Chapter 8-BL
12. The standard of care of a person who practices a profession is that of: a. the reasonable person. b. a reasonable person of like education and training. c. a reasonable person of the same age. d. none of the above.
B
14. Zane Zookeeper is fleeing from an escaped tiger. You see his plight and wave for him to come into your house. He leaps up your front steps and slips on your skateboard which was left there from the night before. Your duty to Zane is: a. not to intentionally injure him. b. to warn him the skateboard is there. c. to exercise reasonable care to protect him from falling on the skateboard. d. you have no duty to Zane.
B
3. Assume F violates a statute which is intended to protect restaurant patrons from food poisoning by requiring restaurant owners to install special refrigeration equipment. F may be sued under a standard of care based upon this statute if: a. A, a patron, falls down a poorly lit staircase on his way to the salad bar. b. B, a patron, becomes violently ill after eating tainted chicken salad. c. C, a patron, chokes on a chicken bone which was in his fruit salad. d. D, a waitress, dies after eating tainted chicken salad.
B
4. A is under an affirmative duty to come to the aid of B who is in danger if: a. A is B's best friend. b. A is responsible for B's predicament. c. A is a doctor. d. none of the above.
B
13. Matthew negligently drives his automobile into Nancy who is crossing against the light. Nancy sustains damages in the amount of $10,000 and sues Matthew. The jury determines that Mat¬thew's negligence contributed 75 percent to Nancy's injury and that Nancy's negligence contributed 25 percent to her injury. Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, Nancy can recover: a. $0. b. $2,500. c. $7,500. d. $10,000.
C
2. The standard of care applicable to a child is that of: a. the reasonable person. b. a reasonable person who is incapable of exercising the judgment of an adult. c. a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience. d. a reasonable person who has a mental disability
C
8. In a state which does NOT recognize the doctrine of comparative negligence, A may recover from B for injuries proximately caused by B's negligence and A's contributory negligence if: a. B's fault was greater than A's fault. b. B's fault was less than A's fault. c. B had the last clear chance to avoid the injury. d. none of the above.
C
9. A, the owner of a dog, is strictly liable to B for harm caused by the dog if it: a. digs out from under its fenced yard and digs up B's flowerbed. b. bites B when it has never attacked or bitten anyone before. c. bites B when it has bitten someone before. d. bites B when A knows that it frequently chases bicycle riders.
C
1. P was injured when D drove his golf ball into the back of P's head. If P wants to recover against D in negligence, he must show which of the following? a. Breach of duty of care b. Factual cause c. Harm d. All of the above
D
11. Which of the following would not give rise to an action in strict liability? a. Storing explosives in large quantity. b. Crop dusting. c. Blasting or pile driving. d. All of the above would give rise to an action
D
15. Sarah Student goes to Glamour Department Store to buy a dress. Sarah is a: a. trespasser. b. licensee. c. public invitee. d. business invitee
D
7. A may be relieved of liability for negligent harm to B if an intervening act: a. occurs after A's negligent conduct. b. is a cause in fact of B's injury. c. is a normal consequence of the situation created by A's negligent conduct. d. (a) and (b), but not (c).
D
10. A person living on property adjoining land later designated a blasting zone for a new highway has assumed the risk of harm and may not recover for damages if he fails to move away.
F
11. The "but-for" rule is a test for determining strict liability
F
13. The possessor of land owes a higher duty of care to a licensee than to an invitee.
F
3. A possessor of land may inflict intentional injury upon a trespasser to eject him upon discovery of his presence on the land
F
1. It is possible to be liable for injuries caused to another even though you have used reasonable care to prevent those injuries
T
12. A person with a mental disability will be held to the same reasonable person standard as a person of normal intelligence.
T
14. A violation of a statute constitutes negligence per se if the injured party is a member of the class protected by the statute.
T
15. The doctrine of strict liability is not based on any particular fault of the defendant, but rather on the nature of the activity in which the defendant is engaging.
T
2. Negligence is defined as conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.
T
4. The standard of conduct to which a child must conform is that of a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience under like circumstances
T
5. The standard of conduct which is the basis for the law of negligence is usually determined by a cost-benefit or risk-benefit analysis
T
6. Although persons may not have a duty to help another, they nevertheless do have a duty not to hinder others who are trying to help.
T
7. In order to prove negligence by the defendant, the plaintiff must prove, among other things, that the defendant's conduct was the factual cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff
T
8. Whether an activity is considered abnormally dangerous or not usually depends on the circumstances under which the activity is conducted
T
9. A defendant whose own negligence created an emergency situation is liable for the consequences of this conduct even though the defendant acted reasonably in the resulting situation.
T
2. Explain the concept of res ipsa loquitur.
The concept of res ipsa loquitur allows a jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of an event when the event is of a kind that ordinarily would not occur in the absence of negligence. Translated, res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself," and the concept operates where other possible causes are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence
3. Discuss strict liability and indicate activities which give rise to the application thereof.
The doctrine of strict liability or liability without fault is not based upon any particular fault of the defendant. Rather, it is based upon the nature of the activity in which the defendant is engaged. Certain types of activities are socially desirable but pose significant risks of harm regardless of how carefully they are conducted. Thus, where the activities are in themselves abnormally dangerous, or where one keeps animals, liability may be imposed even though the actor neither intended any harm nor acted in a negligent manner.
1. Explain the reasonable person standard of care. When may the courts apply a statutory standard of care in determining negligence
The reasonable person standard is ordinarily used to determine a defendant's negligence by comparing what the defendant did to what a reasonable person acting prudently and with due care under the circumstances would have done. Some statutes impose a specific standard of care upon certain classes of defendants for the protection of certain classes of plaintiffs. Thus, the courts may take the requirements of a statute as the applicable standard of care in determining the negligence of a particular defendant if the defendant violated a statute which is intended to protect a particular class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member against the particular hazard and kind of harm which resulted.
Invitee
a person invited upon land as amember of the public or business people possessor of the land id under a duty to execise reasonable careto protect initees against danderous conditions they are unlikely to discover -not just ones you know about, but ones if exercising due car you would find
intervening cause
an event or act tht occurs after the defendant's negligent conduct and the negligence causes the plaintiff harm
negligence per se
conclusive on the issue of negligence (duty of care breached)
negligence
conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm
reasonable person standard
degree of care a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances
comparative negligence
doctrine dividing damages between the plaintiff and defendant where the negligence of each has caused the hard
Contributory negligence
failure of a plaintiff to execise rreasonable care such that her failure is a legal cause of the plaintiff's harm
last clear chance
final opportunity to avoid injury if the defendant could have avoided it, but didn't -the contibutory negligencce of the plaintiff does not bar his bar his recovery of damages
superseding cause
intervening event that occurs after the defendant's negligent conduct and relieves her of liability
strict liability
liability for non=intentia; and nonnegligent conduct
factual cause
liability for the negligent conduct of a defendant regires that his conduct in fact caused harm to the plaintiff
Licensee
person privledged to enter or remain on land by virtue or consent of law most warn of dangers that licensee is not likely to see and might not have knowledge of
Trespasser
person who enters land without privledge. dont have to make land safe, but can't make it expectionally harmful
auumption of risk
plaintiff express consent to to encounter a known danger
abnormally dangerous liability
strict liability is impossed for any activity that 1. creates a forseeable and highly significant risk of har, and 2. is not one of common usage
but-for rule
the defendants conduct is a factual cause of the harm when the harm would not have occured without the conduct
Res ipsa loquitur
the thing speaks for itself permits the jury to infe both negligent conduct and causation
Proximate cause
where the act or omission played a substantial part bringing about actually causing the injury or damage and where the injury or damage was either a direct result or reasonably probable consequence of the omission
5 things the plantiff must prove for negligence
1. Duty of care: that a legal duty required the defendant to conform to the standard of conduct established for the protection of others 2. breach of duty: that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care 3. Factual cause: that the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care in fact caused the harm the plaintiff sustained 4. Harm: the harm sustained is of a type protected against negligent conduct; and 5. scope of liability: the harm sustained is within the scope of liability, which is historically been referred to as proximate cause
Extra's to the reasonable performance
1. children 2. physically disabled 3. NOT mentally disabled 4. superior skill or knowledge 5. Energencies 6. Violation of statute
5. Compare the doctrine of contributory negligence and the doctrine of comparative negligence
5. Contributory negligence is defined as failure of a plaintiff to exercise reasonable care that legally causes the plaintiff's harm. If negligence of the plaintiff together with negligence of the defendant proximately caused the injury sustained by the plaintiff, he cannot recover any damages from the defendant in those few states where contributory negligence is still recognized. Comparative negligence divides damages between the plaintiff and defendant where the negligence of each has caused the harm. Under the "modified" comparative negligence doctrine followed by many states, however, a plaintiff cannot recover anything if the plaintiff's negligence was 50% or more the cause of the harm.
risk standard
??
5. A possessor of land is liable for the injuries to his licensee if he fails to: a. warn her of a known defect which she is unlikely to discover. b. repair a known defect. c. warn her of a known defect which she is likely to discover. d. discover a defect.
A
6. A plaintiff who sues under res ipsa loquitur must show that: a. an event occurred which would not normally occur in the absence of negligence. b. the defendant intended to cause the harm suffered by the plaintiff. c. other possible causes have been eliminated by the evidence. d. none of the above.
A
____ 10. If A's abnormally dangerous activity injures B, B may not recover for her injuries if she: a. expressly assumed the risk of harm. b. was more at fault than A. c. had the last clear chance to avoid the danger. d. was contributorily negligent.
A
4. Distinguish between the duty of care a possessor of property has to trespassers, licensees, and invitees.
A few states have abandoned any distinction between these three classifications of persons. For those states which still recognize a difference, however, the courts generally recognize a duty not to intentionally injure trespassers, a duty to warn to licensees of known dangers the licensees are unlikely to discover, and a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against dangerous conditions about which the possessor knows or should know and which the invitee is unlikely to discover. Most courts hold that upon discovering the presence of trespassers, a lawful occupier of land must use reasonable care in his or her activities and warn trespassers of dangerous conditions that the trespassers are unlikely to discover.