Business Law Ch 8 Negligence Torts Quiz

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? 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 not liable for the damage because of contributory negligence.

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

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

False

A licensee for purposes of tort law is a person invited upon land as a member of the public or for a business purpose.

False

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

False

A social guest is a public invitee.

False

All intervening events that occur subsequent to the defendant's negligent conduct will relieve the defendant of liability.

False

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.

False

Comparative negligence by a plaintiff results in the plaintiff's being completely unable to recover.

False

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.

False

A number of states have included social guests in the invitee category, although they have traditionally been labeled as licensees.

True

A possessor of land is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against dangerous conditions they are unlikely to discover.

True

A reasonable person, as used in the law of torts, is a fictitious individual who is always careful, prudent, and never negligent.

True

A widely applied test for causation in fact is the "but-for" test.

True

Comparative negligence has replaced the contributory negligence doctrine in most states.

True

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.

True

If a defendant acts under emergency conditions, these conditions will be taken into account in applying the reasonable person standard.

True

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.

True

In determining whether a defendant's conduct is reasonable in an emergency not created by the defendant, the standard is that of a reasonable person under the circumstances.

True

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.

True

In which of the following situations would a landowner NOT have liability to a trespasser? Where the landowner has rigged up a trap to injure anyone coming onto the property without permission. Where a landowner next to a nursery school has an unfenced swimming pool and a trespassing child drowns. Where a trespasser trips over some lawn furniture in an unlighted backyard. The landowner would have liability to a trespasser in all of these situations.

Where a trespasser trips over some lawn furniture in an unlighted backyard.

In which of the following situations would a court be likely to find an affirmative duty to act? Where a pedestrian witnesses an auto accident in which one of the drivers is injured. Where an airline attendant sees one passenger threaten another passenger. Where the driver of a car sees a two-year-old toddler wandering in the middle of a busy street. All of these are situations where legally there is an affirmative duty to act.

Where an airline attendant sees one passenger threaten another passenger.

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:

contributory negligence.

An action for negligence consists of five elements, each of which the plaintiff must prove. These elements include: harm. res ipsa loquitur. a reasonable person. All of these.

harm.

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. In this case: the patient has assumed the risk of wandering onto the railroad tracks. because the patient was contributorily negligent, most states would hold that the railroad has no liability. 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. the train's striking of the man was an intervening cause, so the railroad company was strictly liable.

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.

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 duty existed toward her. a breach of that duty. injury and causation. All of these.

injury and causation.

If a statute establishing a reasonable person standard of conduct 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: strict liability. res ipsa loquitur. negligence per se. assumption of the risk.

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: that the leaf was not a substantial factor in causing the damage. res ipsa loquitur. that it was not foreseeable that the lawn mower would explode. that the damage was not caused by the leaf but by the gasoline.

that it was not foreseeable that the lawn mower would explode.

Andrew negligently hit a dog, which lay stunned in the street for a moment and then ran toward Bill, a bystander, and bit him. In this case: the dog's action is a foreseeable cause of harm. the dog's action is a superseding cause of harm. Andrew will be liable to Bill, because the dog's behavior is a natural consequence of the situation caused by Andrew's negligence. the dog's owner will be held strictly liable for Bill's injuries, but Andrew will be liable to the dog's owner.

the dog's action is a superseding cause of harm.

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. If Arthur sues Betty for damages: Arthur's contributory negligence will prevent his recovery from Betty in all jurisdictions. Betty had the last clear chance to avoid the accident and will bear full legal responsibility for it. Arthur has assumed the risk of the accident. because both parties were negligent, in a state that follows the modified comparative negligence doctrine, both parties will share the liability for their injuries in proportion to their degree of fault unless the court finds Arthur's contributory negligence was as great as or greater than Betty's negligence.

because both parties were negligent, in a state that follows the modified comparative negligence doctrine, both parties will share the liability for their injuries in proportion to their degree of fault unless the court finds Arthur's contributory negligence was as great as or greater than Betty's negligence.

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. In this case:

Adam is not free to inflict intentional injury on a trespasser.

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? Mindy had a mental deficiency. Chris was not negligent since he did not have a statutory duty to keep his brakes in top condition. Mindy illegally crossed in the middle of the street, which was a superseding cause of the accident. Chris was lawfully seeking a parking place and did not see her jump out.

Mindy illegally crossed in the middle of the street, which was a superseding cause of the accident.