria for a court to apply res ipsa loquitur: Select all that apply. a. The defendant must have had exclusive control of the thing that caused the harm. b. The defendant had actual knowledge of the danger. c. The plaintiff had no role in causing the harm. d. The harm normally would not have occurred without negligence. e. The defendant acted as a reasonable person in his profession. f. The plaintiff was not trespassing.

a. The defendant must have had exclusive control of the thing that caused the harm. c. The plaintiff had no role in causing the harm. d. The harm normally would not have occurred without negligence.

Select the five main factors examined by a court in a risk-utility test: a. The value of the product b. The adverse consequences of an alternative design c. The expense of warning consumers of any danger d. The mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design e. The gravity or seriousness of danger f. The likelihood that such a danger will occur g. Whether or not consumers assume a risk of injury when using the product h. The likelihood that a consumer will misuse the product in any way

a. The value of the product b. The adverse consequences of an alternative design d. The mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design e. The gravity or seriousness of danger f. The likelihood that such a danger will occur

Which of the following is subject to strict liability? Select all that apply. a. A hot barbeque that burns a person who puts her hand on the grill while cooking hotdogs b. A tiger kept in a secure cage, surrounded by two fences in a residential community c. A hairdryer that falls into a bathtub and shocks someone who was drying her hair while sitting in the water d. A facility that stores toxic chemicals e. A brand new toaster that explodes in a homeowner's face f. A trucking company that transports garbage a great distance

b. A tiger kept in a secure cage, surrounded by two fences in a residential community d. A facility that stores toxic chemicals e. A brand new toaster that explodes in a homeowner's face

Farmer Jake is extremely distressed when he goes to his state-of-the-art chicken facility one morning and finds that all 300 of his prized chickens have died overnight. A veterinarian determines that the chickens have all died of heart attacks. Video surveillance reveals that the chickens all went into distress and died around 4:15 am. Farmer Jake knows that Dahlia's Dynamite Co. had been hired to do some underground blasting in the area that morning. Farmer Jake sues Dahlia's. What result? a. Dahlia's will win, because Farmer Jake will be unable to prove that Dahlia's breached any duty. b. Farmer Jake will win, because the court will hold Dahlia strictly liable. c. Farmer Jake will win only if he can prove that Dahlia acted negligently. d. Dahlia's will win, because it is not reasonably foreseeable that its conduct would kill chickens in the area.

b. Farmer Jake will win, because the court will hold Dahlia strictly liable.

For a thrill, Isabel goes to a water park with steep waterslides. While waiting in line for the waterslide, she is bitten by a raccoon. Will the water park be able to avoid liability on the basis of the assumption of risk doctrine? a. No, because Isabel was an invitee b. No, Isabel did not assume the risk of getting bitten by an animal c. No, because wild animals are ultrahazardous d. Yes, if Isabel was an adult e. Yes, because it is common knowledge that water parks are not always safe

b. No, Isabel did not assume the risk of getting bitten by an animal

When Mary Louise has an accident, the court awards her $50,000 for future lost wages. It turns out she is unable to work for much longer than her doctor anticipated, and her lost wages amount to $225,000. Can she sue the defendant again for the unforeseen losses? a. Yes, because the doctor should have foreseen the extent of her injuries b. No, because of the single recovery principle c. Yes, because the defendant was the factual and proximate cause of her lost wages d. No, because non-economic damages are capped

b. No, because of the single recovery principle

Choose ALL of the elements a plaintiff must prove in order to win a negligence case: a. Special relationship b. Negligent design c. Factual cause d. Duty of care e. Proximate cause f. Comparative negligence g. Damages h. Strict liability i. Breach

c. Factual cause d. Duty of care e. Proximate cause g. Damages i. Breach

Select the three most common claims made by plaintiffs in a product liability case: a. Assumption of risk b. Ultrahazardous product c. Failure to warn d. Negligent manufacture e. Negligent design

c. Failure to warn d. Negligent manufacture e. Negligent design

If an armed gunman comes into a book store and shoots all the customers, can the customers recover against the bookstore owner? a. No, because book store customers do not assume the risk of being shot b. Yes, because they are invitees c. Yes, because shooting is ultrahazardous d. No, because generally there is no obligation to protect against the wrong-doing of a third person

d. No, because generally there is no obligation to protect against the wrong-doing of a third person

Cole is severely injured when he falls down some wet stairs at a bar. The jury finds that he was 5% responsible for his accident and awards $100,000 in damages. The suit takes place in a contributory negligence jurisdiction. How much money will Cole receive? a. $95,000 b. $50,000 c. $100,000 d. $5,000 e. No money

e. No money

Bunny gets into a terrible car accident while driving her brand new sedan. Because Bunny is severely overweight, the driver's seat collapses backwards during the accident and causes her further injury. The car manufacturer knew that this particular model had a risk of collapsing in accidents if the driver or passengers were considerably overweight. Bunny's best chance of recovery against the car manufacturer is a claim for

failure to warn

The judge in Palsgraf based his decision on the fact that

harm to the plaintiff was not foreseeable