blaw ch8
Perry is injured on the job at the factory where he works. He files a workers' compensation claim against his employer. The liability of the employer under the workers' compensation statute is: a. comparative. b. strict. c. contributory. d. negligence per se.
B
Sarah goes to Marlin's Department Store to look for clothes. The store happens to be in the process of remodeling, and there is a lot of clutter in the aisle. Sarah trips over the clutter and is injured. Sarah's status with regard to the store is that of: a. licensee. b. business visitor. c. public invitee. d. trespasser.
B
The local supermarket has a large, glass front door which is well lighted and plainly visible. Nelson, who is new in the neighborhood, mistook the glass for an open doorway and walked into it, shattering the door and injuring himself. a. The store is strictly liable to Nelson. b. The store is not liable to Nelson. c. Res ipsa loquitur would require the store to be held liable. d. The store has no duty to Nelson.
B
A form of strict liability applies to all of the following situations except: a. a lawnmower sold in a defective condition that injures its owner. b. a fireworks factory that blows up and injures townspeople and their property. c. a medical procedure. d. a herd of goats that travel onto a neighbor's property, eating and trampling the neighbor's roses.
C
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. a duty existed toward her. b. a breach of that duty. c. injury and causation. d. All of the above.
C
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? a. Mindy had a mental deficiency. b. Chris was not negligent since he did not have a statutory duty to keep his brakes in top condition. c. Mindy illegally crossed in the middle of the street, which was a superseding cause of the accident. d. Chris was lawfully seeking a parking place and did not see her jump out.
C
William, who is a waiter, is injured when an unopened bottle of cola explodes in his hand while he is putting it into the restaurant's cooler. If William wants to sue the bottling company for his injuries: a. he will lose, because it will be impossible for him to prove that the bottle was overpressurized by the bottler. b. he will lose, because the bottling company has no duty to him. c. he will probably win if the court allows him to use the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. d. he will win based on the last clear chance rule.
C
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. a. Arthur's contributory negligence will prevent his recovery from Betty in all jurisdictions. b. Betty had the last clear chance to avoid the accident and will bear full legal responsibility for it. c. Arthur has assumed the risk of the accident. d. Because both parties were negligent, in a state that follows the comparative negligence doctrine, both parties will share the liability for their injuries.
D
Which of the following is/are considered in determining the application of the reasonable person standard? a. Physical disability. b. Superior skill or knowledge. c. Emergency circumstances. d. All of the above are considered.
D
An action for negligence consists of five elements, each of which the plaintiff must prove. These elements include: a. harm. b. res ipsa loquitur. c. a reasonable person. d. All of the above.
A
Rick's driveway has potholes. He has been thrown from his bike several times because of them. If Rick invites his biking friends for a barbecue, what must he do to escape liability for any harm to them? a. Repair the potholes. b. Post signs saying "slow to 15 mph." c. Telephone his friends to warn them about the potholes. d. None of the above
C
To which of the following does a property owner owe the highest duty of care? a. A stranded motorist who comes onto the property to seek help b. A social guest and close friend who have come to the house for a party c. A client who has come to an accountant's office in a building which the accountant owns d. A neighbor who comes over uninvited to use a backyard lounge chair
C
While driving his car five miles over the speed limit, Carl struck Darla, who was jaywalking across the street. When the case came to trial, the jury determined that Carl was 60% negligent and that Darla was 40% negligent. Darla's injuries are $10,000. This accident occurred in a state following the comparative negligence theory of recovery. a. Darla will recover $10,000. b. Darla will not recover anything. c. Darla will recover $6,000. d. Darla will recover $4,000.
C
Defenses to an action in strict liability include: a. contributory negligence only. b. contributory negligence and comparative negligence. c. comparative negligence only. d. voluntary assumption of risk and, in some states, comparative negligence.
D
In determining the duty of care owed by a defendant using the reasonable person standard, the court will consider which of the following factors? a. The existence of emergency conditions b. A physician's training and years of experience c. A person's severe mental retardation d. Both (a) and (b), but not (c).
D
Which of the following is correct with respect to the reasonable person standard? a. It makes allowance for mental deficiency. b. It makes allowance for physical disability. c. It applies an individualized test to children that takes into consideration the child's age, background, and experience. d. Two of the above, (b) and (c). e. All of the above
D
Seventeen-year-old Todd has just received his driver's license. He is driving a little too fast one day and slams into the back of another car, which has just stopped for a stop sign. a. Todd is engaging in an adult activity and will be held to the same standard as an adult in most of the states. b. Todd is a minor and will have no responsibility for his torts. c. Todd's parents are responsible for any torts he commits. d. Both (b) and (c).
A
The duty of a possessor of land to persons who come on the land usually depends on whether those persons are: a. invitees, trespassers, or licensees. b. reasonable persons. c. fiduciaries. d. involved in abnormally dangerous activities.
A
Violation of a statute designed to protect underage, unlicensed drivers, as well as innocent third parties, from the consequences of juvenile car theft and "joy riding" by prohibiting car owners from leaving the keys in their cars if the cars are unattended, is likely to be characterized as: a. negligence per se. b. res ipsa loquitur. c. contributory negligence. d. assumption of risk.
A
The rule which permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain events is: a. proximate cause. b. res ipsa loquitur. c. causation in fact. d. comparative negligence.
B
Under the Third Restatement of Torts, if the plaintiff is a veterinarian who accepts for treatment a dog from the defendant: a. the defendant is strictly liable if the dog is abnormally dangerous and it bites the plaintiff. b. the plaintiff, if charging a fee, is beyond the scope of strict liability, even if the dog is abnormally dangerous. c. the doctrine of implied voluntary assumption of risk applies. d. the defendant is strictly liable for any damage to the plaintiff whether or not the dog is considered abnormally dangerous.
B
Which of the following is a defense that a defendant could raise in an action based on strict liability? a. The plaintiff negligently failed to observe a sign on a highway warning of blasting operations and was injured from the operations. b. The owner of a car knowingly and voluntarily parked his vehicle in a blasting zone as a result of which the car was damaged. c. A child played with a neighbor's pet raccoon which had escaped from its cage. The child teased the pet and was bitten. d. All of the above are valid defenses which would be successful if raised by the defendant.
B
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. a. Tim is a trespasser on Adam's property, and Adam has the right to use animal traps to strongly discourage anyone from trespassing. b. Adam has no duty toward Tim. c. Adam is not free to inflict intentional injury on a trespasser. d. All of the above.
C
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? a. Cal is not liable because he was not negligent in his spraying operation. b. Cal is not liable because the neighbor assumed the risk of damage to the feed by placing it so close to the fence. c. Cal is liable because spraying pesticides is an abnormally dangerous activity. d. Cal is not liable for the damage because of contributory negligence.
C
Joe intentionally pushed Bill into a fence negligently erected by Sam around Sam's swimming pool. The fence caved in and Bill nearly drowned. Under the Second Restatement, who is liable? a. Sam, because of his negligent conduct. b. Sam, because Joe's conduct would be foreseeable. c. Joe, because of his intentional intervening conduct. d. Sam and Joe, because they both contributed to the harm.
C
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would permit the court to infer negligence in which of the following situations? a. A can of peas fell off the shelf onto your foot. b. A sign over a storefront fell on your head. c. Neither (a) nor (b). d. Both (a) and (b).
D
The harshness of the contributory negligence doctrine has been mitigated by: a. the last clear chance rule. b. substitution of the doctrine of comparative negligence. c. strict liability. d. Both (a) and (b), but not (c).
D
In which of the following situations would a landowner have liability to a trespasser? a. Where the landowner has rigged up a trap to injure anyone coming onto the property without permission. b. Where a landowner next to a nursery school has an unfenced swimming pool and a trespassing child drowns. c. Where a trespasser trips over some lawn furniture in an unlighted backyard. d. Both (a) and (b). e. All of the above.
D
Mark is out sailing in his boat one evening when he hears a young girl crying for help in the lake. Which of the following is true? a. Mark MUST help the girl or he will be liable for negligence. b. Mark must help the girl ONLY if he knows her. c. Mark MUST help the girl if he is the girl's uncle. d. Mark MUST help the girl if he begins to rescue her and moves her to a position farther from the shore.
D
Which of the following statements is true? a. A plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligent conduct proximately caused harm to a legally protected interest. b. A defendant has the burden of proof that his negligent conduct did not proximately cause harm. c. Negligent conduct that is the proximate cause of offensive physical contact results in liability based on social policy. d. Both (a) and (c).
A
Stella goes to Ranger's Department Store to look for clothes. The store is in the process of remodeling, and there is a lot of clutter in the aisle. Stella trips over the clutter and breaks her leg. What standard of care does the store have toward Stella under the circumstances? a. None, because she came to the store voluntarily. b. The store owes her a duty of only ordinary care, because she is a trespasser. c. Because she is a licensee, the store must warn her of hazards of which the store knows but which Stella is not likely to discover. d. Because Stella is a business visitor, the store must exercise reasonable care to protect her against dangerous conditions she is unlikely to discover.
D
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. a. The patient has assumed the risk of wandering onto the railroad tracks. b. Because the patient was contributorily negligent, most states would hold that the railroad has no liability. c. 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. d. The train's striking of the man was an intervening cause, so the railroad company was strictly liable.
C
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: a. that the leaf was not a substantial factor in causing the damage. b. res ipsa loquitur. c. that it was not foreseeable that the lawn mower would explode. d. that the damage was not caused by the leaf but by the gasoline.
C
If a statute 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: a. strict liability. b. res ipsa loquitur. c. negligence per se. d. assumption of the risk.
C
Mr. and Mrs. Weaver have a duty to: a. control the behavior of their minor son with regard to foreseeable risks. b. merely warn their dependent son regarding his activities related to third persons involving foreseeable risks. c. Either (a) or (b), depending upon the circumstances. d. use reasonable care under the circumstances to third persons with regard to foreseeable risks that arise within the family relationship no matter what their son's age.
C
Andrew negligently hit a dog, which lay stunned in the street for a moment and then ran toward Bill, a bystander, and bit him. a. The dog's action is a foreseeable cause of harm. b. The dog's action is a superseding cause of harm. c. Andrew will be liable to Bill, because the dog's behavior is a natural consequence of the situation caused by Andrew's negligence. d. Two of the above, (b) and (c).
B
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: a. comparative negligence. b. contributory negligence. c. res ipsa loquitur. d. voluntary assumption of the risk.
B
In which of the following situations would a court be likely to find an affirmative duty to act? a. Where a pedestrian witnesses an auto accident in which one of the drivers is injured. b. Where an airline attendant sees one passenger threaten another passenger. c. Where the driver of a car sees a two-year-old toddler wandering in the middle of a busy street. d. All of the above are situations where legally there is an affirmative duty to act.
B
Oscar, who was driving too fast for conditions, collided with a truck carrying explosives. The truck was unmarked, so Oscar had no way of knowing what it contained. The collision caused an explosion, which shattered glass in a building a block away. The glass injured Ida, who was working inside the building. John, who was walking down the street near the site of the collision, was seriously burned as a result of the explosion. a. Oscar's negligent driving is the proximate cause of Ida's injury. b. Oscar's negligent driving is the proximate cause of John's injury. c. Both Ida and John are within the zone of danger of the collision. d. All of the above.
B
Pat and Sally started a charcoal fire for Sally's backyard barbecue and left it uncovered. Then Sally went into the kitchen to make hamburger patties. While Sally was inside, Pat backed up to catch a football and hit the grill, knocking the coals onto his feet. In a modified comparative negligence state, who is liable? a. Sally is liable for ALL of Pat's injuries. b. If Sally is found negligent, Sally is liable for a proportionate share of Pat's injuries unless Pat's negligence was as great as or greater than Sally's. c. Sally is not liable for any of Pat's injuries. d. Sally is liable for Pat's injuries only if Pat was more negligent than Sally.
B
