Business Law Chapter 9

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must establish a. duty, strict liability, causation, and injury. b. mens rea, breach, foreseeable harm, and injury. c. duty, actus reus, foreseeable harm, and causation. d. duty of due care, breach, causation, foreseeable harm, and damages.

d. duty of due care, breach, causation, foreseeable harm, and damages.

What level of owner's liability does a trespassing adult have? a. lowest level b. mid level c. higher level d. highest level

a. lowest level

For the defendant to be liable in a negligence case, it must be proven that the type of harm caused by the defendant must have been reasonably foreseeable. This is referred to as a. proximate cause. b. duty of due care. c. factual cause. d. breach.

a. proximate cause.

Tommie, a six-year-old child, was seriously injured when he stuck a fork into an electrical outlet at a restaurant. His parents sued the restaurant where the incident occurred, claiming it should have had child protective guards on the outlets even though no law required the restaurant to do so. Whether the restaurant is liable will be dependent upon whether a. the incident was reasonably foreseeable. b. the court views Tommie as a licensee or a trespassing child. c. this is negligence per se. d. this is an ultrahazardous activity.

a. the incident was reasonably foreseeable.

Kelley went ice skating on a neighbor's pond, but she fell through a thin area into icy waters. Kelley did not have permission to be on the property, and the neighbor did not even know that she was there. Is the neighbor liable for Kelley's injuries? a. Yes. The neighbor should have posted "thin ice" notices. b. No. Kelley was a trespasser and the neighbor can only be held liable for intentionally injuring her or for gross misconduct. c. It may depend on Kelley's age. d. Yes, the neighbor is strictly liable.

c. It may depend on Kelley's age.

A plaintiff sues in negligence but has no direct proof that the defendant behaved unreasonably. Which of the following is most likely to help the plaintiff? a. Res judicata b. Stare decisis c. Res ipsa loquitur d. Mens rea

c. Res ipsa loquitur

Negligence concerns harm that a. is unforeseeable. b. arises intentionally. c. arises by accident. d. is always substantial.

c. arises by accident.

The notion that if a plaintiff is even slightly negligent, he or she recovers nothing is known as a. comparative negligence. b. reasonable negligence. c. contributory negligence. d. insignificant negligence.

c. contributory negligence.

If a court applies res ipsa loquitur a. the plaintiff needs to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence. b. the plaintiff must prove the case by clear and convincing evidence. c. the defendant has the burden of proving he or she is not liable. d. the defendant is strictly liable.

c. the defendant has the burden of proving he or she is not liable.

Which of the following represents a landowner's lowest liability? a. trespassing children b. licensees c. trespassing adults d. invitees

c. trespassing adults

One morning, Miles accidentally dropped a thumbtack on the chair of the office manager where he worked. The office manager sat on the tack and two days later, was hospitalized with an infection caused by the tack. Which of the following is correct? a. Miles actions were negligent. b. No tort has been committed. c. Miles committed an intentional tort. d. Miles is strictly liable.

a. Miles actions were negligent.

In a comparative negligence state, if the plaintiff in a negligence lawsuit is found to be 30 percent negligent, the plaintiff would recover a. 70 percent of the damages. b. all of the damages. c. none of the damages. d. 30 percent of the damages.

a. 70 percent of the damages.

Which of the following statements regarding a negligence case is correct? a. A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act was both the factual cause of her injury as well as a foreseeable injury. b. A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act was the factual cause of her injury even if the injury was not foreseeable. c. A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act created a foreseeable danger even if it was not the factual cause of her injury. d. A plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant's act either created a foreseeable danger or that the act was the factual cause of her injury.

a. A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act was both the factual cause of her injury as well as a foreseeable injury

The test of "foreseeability" is generally used to determine the existence of which element of a negligence case? a. Duty of due care b. Breach c. Factual cause d. negligence per se

a. Duty of due care

Kyle was eating clam chowder soup in a restaurant when a very small piece of bone lodged in his throat. Fortunately, he was able to remove the bone with his fingers. However, he was upset by the incident and sued the restaurant for negligence. What is the most likely result in this case? a. Kyle will not collect any damages since he did not sustain any damages. b. Kyle will collect damages because the restaurant committed negligence per se. c. Kyle will collect damages if he proves it was possible to prevent tiny fish bones from being present in clam chowder. d. Kyle will collect damages, as res ipsa loquitur

a. Kyle will not collect any damages since he did not sustain any damages.

Wayne worked in an office. He had no criminal record, had never had a complaint made against him about his work or his conduct, and had been a faithful employee for nearly 20 years. One day, Wayne followed his supervisor to his home and fatally shot him. The estate of the supervisor sued the company, claiming it should have been aware of Wayne's growing frustration with work. The company's best defense will be that a. there was no way to foresee that the incident would happen. b. the incident occurred away from the office. c. the killing was the result of a personal conflict between Wayne and the supervisor. d. even if the company had been aware of Wayne's difficulty with his supervisor, Wayne did not have any criminal history.

a. there was no way to foresee that the incident would happen.

Under a state law, a dog owner is absolutely liable to any person who is injured by the dog. This is an example of a. negligence per se. b. strict liability. c. res ipsa loquitur. d. negligence.

b. strict liability.

Annette drove through an intersection without looking and hit Vincent's car that he had driven into the intersection without obeying a stop sign. Annette sued Vincent. The jury found that Annette's fault contributed 20 percent to the collision and determined that her total loss was $100,000. Under comparative negligence, the jury should award Annette a. $20,000. b. $80,000. c. $100,000. d. nothing.

b. $80,000.

Don was driving his truck when a board fell out of the truck bed and onto the road. Alice, who was driving closely behind Don's truck, tried to avoid the board, swerved and struck a telephone pole, causing her severe injuries. Which of the following is correct? a. Don is strictly liable to Alice for her injuries. b. In a comparative negligence state, the actions of Don and Alice will be weighed to determine liability. c. Don was not negligent in allowing the board to fall out of his truck. d. Don is engaging in ultrahazardous activity.

b. In a comparative negligence state, the actions of Don and Alice will be weighed to determine liability.

As it applies to landowners, which of the following statements regarding liability to a licensee is correct? a. Whether or not the landowner is responsible for injury depends on whether the licensee is an adult or a child. b. The landowner is liable to a licensee for injuries caused by hidden dangers only. c. Since the licensee is a trespasser on the landowner's property, the landowner is not responsible for injury. d. Since a licensee has permission to be on the landowner's property, the landowner is responsible for all injury whether hidden or obvious.

b. The landowner is liable to a licensee for injuries caused by hidden dangers only.

A customer in a restaurant would be considered ________ to whom the restaurant owner owes a duty ________. a. a licensee; to warn of known dangers. b. an invitee; of reasonable care. c. a social guest; only to avoid intentionally injuring him. d. a licensee; of strict liability

b. an invitee; of reasonable care.

Bob, a weak swimmer, ignored warning signs in a recreational swimming area and went into deep water. He soon grew tired and realized that he could not make it back to shore. Seeing Kelly, he cried out for help. Kelly, however, ignored the pleas. Bob was finally saved by Dorothy, but suffered brain damage from being submerged during the ordeal. Bob now sues Kelly for negligence for failing to try to save him. Bob will: a. prevail because society places a duty on people to help each other and Kelly breached this duty, resulting in Bob's injury. b. lose because Kelly had no legal duty to rescue him. c. lose even though Kelly had a legal duty to save him, since Bob will not be able to prove that Kelly's failure to act was the proximate cause of his injuries. d. lose because a reasonable person could not have foreseen that someone in a recreation area could not swim well.

b. lose because Kelly had no legal duty to rescue him.

A branch of tort law that imposes a much higher level of liability when harm results from ultrahazardous acts or defective products is referred to as a. res ipsa loquitur. b. strict liability. c. heightened liability. d. strict negligence.

b. strict liability.

Which of the following acts resulting in injury would be negligence per se? a. Joe sold fireworks from his Indiana store (a legal activity) to Steve, an Illinois resident (a state that has made owning fireworks illegal). b. June,while driving the speed limit, sideswiped the car next to her. c. A retailer sold glue containing benzene to a 14-year-old boy in violation of state law. d. Tammy accidentally dropped a heavy carton on Sasha's foot while at work.

c. A retailer sold glue containing benzene to a 14-year-old boy in violation of state law.

Phillip was waiting for a bus at a bus stop. Across the street and down the block, a mechanic negligently overinflated a tire he was intending to put onto Marsha's pickup truck. The exploding tire injured Marsha and frightened a neighborhood dog, which ran down the street and knocked Phillip down, injuring his knee. Phillip sued the mechanic. In applying the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. decision to this case, Phillip would a. win because the mechanic was negligent in overinflating the tire, which led to Phillip's injury. b. win based on negligence per se. c. lose because the court would apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. d. lose because, although the mechanic's conduct was negligent toward Marsha, it was not a wrong in relation to Phillip, who was far away. The mechanic could not have foreseen injury to Phillip and therefore had no duty to him.

d. lose because, although the mechanic's conduct was negligent toward Marsha, it was not a wrong in relation to Phillip, who was far away. The mechanic could not have foreseen injury to Phillip and therefore had no duty to him.