CH 8 TB
A defendant will be liable for all harm that can be traced back to the defendant's negligence.
F
A licensee for purposes of tort law is a person invited upon land as a member of the public or for a business purpose.
F
A parent is always liable for the torts of his minor child simply because of the parental relationship.
F
A person who falls asleep while driving would not be liable for any resulting injury since it would be an unavoidable accident.
F
A social guest is a public invitee.
F
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.
F
All intervening events that occur subsequent to the defendant's negligent conduct will relieve the defendant of liability.
F
Because of the harshness of the all-or-nothing contributory negligence rule, nearly all states have now substituted the last clear chance doctrine for contributory negligence.
F
Comparative negligence by a plaintiff results in the plaintiff's being completely unable to recover.
F
If a person's 150-pound sheep dog has a tendency to jump enthusiastically on visitors, the animal's keeper would not be liable for any damages done by the dog's playfulness.
F
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.
F
If negligence of the plaintiff and negligence of the defendant proximately caused the injury and damage sustained by the plaintiff, the plaintiff can recover some damages in those states where contributory negligence is still recognized.
F
In all states, a sixteen-year-old who drives a car will not be held to the same standard of care as an adult for purposes of determining negligence.
F
In an action for negligence, four elements must be proved: breach of a duty of care, proximate cause, assumption of risk, and injury.
F
Negligence per se is a defense in a negligence case.
F
Parents are not liable to a storekeeper for the destruction caused by their children if they permit the children to run wild through the store.
F
Res ipsa loquitur makes it easier for the defendant to prevail in a negligence action.
F
The lawful possessor of land is liable to adult trespassers for failure to maintain the land in a reasonably safe condition.
F
The owner of a dog will always be strictly liable if the dog bites someone.
F
The same "reasonable person standard" is applied to children as to adults.
F
There are no defenses available for strict liability.
F
There is an established rule in the law of torts that even one who has not created a peril has a duty to take affirmative action to assist an imperiled person, no matter what the relationship with that person, when the imperiled person can be saved from harm at little or no personal risk to the rescuer.
F
While comparative negligence is generally not a defense in a strict liability case, contributory negligence generally is a successful defense.
F
A blind person will be held to the standard of care of a reasonable blind person rather than that of the reasonable sighted person for purposes of determining negligence.
T
A number of states have included social guests in the invitee category, although they have traditionally been labeled as licensees.
T
A possessor of land is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against dangerous conditions they are unlikely to discover.
T
A reasonable person, as used in the law of torts, is a fictitious individual who is always careful, prudent, and never negligent.
T
A widely applied test for causation in fact is the "but for" rule.
T
Comparative negligence has replaced the contributory negligence doctrine in most states.
T
Compliance with a legislative enactment or administrative regulation does not prevent a finding of negligence if a reasonable person would have taken additional precautions to avoid harm.
T
Even though contributory negligence is proven by a defendant in a state in which it acts as a complete bar to recovery, the plaintiff may still recover if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the injury but did not avail himself of the chance.
T
If a defendant acts under emergency conditions, these conditions will be taken into account in applying the reasonable person standard.
T
In applying the reasonable person standard, the court takes into account a person's physical, but not mental, handicaps.
T
In determining a defendant's liability for negligence, his or her superior skill or knowledge will be attributed in applying the reasonable person standard, thus increasing the chance that the defendant may be held liable.
T
In some instances, people may be held liable for injuries they have caused even though they have not acted intentionally or negligently.
T
In the majority of states, in a case of negligence per se the plaintiff would only have to prove violation of a statute in order to show negligent conduct.
T
Some states have today merged the assumption of risk doctrine into their comparative negligence systems.
T
Special relations between the parties, such as babysitter and child, may impose a duty of reasonable care to aid or protect the child in situations where the duty would not otherwise exist.
T
Ted is informed that his six-year-old child is shooting in the street with a .22 rifle. Ted fails to take the gun away from the child. The child unintentionally shoots Bill, a pedestrian. Ted is liable to Bill.
T
The Third Restatement of Torts has abandoned the doctrine of implied voluntary assumption of risk in tort actions.
T
The Third Restatement of Torts limits the defense of assumption of risk to express assumption of the risk.
T
The general rule in negligence is that a person is under a duty to all others at all times to exercise reasonable care for the safety of others.
T
Tom's dog has bitten three letter carriers, but Tom can't bear to chain him up. When the dog bites the newsboy, Tom will be strictly liable.
T
Two of the factors that are taken into consideration in determining limitations on causation in fact are unforeseeable consequences and superseding cause.
T
Where two factors, each of which is sufficient to bring about the harm in question, together cause a harm, the "but for" rule of causation is not useful.
T
Workers' compensation is a form of strict liability.
T
Which of the following statements is true? a. A plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligent conduct proximately caused harm to a legally protected interest. b. A defendant has the burden of proof that his negligent conduct did not proximately cause harm. c. Negligent conduct that is the proximate cause of offensive physical contact results in liability based on social policy. d. Both (a) and (c).
a. A plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligent conduct proximately caused harm to a legally protected interest.
Seventeen-year-old Todd 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. a. Todd is engaging in an adult activity and will be held to the same standard as an adult in most of the states. b. Todd is a minor and will have no responsibility for his torts. c. Todd's parents are responsible for any torts he commits. d. Both (b) and (c).
a. Todd is engaging in an adult activity and will be held to the same standard as an adult in most of the states.
An action for negligence consists of five elements, each of which the plaintiff must prove. These elements include: a. harm. b. res ipsa loquitur. c. a reasonable person. d. All of the above.
a. harm.
The duty of a possessor of land to persons who come on the land usually depends on whether those persons are: a. invitees, trespassers, or licensees. b. reasonable persons. c. fiduciaries. d. involved in abnormally dangerous activities.
a. invitees, trespassers, or licensees.
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 cars if the cars are unattended, is likely to be characterized as: a. negligence per se. b. res ipsa loquitur. c. contributory negligence. d. assumption of risk.
a. negligence per se.
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 modified comparative negligence state, who is liable? a. Sally is liable for ALL of Pat's injuries. b. If Sally is found negligent, Sally is liable for a proportionate share of Pat's injuries unless Pat's negligence was as great as or greater than Sally's. 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. If Sally is found negligent, Sally is liable for a proportionate share of Pat's injuries unless Pat's negligence was as great as or greater than Sally's.
Oscar, who was driving too fast for conditions, collided with a truck carrying explosives. The truck was unmarked, so Oscar had no way of knowing what it contained. The collision caused an explosion, which shattered glass in a building a block away. The glass injured Ida, who was working inside the building. John, who was walking down the street near the site of the collision, was seriously burned as a result of the explosion. a. Oscar's negligent driving is the proximate cause of Ida's injury. b. Oscar's negligent driving is the proximate cause of John's injury. c. Both Ida and John are within the zone of danger of the collision. d. All of the above.
b. Oscar's negligent driving is the proximate cause of John's injury.
Andrew negligently hit a dog, which lay stunned in the street for a moment and then ran toward Bill, a bystander, and bit him. a. The dog's action is a foreseeable cause of harm. b. The dog's action is a superseding cause of harm. c. Andrew will be liable to Bill, because the dog's behavior is a natural consequence of the situation caused by Andrew's negligence. d. Two of the above, (b) and (c).
b. The dog's action is a superseding cause of harm.
Which of the following is a defense that a defendant could raise in an action based on strict liability? a. The plaintiff negligently failed to observe a sign on a highway warning of blasting operations and was injured from the operations. b. The owner of a car knowingly and voluntarily parked his vehicle in a blasting zone as a result of which the car was damaged. c. A child played with a neighbor's pet raccoon which had escaped from its cage. The child teased the pet and was bitten. d. All of the above are valid defenses which would be successful if raised by the defendant.
b. The owner of a car knowingly and voluntarily parked his vehicle in a blasting zone as a result of which the car was damaged.
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. a. The store is strictly liable to Nelson. b. The store is not liable to Nelson. c. Res ipsa loquitur would require the store to be held liable. d. The store has no duty to Nelson.
b. The store is not liable to Nelson.
In which of the following situations would a court be likely to find an affirmative duty to act? a. Where a pedestrian witnesses an auto accident in which one of the drivers is injured. b. Where an airline attendant sees one passenger threaten another passenger. c. Where the driver of a car sees a two-year-old toddler wandering in the middle of a busy street. d. All of the above are situations where legally there is an affirmative duty to act.
b. Where an airline attendant sees one passenger threaten another passenger.
Sarah goes to Marlin's Department Store to look for clothes. The store happens to be in the process of remodeling, and there is a lot of clutter in the aisle. Sarah trips over the clutter and is injured. Sarah's status with regard to the store is that of: a. licensee. b. business visitor. c. public invitee. d. trespasser.
b. business visitor.
Conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection and which cooperates with the negligence of the defendant in bringing about the plaintiff's harm is: a. comparative negligence. b. contributory negligence. c. res ipsa loquitur. d. voluntary assumption of the risk.
b. contributory negligence.
The rule which permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain events is: a. proximate cause. b. res ipsa loquitur. c. causation in fact. d. comparative negligence.
b. res ipsa loquitur.
Perry is injured on the job at the factory where he works. He files a workers' compensation claim against his employer. The liability of the employer under the workers' compensation statute is: a. comparative. b. strict. c. contributory. d. negligence per se.
b. strict.
Under the Third Restatement of Torts, if the plaintiff is a veterinarian who accepts for treatment a dog from the defendant: a. the defendant is strictly liable if the dog is abnormally dangerous and it bites the plaintiff. b. the plaintiff, if charging a fee, is beyond the scope of strict liability, even if the dog is abnormally dangerous. c. the doctrine of implied voluntary assumption of risk applies. d. the defendant is strictly liable for any damage to the plaintiff whether or not the dog is considered abnormally dangerous.
b. the plaintiff, if charging a fee, is beyond the scope of strict liability, even if the dog is abnormally dangerous.
To which of the following does a property owner owe the highest duty of care? a. A stranded motorist who comes onto the property to seek help b. A social guest and close friend who have come to the house for a party c. A client who has come to an accountant's office in a building which the accountant owns d. A neighbor who comes over uninvited to use a backyard lounge chair
c. A client who has come to an accountant's office in a building which the accountant owns
Adam 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. a. Tim is a trespasser on Adam's property, and Adam has the right to use animal traps to strongly discourage anyone from trespassing. b. Adam has no duty toward Tim. c. Adam is not free to inflict intentional injury on a trespasser. d. All of the above.
c. Adam is not free to inflict intentional injury on a trespasser.
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 feed for the chickens. The chickens died, and the neighbor sues. What is the likely result? a. Cal is not liable because he was not negligent in his spraying operation. b. Cal is not liable because the neighbor assumed the risk of damage to the feed by placing it so close to the fence. c. Cal is liable because spraying pesticides is an abnormally dangerous activity. d. Cal is not liable for the damage because of contributory negligence.
c. Cal is liable because spraying pesticides is an abnormally dangerous activity.
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 60% negligent and that Darla was 40% negligent. Darla's injuries are $10,000. This accident occurred in a state following the comparative negligence theory of recovery. a. Darla will recover $10,000. b. Darla will not recover anything. c. Darla will recover $6,000. d. Darla will recover $4,000.
c. Darla will recover $6,000.
Mr. and Mrs. Weaver have a duty to: a. control the behavior of their minor son with regard to foreseeable risks. b. merely warn their dependent son regarding his activities related to third persons involving foreseeable risks. c. Either (a) or (b), depending upon the circumstances. d. use reasonable care under the circumstances to third persons with regard to foreseeable risks that arise within the family relationship no matter what their son's age.
c. Either (a) or (b), depending upon the circumstances.
A ninety-year-old patient walked away from a nursing home and wandered onto some nearby railroad tracks. Once on the tracks, the patient stumbled and sprained his ankle. A few minutes later a train approached. The engineer saw the man on the track and could have stopped, but the train's brakes were defective. As a result, the train hit and killed the man. His family is suing the railroad for negligence. a. The patient has assumed the risk of wandering onto the railroad tracks. b. Because the patient was contributorily negligent, most states would hold that the railroad has no liability. c. In states that follow the contributory negligence rule, the train had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, so the patient's negligence does not bar his estate's recovery. d. The train's striking of the man was an intervening cause, so the railroad company was strictly liable.
c. In states that follow the contributory negligence rule, the train had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, so the patient's negligence does not bar his estate's recovery.
Joe intentionally pushed Bill into a fence negligently erected by Sam around Sam's swimming pool. The fence caved in and Bill nearly drowned. Under the Second Restatement, who is liable? a. Sam, because of his negligent conduct. b. Sam, because Joe's conduct would be foreseeable. c. Joe, because of his intentional intervening conduct. d. Sam and Joe, because they both contributed to the harm.
c. Joe, because of his intentional intervening conduct.
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 avoid hitting her. What is Chris's best defense to the charge of negligence? a. Mindy had a mental deficiency. b. Chris was not negligent since he did not have a statutory duty to keep his brakes in top condition. c. Mindy illegally crossed in the middle of the street, which was a superseding cause of the accident. d. Chris was lawfully seeking a parking place and did not see her jump out.
c. Mindy illegally crossed in the middle of the street, which was a superseding cause of the accident.
Rick's driveway has potholes. He has been thrown from his bike several times because of them. If Rick invites his biking friends for a barbecue, what must he do to escape liability for any harm to them? a. Repair the potholes. b. Post signs saying "slow to 15 mph." c. Telephone his friends to warn them about the potholes. d. None of the above
c. Telephone his friends to warn them about the potholes.
A form of strict liability applies to all of the following situations except: a. a lawnmower sold in a defective condition that injures its owner. b. a fireworks factory that blows up and injures townspeople and their property. c. a medical procedure. d. a herd of goats that travel onto a neighbor's property, eating and trampling the neighbor's roses.
c. a medical procedure.
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: a. he will lose, because it will be impossible for him to prove that the bottle was overpressurized by the bottler. b. he will lose, because the bottling company has no duty to him. c. he will probably win if the court allows him to use the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. d. he will win based on the last clear chance rule.
c. he will probably win if the court allows him to use the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
By law, all apartment buildings in Mary's state must have smoke alarms in the ceilings. If Mary suffers smoke inhalation because the smoke alarm in her apartment building was not yet installed and Mary sues the owner for negligence, Mary would have to prove: a. a duty existed toward her. b. a breach of that duty. c. injury and causation. d. All of the above.
c. injury and causation.
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.
Henry was burning leaves in his backyard. One of the burning leaves was lifted by the wind into Emilio's yard next door. It landed on the lawn mower which exploded, setting fire to the wooden lawn furniture. Henry's best argument against liability would be: a. that the leaf was not a substantial factor in causing the damage. b. res ipsa loquitur. c. that it was not foreseeable that the lawn mower would explode. d. that the damage was not caused by the leaf but by the gasoline.
c. that it was not foreseeable that the lawn mower would explode.
Which of the following is/are considered in determining the application of the reasonable person standard? a. Physical disability. b. Superior skill or knowledge. c. Emergency circumstances. d. All of the above are considered.
d. All of the above are considered.
Stella goes to Ranger's Department Store to look for clothes. The store is in the process of remodeling, and there is a lot of clutter in the aisle. Stella trips over the clutter and breaks her leg. What standard of care does the store have toward Stella under the circumstances? a. None, because she came to the store voluntarily. b. The store owes her a duty of only ordinary care, because she is a trespasser. c. Because she is a licensee, the store must warn her of hazards of which the store knows but which Stella is not likely to discover. d. Because Stella is a business visitor, the store must exercise reasonable care to protect her against dangerous conditions she is unlikely to discover.
d. Because Stella is a business visitor, the store must exercise reasonable care to protect her against dangerous conditions she is unlikely to discover.
Arthur negligently stopped his car on the highway. Betty, who was driving along, saw Arthur's car in sufficient time to attempt to stop. However, Betty negligently put her foot on the accelerator instead of the brake and ran into Arthur's car. a. Arthur's contributory negligence will prevent his recovery from Betty in all jurisdictions. b. Betty had the last clear chance to avoid the accident and will bear full legal responsibility for it. c. Arthur 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.
. In determining the duty of care owed by a defendant using the reasonable person standard, the court will consider which of the following factors? a. The existence of emergency conditions b. A physician's training and years of experience c. A person's severe mental retardation d. Both (a) and (b), but not (c).
d. Both (a) and (b), but not (c).
The harshness of the contributory negligence doctrine has been mitigated by: a. the last clear chance rule. b. substitution of the doctrine of comparative negligence. c. strict liability. d. Both (a) and (b), but not (c).
d. Both (a) and (b), but not (c).
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 a trespassing child drowns. c. Where a trespasser trips over some lawn furniture in an unlighted backyard. d. Both (a) and (b). e. All of the above.
d. Both (a) and (b).
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would permit the court to infer negligence in which of the following situations? a. A can of peas fell off the shelf onto your foot. b. A sign over a storefront fell on your head. c. Neither (a) nor (b). d. Both (a) and (b).
d. Both (a) and (b).
Mark is out sailing in his boat one evening when he hears a young girl crying for help in the lake. 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 moves her to a position farther from the shore.
d. Mark MUST help the girl if he begins to rescue her and moves her to a position farther from the shore.
Which of the following is correct with respect to the reasonable person standard? a. It makes allowance for mental deficiency. b. It makes allowance for physical disability. c. It applies an individualized test to children that takes into consideration the child's age, background, and experience. d. Two of the above, (b) and (c). e. All of the above
d. Two of the above, (b) and (c).
Defenses to an action in strict liability include: a. contributory negligence only. b. contributory negligence and comparative negligence. c. comparative negligence only. d. voluntary assumption of risk and, in some states, comparative negligence.
d. voluntary assumption of risk and, in some states, comparative negligence.
