BLAW Exam 1 Review

In applying the reasonable person standard, the court takes into account a person's physical, but not mental handicaps. a). True b). False

a). True

Mary's car was parked just outside the east door of the Civic Center. When she tried to exit, three ominous-looking gang members were blocking that door. She called the police who arrested the three for loitering. If Mary brings suit against them for false imprisonment: a. she will lose if there was another exit she could have used. b. she will lose because she was not harmed by the confinement. c. she will win even if there was another way out because she was, in effect, being confined to the Civic Center. d. she will win because they were blocking her passage to her car.

a. she will lose if there was another exit she could have used.

Arnie negligently stopped his car on the highway. Beth, who was driving along, saw Arnie's car in sufficient time to attempt to stop. However, Beth negligently put her foot on the accelerator instead of the brake and ran into Arnie's car. a. Arnie's contributory negligence will prevent his recovery from Beth in all jurisdictions. b. Beth had the last clear chance to avoid the accident and will bear legal responsibility for it. c. Arnie has assumed the risk of the accident. d. Because both parties were negligent, in a state that follows the comparative negligence doctrine, both parties will share the liability for their injuries.

d. Because both parties were negligent, in a state that follows the comparative negligence doctrine, both parties will share the liability for their injuries.

By law, bystanders are always required to help others in peril. a). True b). False

b). False

Deontological theories assess good and evil in terms of the consequences of actions. a). True b). False

b). False

If a raccoon gets loose from a cage and harms someone, the owner can escape liability by showing that he took great care to keep the animal confined. a). True b). False

b). False

Pat and Sally started a charcoal fire for Sally's backyard barbecue and left it uncovered. Then Sally went into the kitchen to make hamburger patties. While Sally was inside, Pat backed up to catch a football and hit the grill, knocking the coals onto his feet. In a pure comparative negligence state, who is liable? a. Sally is liable for ALL of Pat's injuries. b. Sally is liable for Pat's injuries in proportion to the degree of fault or negligence found against her. c. Sally is not liable for any of Pat's injuries. d. Sally is liable for Pat's injuries only if Pat was more negligent than Sally.

b. Sally is liable for Pat's injuries in proportion to the degree of fault or negligence found against her.

Ashley wrote a defamatory letter regarding Brian which she mailed to Brian, but which she did not show to anyone else. a. Ashley has committed the tort of slander. b. Ashley has committed the tort of libel. c. Ashley has committed neither libel nor slander, because there has been no publication of the letter.

c. Ashley has committed neither libel nor slander, because there has been no publication of the letter.

Claudia's baby daughter Karynne is snatched from her arms at the grocery store. The kidnapper threatens to drop the baby if the store does not hand over the contents of the vault. Claudia may: a. trip the kidnapper, because she is limited to nonlife-threatening force. b. shoot the kidnapper, since she can protect the baby in the same way as she can protect herself. c. not seriously harm the kidnapper, since she is not in danger. d. only call the police, since she cannot take the law into her own hands.

b. shoot the kidnapper, since she can protect the baby in the same way as she can protect herself.

If a statute is found to be applicable to a fact situation, then the courts will hold that an unexcused violation of that statute which causes an injury to another is: a. strict liability. b. res ipsa loquitur. c. negligence per se. d. assumption of the risk.

c. negligence per se.

Sample Essay Questions: 1. Claude, a creditor seeking to collect a debt, calls Dianne and demands payment in a rude and insolent manner. When Dianne says that she cannot pay, Claude calls Dianne a deadbeat and says that he will never trust her again. Dianne sues Claude for defamation. Will she win? Why?

1. Defamation. In order for Dianne, a private plaintiff, to win a defamation case she must prove four things. There was a defamatory statement -a statement insinuating facts that are likely to harm the plaintiff's reputation. • He insinuated fact when he called her a deadbeat. This is likely to harm someone's reputation (if heard by others). The defamatory statement must be false. • There is nothing false about what he said, she didn't make the payment. So this element fails. The defamatory statement was intentionally/purposefully false or negligently (think carelessly) false. • Because there isn't anything false about what he said, and because most of what he said about not trusting her is an opinion, she would fail to prove this element. The defamatory statement must be communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. • There is insufficient evidence to prove this element because Claude only told her, the plantiff. Because she cannot prove all the elements of her defamation claim, she loses.

Under which ethical system would it be ethical to compel a few citizens to undergo painful or fatal medical tests in order to develop cures for the rest of the world? a. Utilitarianism. b. Ethical fundamentalism. c. Distributive justice. d. Libertarianism.

a. Utilitarianism.

An action for negligence consists of five elements, each of which the plaintiff must prove. These elements include: a. injury. b. res ipsa loquitur. c. a reasonable person. d. All of the above.

a. injury.

A "reasonable person standard" does not apply to children since they do not have the judgment, intelligence, knowledge, or experience of adults. a). True b). False

b). False

A defendant will be liable for all harm that can be traced back to the defendant's negligence. a). True b). False

b). False

A person who falls asleep while driving would not be liable for any resulting injury since it would be an unavoidable accident. a). True b). False

b). False

A violation of a statute constitutes negligence per se regardless of whether the injured party is a member of the class protected by the statute. a). True b). False

b). False

An ordinary person standard determines whether allegedly negligent conduct resulted in a breach of a duty of care. a). True b). False

b). False

Sample Essay Questions: 2. Oscar has a place on his land where he piles trash. The pile has been there for three months. John, a neighbor of Oscar and without Oscar's consent or knowledge, throws trash onto the trashpile. Oscar learns that John has done this and sues him. What tort, if any, has John committed? Explain.

2. A person is liable for trespass to real property if he/she intentionally causes a thing or a third person to be placed on the land of another. The facts indicate that he threw trash on someone else's land. There is no evidence that this was an accident, therefore it was an intentional act. By throwing trash on someone else's land he has caused a "thing" to be placed on the land of another. So yes, the trespass to real property claim will be successful.

Mark is out sailing in his boat one evening when he hears a young girl crying for help in the middle of the river. Which of the following is true? a. Mark MUST help the girl or he will be liable for negligence. b. Mark must help the girl ONLY if he knows her. c. Mark MUST help the girl if he is the girl's uncle. d. Mark MUST help the girl if he begins to rescue her and increases her danger.

d. Mark MUST help the girl if he begins to rescue her and increases her danger.

In which of the following situations would a landowner have liability to a trespasser? a. Where the landowner has rigged up a trap to injure anyone coming onto the property without permission. b. Where a landowner next to a nursery school has an unfenced swimming pool and one of the children falls into the pool. c. Where a trespasser trips over some lawn furniture in an unlighted backyard. d. Two of the above, (a) and (b).

d. Two of the above, (a) and (b).

A blind person will be held to the standard of care of the reasonable blind person rather than that of the reasonable sighted person for purposes of determining negligence a). True b). False

a). True

Damages awarded in excess of normal compensation to punish a defendant for a serious civil wrong are known as punitive damages. a). True b). False

a). True

For purposes of intentional torts, a person can have the intent to cause harm if the harm is substantially certain to occur even if he or she doesn't desire that such harm occur. a). True b). False

a). True

It is possible for legal acts to be immoral. a). True b). False

a). True

Under comparative negligence, the court apportions damages between parties in proportion to the degree of fault or negligence it finds against them. a). True b). False

a). True

Utilitarian notions underlie cost-benefit analysis. a). True b). False

a). True

Which of the following statements regarding a negligence case is correct? a. A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act was the factual cause of her injury even if the injury was not foreseeable. b. A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act was both the factual cause of her injury as well as a foreseeable injury. c. A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act created a foreseeable danger even if it was not the factual cause of her injury. d. A plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant's act either created a foreseeable danger or that the act was the factual cause of her injury.

b. A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act was both the factual cause of her injury as well as a foreseeable injury.

Carl threw a bomb into the office of his insurance agent, intending to kill the agent because the company had disallowed his claim. The agent wasn't in the building, but the bomb seriously injured his secretary, who was working in the office. a. Carl cannot be liable to the secretary for any torts because he did not intend to hurt her. b. The intent to harm the agent is transferred to the secretary who can sue Carl for her I njuries with an intentional tort cause of action. c. Carl has committed a crime, but he is not liable for any torts. d. Carl has committed the tort of intrusion.

b. The intent to harm the agent is transferred to the secretary who can sue Carl for her I njuries with an intentional tort cause of action.

Sample Essay Questions: 3. A statute requires all vessels traveling on the Great Lakes to provide lifeboats. One of Winston Steamship Company's boats is sent out of port without a lifeboat. Perry, a sailor, falls overboard in a storm so heavy that had there been a lifeboat, it could not have been launched. Perry drowns. Is Winston liable to Perry's estate in a claim for negligence? Why?

3. In order to prove negligence, Perry's estate must prove 5 things: 1) Duty of care, 2) breach of duty of care, 3) injury to plaintiff or plaintiff's property, 4) actual cause, and 5) foreseeability/zone of danger. 1. In this case there was a duty of care established by statute, so this is a negligence per se scenario. There are three steps to establish a duty by negligence per se. There must be a clearly defined statute, the statute must have been intended to prevent the type of harm the defendant's act or omission caused, and the plaintiff must be a member of the class of persons the statute or regulation was intended to protect. Here the statute clearly stated that the craft was supposed to have a life boat. Life boats are obviously supposed to help prevent drowning. And the people on the boat were the class of people that were supposed to be protected by the statute. 2. The duty of care was breached when there was no life boat. 3. Perry was killed, so there was definitely an injury. 4. There is no factual cause here because, as stated by the problem, the harm would have occurred even if they had the lifeboats. So the breach of duty of care is not what actually caused the injury. 5. It is foreseeable that people on the boat could drown if there is no lifeboat to save them. So they are within the zone of danger. Because Perry's estate cannot prove step 4, the case will be lost.