BLAW 3201 Chapter 8
he will probably win if the court allows him to use the res ipsa loquitur doctrine
Daniel has surgery on his stomach. A few weeks later, he has pain in his stomach. Doctors find a scalpel in his stom-ach. If Daniel wants to sue the surgeon for his injuries:
The same standard of care as members of Dr. Otis's profession.
Dr. Otis performed non-emergency oral surgery on John's mouth to remove John's wisdom teeth. During the surgery, Dr. Otis negligently cut John's gums and caused severe bleeding in John's mouth. The cut to John's gums caused severe scarring and pain in John's mouth, and his wisdom teeth remained in place. If John sues Dr. Otis for negligence, what standard of care will be evaluated in analyzing Dr. Otis's negligence?
res ipsa loquitur
Find a dead mouse at the bottom of a freshly opened bottle of soda pop is an example of when ____________ may be applied.
physical injuries Allen sustains from the collision because Nina's negligent conduct proximately caused harm to a legally protected interest.
If Nina, while riding a motorcycle, carelessly runs into Allen, a pedestrian who is crossing the street within the cross-walk, Nina is liable in negligence for:
abnormally dangerous.
If an activity causes a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors, and the activity is not one of common usage, it is:
whether a company that sets off fireworks for a public display is subject to strict liability for injuries that happen as a result of the activity.
In Klein v. Pyrodyne Corporation, the main issue in this case was:
whether the owner or possessor of property is liable to an invitee if the owner knew, or should have known of a dangerous condition and failed to take action to fix it, barricade people from it, or warn people of it and an invitee was injured due to the condition.
In Love v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc. the main issue in this case was:
whether the actions of the rail road employees, assisting a passenger to board a moving train, violated the rights of Mrs. Palsgraf.
In Palsgraf v. Long Island RR. Co., the main issue in this case was:
whether the owners of a dog were strictly liable when their dog bit a postal carrier if the owners were unaware that the dog would bite
In Palumbo v. Nikirk, the main issue in this case was:
whether the parents had a duty of care to children that attended a party at their home when alcoholic beverages were made available to underage drinkers, creating a case of negligence per se.
In Ryan v. Friesenhahn, the main issue in this case was:
Yes, because Javier's mental disability is not considered in determining whether Javier was negligent, and Javier is not a child.
Javier is 20 years old and has a slight mental disability that prevents him from learning at the same pace as others. On his way home from college class, Javier accidentally ran a red light and crashed into Katie's car, causing Katie's car to be inoperable. If Katie sues Javier for negligence, can Javier be held liable?
Jay because of his intentional intervening conduct.
Jay intentionally pushed Bob into a fence negligently erected by Slade around Slade's swimming pool. The fence caved in and Bob nearly drowned. Who is liable?
Sasha is liable for Paul's injuries in proportion to the degree of fault or negligence found against her
Paul and Sasha started a grill with charcoal for Sasha's backyard barbecue and left it uncovered. Then Sasha went into the kitchen to tenderize the meat. While Sasha was inside, Paul leaned over to pull a weed out of the grass and hit the grill, knocking the coals onto his leg. In a pure comparative negligence state, who is liable?
Foreseeability
Proximate Cause in negligence cases is also known as:
implied assumption of the risk.
Rachel attends weekly major league baseball games with her boyfriend. One day, she gets hit in the head by a foul ball. If Rachel sues the baseball stadium for negligence related to the damages she sustained from the ball hitting her head, but the stadium prevails, what would be the stadium's winning defense?
it was not foreseeable that the lawn mower would explode.
Rex was burning leaves in his backyard. One of the burning leaves was lifted by the wind into Gary's yard next door. It landed on the lawn mower which exploded, setting fire to the wooden lawn furniture. Rex's best argument against liability to Gary would be:
an intervening cause of harm to Zach.
Sarah is having a new sidewalk installed in front of her home. She negligently leaves the public sidewalk without a fence, sign, or other warning while under excavation. During the evening, Zach falls into the hole in the sidewalk. The darkness of night is:
negligence per se
Sometimes the reasonable person standard of conduct may be established by legislation. An unexcused violation of that statute which causes an injury to another is:
The situations with a chandelier falling and the golfer are both correct
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would permit the court to infer negligence in which of the following situations?
divide the damages between the parties according to their fault.
The pure comparative negligence doctrine is applied by some states to:
external and objective.
The reasonable person standard is
duty of care, breach of duty, factual cause, and harm within the scope of liability.
To prove a case of negligence against a defendant the plaintiff must prove:
The possessor is not liable to adult trespassers for failure to maintain land in a reasonably safe condition.
What duty of care is owed by a possessor of land to adult trespassers?
Hotel and guest, and school principal and student
Which of the following is a special relationship giving rise to a duty to act to aid or protect one in peril?
The court will take into consideration the fact that he was at the time confronted with a sudden and unexpected emergency.
Which of the following is correct with respect to the reasonable person standard when there is an emergency?
Superseding event
Which of the following is not required for the plaintiff to prove in an action for negligence?
Physical disability (breach of duty of care)
a disabled person's conduct must conform to that of a reasonable person under the same disability.
mental disability (breach of duty of care)
a mentally disabled person is held to the reasonable person standard.
duty of act
a person is under a duty to all others at all times to exercise reasonable care for the safety of the others' person and property; however, except in special circumstances, no one is required to aid another in peril.
superseding cause
an intervening act that relieves the defendant of liability
harm to legally protected interest
courts determine which interests are protected from negligent interference.
comparative negligence
damages are divided between the parties in proportion to their degree of negligence; applies in almost all States.
Reasonable Person Standard (breach of duty of care)
degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise under all the circumstances.
foreseeability
excludes liability for harms that were sufficiently unforeseeable at the time of the defendant's tortuous conduct that they were not among the risks that made the defendant negligent.
contributory negligence
failure of a plaintiff to exercise reasonable care for his own protection, which in a few States prevents the plaintiff from recovering anything.
superior skill/knowledge (breach of duty of care)
if a person has skills or knowledge beyond those possessed by most others, these skills or knowledge are circumstances to be taken into account in determining whether the person has acted with reasonable care.
violation of statue (breach of duty of care)
if the statute applies, the violation is negligence per se in most States.
strict liability
liability for nonintentional and nonnegligent conduct.
scope of liability (proximate cause)
liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the defendant's conduct tortious.
Children (breach of duty of care)
must conform to conduct of a reasonable person of the same age, intelligence, and experience under all the circumstances.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation.
burden of proof
plaintiff must prove that defendant's negligent conduct caused harm to a legally protected interest.
assumption of risk
plaintiff's express consent to encounter a known danger; some States still apply implied assumption of the risk.
factual cause
the defendant's conduct is a factual cause of the harm when the harm would not have occurred absent the conduct.
standard for emergencies (breach of duty of care)
the reasonable person standard applies, but an unexpected emergency is considered part of the circumstances
The but-for test.
"Factual cause" in negligence cases is also known as:
Nick is liable because spraying pesticides is an abnormally dangerous activity.
Nick is a crop-duster and sprayed pesticide on Ray's crops in a very careful manner on a windless day. Nevertheless, some of the pesticide spray fell on Ray's 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?