chapter 7 - business law

A

A plaintiff who voluntarily enters into a risky situation, knowing the risk involved, will not be allowed to recover. This is the defense of: a. assumption of risk. b. superseding cause. c. contributory negligence. d. comparative negligence.

D

A standard that enables both the plaintiff's and the defendant's negligence to be computed and the liability for damages distributed accordingly is called: a. an assumption of risk. b. a superseding cause. c. contributory negligence. d. comparative negligence

B

Acts under which a tavern owner or bartender may be held liable for injuries caused by a person who became intoxicated while drinking at the bar or who already was intoxicated when served by the bartender are called: a. intoxication acts. b. dram shop acts. c. bartender statutes. d. tavern acts.

B

An unforeseeable intervening event may break the causal connection between the wrongful act and an injury to another. If so, the intervening event acts as a(n): a. assumption of risk. b. superseding cause. c. contributory negligence. d. comparative negligence.

C

Causation in fact usually can be determined by use of the: a. "even though" test b. "even if" test c. "but for" test. d. "but if" test

A

Peter rents an apartment in a building owned by Roscoe. The sidewalks around the apartment building are in poor repair. Many areas of the walks have been buckled up by tree roots over the years. In this situation, Roscoe: a. has a duty to fix the sidewalks. b. has a duty to fix the sidewalks only if Peter notifies him that it is a problem. c. must personally escort everyone who walks onto his property. d. has no duty to fix the sidewalks; that would be Peter's responsibility as the occupant.

C

Professional negligence (an attorney who violates her duty of care toward a client, for example) is generally known as: a. mismanagement. b. proximate cause. c. malpractice. d. abandonment.

D

Res ipsa loquitur means: a. you're on your own. b. buyer beware. c. ignorance is no excuse. d. the facts speak for themselves.

A

Retailers and other firms that explicitly or implicitly invite persons to come onto their premises are usually charged with a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect these: a. business invitees. b. personal invitees. c. commercial invitees. d. retail invitees.

b. trademark dilution.

Sally registers the domain name thedallascowboys.com before the NLF football team is able to do so, with the title of her web site called The Dallas Cowboys, a nightclub in Austin, Texas. Sally's use of the domain name and the name of her bar is a. trademark theft. b. trademark dilution. c. trademark squatting. d. trademark infringement.

A

Some states' dram shop acts impose liability for injuries caused by guests who become intoxicated at the hosts' homes. In such cases, liability is imposed on: a. social hosts (persons hosting parties). b. bartenders. c. restaurants. d. taverns.

D

The basic defenses to liability in negligence include: a. assumption of risk. b. superseding cause. c. contributory and comparative negligence. d. All of these choices.

D

The duty of care requires you to: a. help all strangers you run across. b. help only those strangers who are suffering from some injury. c. help only those strangers who are experiencing an emergency. d. act as a reasonable person would act in the same circumstances.

C

Under these statutes, persons who are aided voluntarily by others cannot turn around and sue for negligence those who aided them. The statutes are generally called: a. negligence per se acts. b. dram shop acts. c. Good Samaritan statutes. d. intervening person statutes.

D

Under this doctrine, a person who is injured while going to someone else's rescue can sue the person that caused the dangerous situation. This doctrine is: a. the "situation invites rescue" doctrine. b. res ipsa loquitur. c. the negligence per se doctrine. d. the "danger invites rescue" doctrine.

a

When a tortfeasor neither wishes to bring about the consequences of an act nor believes that they will occur, these torts involve: a. negligence. b. intent. c. a lack of intent. d. a reduced penalty.

C

Which of the following IS NOT a characteristic of abnormally dangerous activities? a. The activity is not commonly performed in the area or community. b. The activity involves a high degree of risk that cannot completely be guarded against by the exercise of reasonable care. c. The activity is one that involves a low degree of risk but that may be extremely dangerous if not performed with reasonable care. d. The activity involves potential serious harm to people or property.

C

Which of the following is a defense to a negligence claim? a. Self-defense b. Defense of property c. Assumption of risk d. Truth

Assumption of risks

a plaintiff who voluntarily enters into a risky situation, knowing the risk involved, will not be allowed to recover.

Contributory Negligence

a plaintiff who was also negligent (failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care) could not recover anything from the defendant.

Superseding Case

an unforeseeable intervening event may break the causal connection between a wrongful act and an injury to another. The intervening even acts as a ... which means it relieves defendant of liability for injuries cuased by the intervening event.

Affirmative

defenses in negligence cases are defenses that a defendant can use to avoid liability even if the facts are as the plaintiff states.

Comparative Negligence

enables both the plaintiff's and the defendant's negligence to be computed and the liability for damages distributed accordingly.

B

Eva, driving carelessly, runs into a wall. Her passenger, Colin, is unhurt, but Eva suffers injuries and is transported to the hospital by ambulance. Colin accompanies her. On the way, the ambulance blows a tire and the ambulance spins out of control. Colin is thrown from the ambulance and is injured. If Colin subsequently sues Eva, she will be able to defend herself based on the theory: a. of Colin's comparative negligence. b. that the ambulance accident was an unforeseeable superseding cause of Colin's injuries. c. that danger invites rescue, so going in the ambulance was an invitation to danger. d. that Colin assumed the risk by being a passenger in the car and then in the ambulance.

B

Giles was staying at a hotel owned by the Pick Hotels. While a hotel employee was removing luggage from the back seat of Giles's car, Giles reached into the front seat to get his briefcase. He supported himself by placing his left hand on the center pillar to which the rear door was hinged. The hotel employee closed the rear door, and a part of Giles's left index finger was amputated. Giles filed a negligence lawsuit against the hotel in a state that adopted a "pure" form of comparative negligence. The court probably found that: a. Giles contributed to his injury and awarded him nothing in damages. b. Giles contributed to his injury and apportioned his damages. c. Giles did not contribute to his injury and awarded him full damages. d. Giles did not contribute to his injury and apportioned his damages.

D

Glen is a dairy farmer who owns 500 milk cows. His fences are in poor repair, and his cows are often found eating the grass on Hank's land. Hank believes that Glen is responsible for damages to Hank's land on a theory of strict liability. The court will most likely find that Glen is: a. liable, because cattle are animals, not humans. b. liable, because Glen did not contain his animals. c. liable, because the animals did not pose a serious risk of harm to people. d. None of the other choices are correct.

B

If an individual violates a statute or an ordinance providing for a criminal penalty and that violation causes another to be injured, the act may be treated as: a. "danger invites rescue." b. negligence per se . c. res ipsa loquitur . d. strict liability.

C

If your actions happen to harm someone else, but you never intended to cause that harm, you may nevertheless be liable for the tort of: a. conversion. b. nuisance. c. negligence. d. None of the other choices could apply.

C

If your actions harm someone else but you never intended to cause that harm, you may be liable for the tort of: a. conversion. b. nuisance. c. negligence. d. infliction of emotional distress.

C

In a state that has adopted the comparative negligence doctrine with a "50 percent rule," a jury finds that Bill is 35 percent liable for his own injuries in a negligence suit Bill brings against Tina. In this situation, Bill will recover: a. nothing at all from Tina. b. 50 percent of the damages he seeks from Tina. c. 65 percent of the damages he seeks from Tina. d. 100 percent of the damages he seeks from Tina

A

In a state with a comparative negligence doctrine and the "50 percent" rule, a jury finds that Bill is 35% liable for his own injuries in a negligence suit he brought against Tina. In this situation, Bill will recover: a. 65% of the damages he seeks from Tina. b. 50% of the damages he seeks from Tina. c. nothing at all from Tina. d. 100% of the damages he seeks from Tina.

C

Liability without fault is also referred to as: a. negligent liability. b. absolute liability. c. strict liability. d. intentional liability.

B

Luisa, in a hurry to get to her business law class on time, backs out of her driveway without taking the usual care and accidentally runs into Tony's 2009 Toyota Camry, causing $3,500 worth of damage to Tony's car. Luisa has committed which tort? a. Invasion of privacy b. Negligence c. Conversion d. Slander

A

One application of strict liability is for damages proximately caused by: a. an abnormally dangerous, or ultrahazardous activity. b. a normally dangerous, or hazardous activity. c. a somewhat dangerous activity. d. any dangerous activity.

Negligence action

to succeed this the plaintiff must prove each of the following: Duty, breach, causation, Damages.

Reasonable person standard

tort law measures duty by this... in determining whether a duty of care has been breached, the court asks how a reasonable person would have acted in the same circumstances.

Dram Shop Acts

under which a tavern owner or bartender may be held liable for injuries caused by a person who became intoxicated while drinking at the bar or who was already intoxicated when served by the bartender

Negligence

when someone suffers injury because of another's failure to live up to a required duty of care.

Proximate cause

legal cause, exists when the connection between an act and an injury is strong enough to justify imposing liability. Asks whether the injuries sustained were foreseeable or too remotely connected to the incident to trigger liability

Strict Liability

liability without fault, a person who engages in certain activities can be held responsible for any harm that results to others even if the person used the utmost care.

Business invitees

retailers and other firms that explicitly or implicitly invite persons to come onto their premises are usually charged with a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect these....

Breach

that the defendant breached that duty.

Duty

that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff

Causation

that the defendant's breach caused the plaintiff's injury.

Res ipsa Loquitur

the facts speak for themselves. Doctrine is applied when the event creating the damage or injury is one that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence.

Duty of Care

this concept arises from the notion that if we are to live in a society with other people, some actions can be tolerated and some cannot, and some actions are reasonable, and some are not. People are free to act as they please so long as their actions do not infringe on the interests of others.

D

Applications of strict liability include: a. liability for persons who keep wild animals. b. product liability—liability of manufacturers and sellers for harmful or defective products. c. certain types of bailments. d. All of these choices.

C

Baylee is driving her friend Sarah to the movies. Baylee loses control of the car and crashes into a fence. The vehicle's airbags deploy, and both Sarah and Baylee are shaken up but not physically injured. Sarah threatens to sue Baylee for negligence. Sarah's lawsuit is likely to be: a. successful, because Baylee owed Sarah a duty of care. b. successful, because Baylee was negligent. c. unsuccessful, because Sarah was not injured. d. unsuccessful, because Sarah was also negligent.

A

Defenses that a defendant can use to avoid liability in a negligence case, even if the facts are as the plaintiff states, are called: a. affirmative defenses. b. contributory defenses. c. positive defenses. d. agreeable defenses.

B

David, a ten-year-old, purchased a plastic snow sled from K-Mart. He went sledding, lost control, hit a tree, and was injured. David's parents filed a negligence lawsuit in a state court against K-Mart, alleging that the store should not have sold this type of sled because it was difficult to steer and had no brakes, making it unreasonably dangerous. K-Mart contended that sledding is an inherently dangerous activity and that David assumed the risks involved when he went sledding. The court probably found that K-Mart was: a. not liable, because David's injuries were unforeseeable. b. not liable, because David assumed the risks of sledding. c. liable, because David did not know the risks of sledding. d. liable, because sledding is unreasonable.

C

In the past, a plaintiff who was also negligent (failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care) could not recover anything from the defendant. This is referred to as: a. assumption of risk. b. a superseding cause. c. contributory negligence. d. comparative negligence.

B

The landmark case that established the "foreseeability" test for proximate cause was: a. Wickard v. Filburn. b. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. c. Mathis v. Liu. d. Martin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

A

The modern concept of strict liability traces its origins, in part, to the 1868 English case of: a. Rylands v. Fletcher. b. Riland v. Feltcher. c. Rust v. Ryer. d. Chambley v. Khorkas.

B

The modern concept of strict liability traces its origins, in part, to what famous English case? a. Ramona v. Rex. b. Rylands v. Fletcher. c. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. d. Yorkshire Pudding Co. v. Thompkins.

C

The presumption of the defendant's negligence, which translates as "the facts speak for themselves," is known as the doctrine of: a. negligence per se . b. res ipsa loquitar . c. res ipsa loquitur . d. "danger invites rescue.

D

To succeed in a negligence action, the plaintiff must prove that: a. the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. b. the defendant breached that duty. c. the plaintiff suffered a legally recognizable injury. d. All of these choices.

C

Tort law measures duty by the: a. rational business standard. b. rational person standard. c. reasonable person standard. d. reasonable business standard.

C

Under the tort doctrine of strict liability, liability is: a. based on fault. b. based on negligence. c. not based on fault. d. imposed only for intended wrongful acts.

Grossly Negligent

a defendant intentionally failed to perform a duty with reckless disregard of the consequences to others.

Good Samaritan Statutes

a number of states have enacted statutes prescribing duties and responsibilities in certain circumstances.

Legally recognizable

for a tort to have been committed, the plaintiff must have suffered a ... .... injury. to recover damages, the plaintiff must have suffered some loss, harm, wrong, or invasion of a protected interest.

Malpractice

if a professional violates his or her duty of care toward a client, the client may bring a suit against the professional, ..., which is essentially professional negligence.

Causation in fact

if the injury occur because of the defendants act, then there is ...

Negligence per se

in or of itself. if an individual violates a statute or an ordinance providing for a criminal penalty and that violation causes another to be injured.

Assumption of Risks

requires the defenses to: know the risk, voluntary assume the risk, The defense is frequently asserted when the plaintiff was injured during recreational activities that involve known risk.