Business Law: Negligence

Which statement(s) is most accurate with respect to a child's duty of due care: Two of the answers are correct A child who is engaged in an adult activity is held to the adult standard of care A child is always held to the adult standard of reasonable care. A child must exercise the same degree of care as a child of similar age and intelligence would.

Two of the answers are correct

The defendant is not liable if . . . in a comparative negligence state, the plaintiff was negligent and therefore contributed to his injuries. he could not have reasonably anticipated injuring the plaintiff or the class of people who the plaintiff belongs to. All of the answers are correct. the plaintiff uses the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor

he could not have reasonably anticipated injuring the plaintiff or the class of people who the plaintiff belongs to.

William, who is a waiter, is injured when an unopened bottle of cola explodes in his hand while he is putting it into the restaurant's cooler. If William wants to sue the bottling company for his injuries: he will probably win if the court allows him to use the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. he will lose, because the bottling company has no duty to him. he will win based on the last clear chance rule. he will lose, because it will be impossible for him to prove that the bottle was overpressurized by the bottler.

he will probably win if the court allows him to use the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

he duty of a land owner to persons who come on the land usually depends on whether those persons are: reasonable persons. invitees, trespassers, or licensees. involved in abnormally dangerous activities. fiduciaries.

invitees, trespassers, or licensees.

Stan doesn't like having neighborhood teenagers walk across his yard at night. He rigs an animal trap on the path the teenagers usually use to cross his land. One night, Tim and his friends are walking across the yard when Tim gets caught in the trap. He is taken to the hospital for his injuries. Stan: has the right to strongly discourage anyone from trespassing, and Tim was a trespasser. has no duty toward Tim. All of these. is not free to inflict intentional injury on a trespasser.

is not free to inflict intentional injury on a trespasser.

Henry was burning leaves in his backyard. One of the burning leaves was lifted by the wind into Bob's yard next door. It landed on the lawnmower which exploded, setting fire to the wooden lawn furniture. Henry's best argument against liability to Bob would be: the leaf was not a substantial factor in causing the damage. the gasoline in the lawnmower is a superseding cause of the damage. it was not foreseeable that the lawnmower would explode. the damage was not caused by the leaf but by the gasoline.

it was not foreseeable that the lawnmower would explode.

Violation of a statute designed to protect underage, unlicensed drivers, as well as innocent third parties, from the consequences of juvenile car theft and "joy riding," by prohibiting car owners from leaving the keys in their car if the car is unattended, is likely to be characterized as: negligence per se. contributory negligence. res ipsa loquitur. assumption of risk.

negligence per se.

While driving his car five miles over the speed limit, Carl struck Darla, who was jaywalking across the street. When the case came to trial, the jury determined that Carl was 40% negligent and that Darla was 60% negligent. Darla's injuries are $10,000. If this accident occurred in a contributory negligence state, Darla will: recover $10,000. not recover anything. recover $4,000. recover $6,000.

not recover anything.

While driving his car five miles over the speed limit, Carl struck Darla, who was jaywalking across the street. When the case came to trial, the jury determined that Carl was 40% negligent and that Darla was 60% negligent. Darla's injuries are $10,000. If this accident occurred in a state following the contributory negligence theory, Darla will: recover $4,000. recover $10,000. recover $6,000. not recover anything.

not recover anything.

If Janice, while driving her car, negligently runs into Paul, a pedestrian who is carefully crossing the street, Janice is liable for: offensive contact if her side mirror brushes against Paul, even if there are no physical injuries to him. the physical injuries Paul sustains from the collision because Janice's negligence conduct proximately caused harm to Paul. All of these. battery to Paul if her car touches Paul.

the physical injuries Paul sustains from the collision because Janice's negligence conduct proximately caused harm to Paul.

The reasonable person standard is defined as the standard of behavior exercised by a reasonable and prudent police officer. the standard of negligence that is prohibited. the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances. the standard of behavior exercised by the plaintiff.

the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances.

Which of the following best identifies the elements of negligence? A breach of the duty of due care that causes a foreseeable injury. The intentional breach of a duty of due care that causes a foreseeable injury. An intentional breach of a duty of due care that may or may not cause an injury. A breach of the duty of due care that may or may not cause a foreseeable injury.

A breach of the duty of due care that causes a foreseeable injury.

Wilma's Wonderful World has an amusement park. They know that the rollercoaster has some broken cars. They also know that it is possible for a car - or two - to come flying off. The amusement park figures it would cost $500,000 to fix the rollercoaster. Unfortunately, the amusement park does not have the money so they opt just to ignore the problem and keep their fingers crossed. One day Casey and Denise were riding the roller coaster and the car they were in came flying off. Casey and Denise sustained horrific injuries. Which of the statements is most accurate? A jury would most likely award Casey and Denise compensatory damages as well as direct the amusement park to pay punitive damages. A jury would most likely award Casey and Denise only compensatory damages. A jury would most likely not award Casey and Denise any damages since no one knows what caused the car to come flying off the rollercoaster. A jury would most likely award Casey and Denise punitive damages only.

A jury would most likely award Casey and Denise compensatory damages as well as direct the amusement park to pay punitive damages.

The local supermarket has a large, glass front door which is well lighted and plainly visible. Nelson, who is new in the neighborhood, mistook the glass for an open doorway and walked into it, shattering the door and injuring himself. Which statement about the liability of the store is most accurate? would be liable under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. has no duty to Nelson. is not liable to Nelson since the door was well lighted and plainly visible. is strictly liable to Nelson.

Is not liable to Nelson since the door was well lighted and plainly visible.

Lexi needed a big tree in her back yard cut down because it was dropping annoying things in her pool. She was unable to wait. So Lexi went and got a chain saw and started cutting down the tree. Lexi was thrilled that she actually cut the tree down. Lexi was even more thrilled that the tree did not land on anyone. Unfortunately though, a squirrel was in the tree. (Don't worry - no squirrels were harmed.) The squirrel jumped from the tree just as it was landing. A passerby on a unicycle was startled when he saw the jumping squirrel. Michelle, who was walking down the street, looked just in time to see the startled unicyclist. Michelle was so taken back by the sounds and sights of the unicyclist that she walked into the side of a building. As a result of walking into the side of the building, Michelle fractured her nose. Michelle now wishes to sue Lexi for cutting down the tree. Which statement is most accurate? It is unlikely that Michelle will be successful in her lawsuit against Lexi based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior. It is likely that Michelle will be successful in her lawsuit against Lexi based upon res ipsa loquitor. It is unlikely that Michelle will be successful in her lawsuit against Lexi. Michelle fracturing her nose because she walked into the side of a building was not a foreseeable consequence of Lexi cutting down a tree. It is likely that Michelle will be successful in her lawsuit against Lexi because if Lexi had not cut down the tree, Michelle would not have been injured.

It is unlikely that Michelle will be successful in her lawsuit against Lexi. Michelle fracturing her nose because she walked into the side of a building was not a foreseeable consequence of Lexi cutting down a tree.

Marsha and Mary were both involved in a car accident. Marsha sued Mary. The jury came back and awarded Marsha $100,000.00 in damages but found Marsha 20% responsible for the car accident. The law suit was brought in a contributory negligence state. Which statement is most accurate? Marsha would receive $20,000.00 in damages from the law suit. Marsha would receive no money from the law suit. Marsha would receive $100,000 in damages from the law suit. Marsha would receive $80,000.00 in damages from the law suit.

Marsha would receive no money from the law suit.

Chris was driving a car with defective brakes very slowly down Fifth Avenue looking for a parking place. Mindy jumped out into the street five feet in front of his car. Chris could not help but hit her. What is Chris's best defense to the charge of negligence? Mindy crossed in the middle of the street, which is against the law. He was lawfully seeking a parking place and did not see her jump out. He was not negligent since he did not have a statutory duty to keep his brakes in top condition. Mindy had a mental deficiency.

Mindy crossed in the middle of the street, which is against the law.

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 played football with some of the other guests. As Pat backed up to catch a football she hit the grill, knocking the coals onto her feet. Who is liable? Sally is not liable for any of Pat's injuries. Sally is liable for Pat's injuries only if Pat was more negligent than Sally. Sally is liable for ALL of Pat's injuries. Sally is liable for Pat's injuries in proportion to the degree of fault or negligence found against her.

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

Pat has a lead foot. She drives so fast that she's often just a blur as she goes past people. Suzanne needs a ride to the grocery store so she hops in Pat's car and Pat speeds off. Pat runs a red light and crashes into a car driven by Ellen. Fortunately Ellen is not hurt at all but the same cannot be said for Suzanne who has a broken arm. Which of the following statements is most accurate? Suzanne cannot sue Pat because she willingly got in Pat's car. Suzanne cannot sue Pat because Pat did not owe Suzanne a duty and therefore Pat did not breach the duty. Suzanne can sue Pat because of Pat's negligence. Pat breached her duty to Suzanne when she ran the red light and the breach of duty was the proximate cause of Suzanne's broken arm. Suzanne can sue Pat for the intentional tort of battery because Pat negligently ran a red light.

Suzanne can sue Pat because of Pat's negligence. Pat breached her duty to Suzanne when she ran the red light and the breach of duty was the proximate cause of Suzanne's broken arm.

Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, only the plaintiff's negligence is taken into consideration.​ True False

False

Under the theory of negligence, the duty of care requires an intentional act.​ False True

False

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would permit the court to infer negligence in which of the following situations? A ladder rung broke under the weight of a worker's foot. All of these. A sign over a storefront fell on your head. A patron of a restaurant slipped on a wet spot on the floor and hit her head on a chair.

A sign over a storefront fell on your head.

Which of the following are activities that give rise to strict liability? Selling defective, unreasonably dangerous products. Performing abnormally dangerous activities. All are correct. Keeping wild, dangerous animals.

All are correct.

Amanda was walking on the street. A drone fell on her head. As a result of the drone falling on her head, Amanda fractured her skull. Once Amanda was discharged from the hospital she learned that David was the person who operated the drone. Neither Amanda nor David knew why the drone fell from the sky. Which of the following statements is most accurate? Amanda cannot sue David for negligence because she does not know what made the drone fall from the sky. Amanda can sue David for negligence. The fact that Amanda does not know what caused the drone to fall from the sky does not matter because of the theory of res ispsa loquitor. Amanda can sue David for negligence but her award will be reduced because of her own negligence. Amanda can sue David for negligence. The fact that Amanda does not know what caused the drone to fall from the sky does not matter because of the theory of respondeat superior.

Amanda can sue David for negligence. The fact that Amanda does not know what caused the drone to fall from the sky does not matter because of the theory of res ispsa loquitor.

Frank is an odd duck. He has a fascination with hand grenades. Frank decided to experiment and make a bunch of hand grenades. Frank was extremely careful. He followed every safety warning on every label. He warned all of his friends that he was making hand grenades and not to smoke on his property. Mike is not a good listener. When he went over to Frank's house he lit a cigarette. Sadly for Mike a speck from his cigarette dropped on the ground and caused a spark. The spark caused an explosion. Mike suffered some injuries in the explosion. Which of the following statements is most accurate? Mike cannot sue Frank because Frank did not engage in any negligent behavior. Based upon the doctrine of strict liability Mike does not have to prove that Frank breached his duty of due care or that Frank did anything that caused Mike's injuries. Mike can sue Frank despite the fact that Frank took every imaginable precaution. While Mike was injured by Frank's negligence, Mike cannot sue Frank because of Mike's own negligence. Mike can sue Frank because of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.

Based upon the doctrine of strict liability Mike does not have to prove that Frank breached his duty of due care or that Frank did anything that caused Mike's injuries. Mike can sue Frank despite the fact that Frank took every imaginable precaution.

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

False

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

False

Frank is an odd duck. He has a fascination with hand grenades. Frank decided to experiment and make a bunch of hand grenades. Frank was extremely careful. He followed every safety warning on every label. He warned all of his friends that he was making hand grenades and not to smoke on his property. Mike is not a good listener. When he went over to Frank's house he lit a cigarette. Sadly for Mike a speck from his cigarette dropped on the ground and caused a spark. The spark caused an explosion. Mike suffered some injuries in the explosion. Which of the following statements is most accurate? Mike cannot sue Frank because Frank did not engage in any negligent behavior. While Mike was injured by Frank's negligence, Mike cannot sue Frank because of Mike's own negligence. Based upon the doctrine of strict liability Mike does not have to prove that Frank breached his duty of due care or that Frank did anything that caused Mike's injuries. Mike can sue Frank despite the fact that Frank took every imaginable precaution. Mike can sue Frank because of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.

Based upon the doctrine of strict liability Mike does not have to prove that Frank breached his duty of due care or that Frank did anything that caused Mike's injuries. Mike can sue Frank despite the fact that Frank took every imaginable precaution.

A principal factor that the courts consider in determining limitations on the causal connection between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injury is: superseding causes. unforeseeable consequences. Both unforeseeable consequences and superseding causes are factors. negligence per se.

Both unforeseeable consequences and superseding causes are factors.

Cal sprayed pesticide on his crops in a very careful manner on a windless day. Nevertheless, some of the pesticide spray fell on his neighbor's side of the fence and contaminated the cracked corn for the chickens. The chickens died and the neighbor sues. What is the likely result? Cal is not liable for the damage because of contributory negligence. Cal is not liable because he was not negligent in his spraying operation. Cal is not liable because the neighbor assumed the risk of damage to the feed by placing it so close to the fence. Cal is liable because spraying pesticides is an abnormally dangerous activity.

Cal is liable because spraying pesticides is an abnormally dangerous activity.

Billy and Christopher were playing a game of darts. As Billy tossed his dart, Christopher ran in front of him and got "stabbed" in the face with the dart. Christopher sued Billy. The jury came back with an award for Christopher in the amount of $100,000.00. The jury also indicated that Christopher was 70% responsible for his injuries. The law suit was brought in New York State. Which statement is most accurate? Christopher would receive no money from the law suit. Christopher would receive $100,000.00 in damages. Christopher would receive $30,000.00 in damages. Christopher would receive $70,000.00 in damages.

Christopher would receive $30,000.00 in damages.

A tiger gets loose from the tent of a circus and mauls a passerby. The circus claims it has always treated the animal well and that it was not at all negligent in its handling of the animal. The circus has no liability for the injury caused by the animal. True False

False

Res ipsa loquitur makes it easier for the defendant to prevail in a negligence action. True False

False

Mark was walking down the street juggling nerf balls. Unfortunately for Mark he is not a very good juggler. Not surprisingly, Mark lost control of one of the nerf balls and it hit Delilah in the face. Delilah was not injured - but she was really annoyed. Which statement is most accurate? If Delilah were to sue Mark in negligence she would most likely be successful because it is negliegent to try to juggle nerf balls while walking down a street. If Delilah were to sue Mark in negligence she would most likely be successful because Mark breached his duty of reasonable care. If Delilah were to sue Mark in negligence she would most likely be unsuccessful because she did not sustain an injury. If Delilah were to sue Mark in negligence she would most likely be unsuccessful because Delilah had an obligation to get out of Mark's way and because she failed to get out of the way she contributed to her damages.

If Delilah were to sue Mark in negligence she would most likely be unsuccessful because she did not sustain an injury.

An action for negligence consists of which of the following elements which the plaintiff must prove? All of these. Res ipsa loquitur. A reasonable person. Injury.

Injury

Delaney brought a civil law suit based on negligence against Alexandria. In her action for negligence which of the following elements must Delaney prove? Injury. A reasonable person. All of these. Res ipsa loquitur.

Injury

A widely applied test for causation in fact is the "but for" rule. True False

True

Harm must be foreseeable to be considered the proximate cause of an injury in negligence.​ True False

True

If no harm results from an allegedly negligent act, there is no liability.​ True False

True

Liability for the negligent conduct of a defendant requires not only that the conduct in fact caused injury to the plaintiff but also that it was the proximate cause of the injury. True False

True

Proximate cause exists when the connection between an act and an injury is strong enough to justify imposing liability.​ False True

True

Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself" and it permits the jury to infer negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain types of events. True False

True

The general rule for the standard of care used in tort law is: a person is under a duty to all others at all times to exercise reasonable care for the safety of other persons and their property. True False

True

Tim was driving his car down the Western Avenue and was thinking about the his fascinating business law class. Unfortunately for Tim he ran a red light and plowed into the side of a car driven by Vicki - who had been extremely careful to follow all the rules of the road. As a result of the collision, Vicki fractured her arm. Which statement is the most accurate? Vicki can only sue Tim for the intentional tort of battery. Vicki can only sue Tim for an intentional assault. Vicki can sue Tim for negligence because Tim breached his duty of reasonable care and as a result of the breach Vicki sustained an injury. Vicki can sue Tim for negligence but because she was partially at fault her damages will be reduced by her contributory share.

Vicki can sue Tim for negligence because Tim breached his duty of reasonable care and as a result of the breach Vicki sustained an injury.

Unlucky Larry was sunning himself in his front yard (and minding his own business) when along came Suzie peddling her adult tricycle. Suzie was following all the laws for bicyclists and using the utmost care. She did not realize that she would peddle past a bee hive - irritating the bees in the bee hive. Fortunately for Suzie, the angry bees couldn't keep up with her fast moving tricycle. Unfortunately for unlucky Larry, he was too close to the bees to escape. Unlucky Larry was very unlucky that day. He was stung by a few hundred bees and ended up in the hospital. Which of the following statements is most accurate? Unlucky Larry can sue Suzie because of the theory of res ipsa loquitor. Correct! While Unlucky Larry may wish to sue Suzie, it is unlikely that he will recover any damages because Suzie did not breach any duty of care that she owed unlucky Larry. Unlucky Larry can sue Suzie because but for Suzie's negligence he would not have ended up in the hospital. Unlucky Larry can sue Suzie because but for Suzie's negligence he would not have been stung by the bees and if he had not been stung by the bees he would not have ended up in the hospital.

While Unlucky Larry may wish to sue Suzie, it is unlikely that he will recover any damages because Suzie did not breach any duty of care that she owed unlucky Larry.

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. In this case: Beth had the last clear chance to avoid the accident and will bear legal responsibility for it. Arnie's contributory negligence will prevent his recovery from Beth in all jurisdictions. because both parties were negligent, in a state that follows the pure comparative negligence doctrine, both parties will share the liability for their injuries. Arnie has assumed the risk of the accident.

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

Res ipsa loquitor only applies to intentional torts permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation only applies in situations involving strict liability permits the jury to infer the amount of damages

permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation

Seventeen-year-old Brice has just received his driver's license. He is driving a little too fast one day and slams into the back of another car, which has just stopped for a stop sign. In most states: Brice's parents are responsible for any torts he commits. Two of these are true. since Brice is engaging in an adult activity, he will be held to the same standard as an adult. since Brice is a minor, he will have no responsibility for his torts.

since Brice is engaging in an adult activity, he will be held to the same standard as an adult.

Seventeen-year-old Brice has just received his driver's license. He is driving a little too fast one day and slams into the back of another car, which has just stopped for a stop sign. In most states: since Brice is a minor, he will have no responsibility for his torts. Brice's parents are responsible for any torts he commits. since Brice is engaging in an adult activity, he will be held to the same standard as an adult. Two of these are true.

since Brice is engaging in an adult activity, he will be held to the same standard as an adult.