Business Law--Chapter 8
The legal doctrine upon which Justice Cardozo based his decision in the Palsgraf case is the doctrine of: a. res ipsa loquitur. b. foreseeability. c. negligence per se. d. assumption of the risk.
b
Which of the following are activities that give rise to strict liability? a. Performing abnormally dangerous activities. b. Selling defective, unreasonably dangerous products. c. Keeping animals. d. All are correct.
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, intelligence, and experience. d. Two of these but not all of these.
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. Each of these are considered.
d
All intervening causes of harm are also superseding causes.
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
By law, bystanders are always required to help others in peril.
false
Even if a defendant's own negligent conduct created an emergency, he will not be liable for the consequences of the conduct if he acted with care in the resulting emergency situation.
false
For an action of negligence, six elements must be proved.
false
If a raccoon gets loose from a cage and harms someone, the owner can escape liability by showing that he took great care to keep the animal confined.
false
If an intervening cause is deemed to be a superseding cause, it does not relieve the defendant of liability for that harm.
false
If negligence of the plaintiff and negligence of the defendant proximately caused the injury and damage sustained by the plaintiff, the plaintiff can recover some damages in those states where contributory negligence is still recognized.
false
Negligence per se is a defense in a negligence case.
false
. Under the Second Restatement, a possessor of land must warn licensees of dangerous conditions of which the possessor has knowledge and the licensees do not and which they are not likely to discover.
true
A blind person will be held to the standard of care of the reasonable blind person rather than that of the reasonable sighted person for purposes of determining negligence.
true
Under the Third Restatement, possessors of land: a. owe varying duties to entrants onto the land depending on their status. b. owe the same duty of reasonable care to all entrants on the land except for a category of entrants called "flagrant trespassers." c. owe "flagrant trespassers" a duty of reasonable care, but owe others a duty to warn them of dangerous activities and conditions of which the possessor has knowledge or reason to know and which the entrant does not know and is unlikely to discover. d. have the duty of reasonable care only with regard to artificial conditions on the land that could pose risks to entrants on the land.
b
An action for negligence consists of which of the following elements which the plaintiff must prove? a. Injury. b. Res ipsa loquitur. c. A reasonable person. d. All of these.
a
If Janice, while driving her car, negligently runs into Paul, a pedestrian who is carefully crossing the street, Janice is liable for: a. physical injuries Paul sustains from the collision because Janice's negligent conduct proximately caused harm to a legally protected interest. b. offensive contact if her side mirror brushes against Paul, even if there are no physical injuries to him. c. offensive contact if her car touches Paul's coat, even if there is no damage to the coat. d. All of these.
a
In which of the following situations would a court be likely to find that the witness to the situation had an affirmative duty to act? a. Where a pedestrian witnessed an auto accident in which one of the drivers was injured. b. Where an airline attendant witnessed one passenger threaten another passenger. c. Where the driver of a car saw a two-year-old toddler wandering in the middle of a busy street. d. All of these are situations where legally there is an affirmative duty to act.
b
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
Which of the following would not be considered an abnormally dangerous activity, subjecting the person who carries it out to strict liability? a. Pile driving. b. Transmitting gas through a gas pipe. c. Collecting water in a dangerously large quantity. d. Emitting noxious fumes in a subdivision.
b
By law, all apartment buildings in the state where Mary lives must have smoke alarms in the ceilings. Mary suffers smoke inhalation because the smoke alarm in her apartment building was not yet installed. To win a negligence action against the building owner, Mary would have to prove: a. a duty existed toward her. b. a breach of that duty. c. injury and causation. d. All of these.
c
A "reasonable person standard" does not apply to children since they do not have the judgment, intelligence, knowledge, or experience of adults.
false
A defendant will be liable for all harm that can be traced back to the defendant's negligence.
false
A tiger gets loose from the tent of a circus and mauls a passerby. The circus claims it has always treated the animal well and that it was not at all negligent in its handling of the animal. The circus has no liability for the injury caused by the animal.
false
A violation of a statute constitutes negligence per se regardless of whether the injured party is a member of the class protected by the statute.
false
In the majority of states, a defendant is liable for negligently inflicted emotional distress, even in the absence of resultant physical harm.
false
Res ipsa loquitur makes it easier for the defendant to prevail in a negligence action.
false
Robert, a salesperson for Brightway Home Products, made a sales call at the Todds' house. The Todds have no duty of care toward Robert regarding the condition of their property since Robert was not an invitee or a licensee.
false
The "but for" test is useful when two or more forces, each of which is sufficient to bring about the harm in question, are actively operating.
false
There are no defenses available for strict liability; it is imposed absolutely.
false
There is an established rule in the law of torts that even one who has not created a peril has a duty to take affirmative action to assist an imperiled person, no matter what the relationship with that person, when the imperiled person can be saved from harm at little or no personal risk to the rescuer.
false
Under the Second Restatement, 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
Under the Second Restatement, a possessor of land has a legal duty to warn business invitees of obvious dangers that invitees should be able to discover themselves.
false
In Soldano v. O'Daniels, the court re-examined the common-law rule of nonliability for not taking affirmative action to save someone from peril. The court considered which of the following factors with respect to imposing duties for affirmative action by third parties? a. The examination and balancing of intervening causes and physical capabilities. b. The financial duties of victim to rescuer. c. Moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct and the policy of preventing future harm. d. Moral blame attached to the victim's conduct.
c
Stan 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. Stan: a. has the right to strongly discourage anyone from trespassing, and Tim was a trespasser. b. has no duty toward Tim. c. is not free to inflict intentional injury on a trespasser. d. All of these.
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
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 the existence of emergency conditions and also a physician's training and years of experience.
d
Mark is out sailing in his boat one evening when he hears a young girl crying for help in the middle of 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 increases her danger.
d
While comparative negligence is generally not a defense in a strict liability case, contributory negligence generally is a successful defense.
false
Even though contributory negligence is proven by a defendant in a state in which it acts as a complete bar to recovery, the plaintiff may still recover if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the injury.
true
Express voluntary assumption of the risk is a defense to an action based upon strict liability.
true
If a defendant acts under emergency conditions, these conditions will be taken into account in applying the reasonable person standard.
true
If a person's 150-pound sheep dog has a propensity to jump enthusiastically on visitors, the animal's keeper would be liable for any damages done by the dog's playfulness.
true
In applying the reasonable person standard, the court takes into account a person's physical, but not mental, handicaps.
true
Some states have today merged the implied assumption of risk doctrine into their comparative negligence systems.
true
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 these are valid defenses which would be successful if raised by the defendant.
b
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 40% negligent and that Darla was 60% negligent. Darla's injuries are $10,000. If this accident occurred in a state following the modified comparative negligence theory of recovery, Darla will: a. recover $10,000. b. not recover anything. c. recover $6,000. d. recover $4,000.
b
A form of strict liability applies to all except which of the following situations? 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. Abnormally risky medical procedures. d. A herd of goats that walk onto a neighbor's property and trample and eat the neighbor's roses.
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 cracked corn 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
Henry was burning leaves in his backyard. One of the burning leaves was lifted by the wind into Bob's yard next door. It landed on the lawnmower which exploded, setting fire to the wooden lawn furniture. Henry's best argument against liability to Bob would be: a. the leaf was not a substantial factor in causing the damage. b. the gasoline in the lawnmower is a superseding cause of the damage. c. it was not foreseeable that the lawnmower would explode. d. 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
Arnie negligently stopped his car on the highway. Beth, who was driving along, saw Arnie's car in sufficient time to attempt to stop. However, Beth negligently put her foot on the accelerator instead of the brake and ran into Arnie's car. In this case: a. Arnie's contributory negligence will prevent his recovery from Beth in all jurisdictions. b. Beth had the last clear chance to avoid the accident and will bear legal responsibility for it. c. Arnie has assumed the risk of the accident. d. because both parties were negligent, in a state that follows the pure comparative negligence doctrine, both parties will share the liability for their injuries.
d
Liability for the negligent conduct of a defendant requires not only that the conduct in fact caused injury to the plaintiff but also that it was the proximate cause of the injury.
true
Ray is informed that his six-year-old child is shooting in the street with a handgun. Ray fails to take the gun away from the child. The child unintentionally shoots Bill, a pedestrian. Ray is liable to Bill.
true
Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself" and it permits the jury to infer negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain types of events.
true
The standard of conduct which is the basis for the law of negligence is usually determined by a cost-benefit or risk-benefit analysis.
true
A widely applied test for causation in fact is the "but for" rule.
true
Defenses to an action in strict liability include: a. contributory negligence only. b. contributory negligence and comparative negligence. c. comparative negligence only. d. express voluntary assumption of risk and in some states comparative negligence.
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 in a state that follows the contributory negligence doctrine. In this case, a. the patient has assumed the risk of wandering onto the railroad tracks. b. because the patient was contributorily negligent, the railroad has no liability. c. the train had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, so the patient's contributory 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 negligent.
c
A number of states have abolished or modified the defense of implied assumption of risk.
true
The harshness of the contributory negligence doctrine has been mitigated by: a. the last clear chance rule. b. comparative negligence. c. assumption of risk. d. both comparative negligence and the last clear change rule.
d
Under the Second Restatement, the owner of land is liable to adult trespassers for failure to maintain the land in a reasonably safe condition.
false
The duty of employers includes the duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring, training, supervising, and retaining employees. This duty is independent of the vicarious liability of an employer for an employee's tortious conduct during the course of employment.
true
The plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligent conduct proximately caused harm to a legally protected interest in order to have a valid negligence action.
true
Under the Second Restatement, 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 car if the car is unattended, is likely to be characterized as: a. negligence per se. b. res ipsa loquitur. c. contributory negligence. d. assumption of risk.
a
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
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 most of the states, a sixteen-year-old who drives a car will be held to the same standard of care in driving as an adult for purposes of determining negligence.
true
In some instances, people may be held liable for injuries they have caused even though they have not acted intentionally or negligently.
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
A reasonable person, as used in the law of torts, is a fictitious individual who is always careful, prudent, and never negligent.
true
The general rule for the standard of care used in tort law is: a person is under a duty to all others at all times to exercise reasonable care for the safety of other persons and their property.
true
Tom's dog has bitten three mail carriers, but Tom can't bear to chain him up. When the dog bites the newsboy, Tom will be strictly liable.
true
A duty to act is imposed on those whose innocent conduct has injured another and left him helpless and in danger of further harm.
true
Seventeen-year-old Brice 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. In most states: a. since Brice is engaging in an adult activity, he will be held to the same standard as an adult. b. since Brice is a minor, he will have no responsibility for his torts. c. Brice's parents are responsible for any torts he commits. d. Two of these are true.
a
The reasonable person standard is: a. external and objective. b. external and subjective. c. internal and objective. d. internal and subjective.
a
The Love v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc. case dealt with the responsibility of the owner or possessor of property to an invitee to warn of, remove, or barricade a dangerous condition of the premises.
true
Garnett, who was driving too fast for conditions, collided with a truck carrying explosives. The truck was unmarked, so Garnett 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. In this case: a. Garnett's negligent driving is the proximate cause of Ida's injury. b. Garnett'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 these.
b
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would permit the court to infer negligence in which of the following situations? a. A ladder rung broke under the weight of a worker's foot. b. A sign over a storefront fell on your head. c. A patron of a restaurant slipped on a wet spot on the floor and hit her head on a chair. d. All of these.
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 pure comparative negligence state, who is liable? a. Sally is liable for ALL of Pat's injuries. b. Sally is liable for Pat's injuries in proportion to the degree of fault or negligence found against her. 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
Sarina 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. Sarina trips over the clutter and is injured. Under the Second Restatement, Sarina'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. Under the Second Restatement, the store: a. is strictly liable to Nelson. b. is not liable to Nelson since the door was well lighted and plainly visible. c. would be liable under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. d. has no duty to Nelson.
b
A(n) __________ is a sudden, unexpected event calling for immediate action, that is considered when determining whether conduct was reasonable in a negligence lawsuit. a. res ipsa loquitur. b. duty to act. c. emergency. d. None of these.
c
As a general rule: a. the defenses available to intentional torts and negligence are interchangeable. b. if a plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence all the required elements of a negligence action, the plaintiff will automatically recover damages. c. any defense to an intentional tort is also available in an action for negligence. d. more defenses are available for intentional torts than are available in negligence cases.
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 help but hit her. What is Chris's best defense to the charge of negligence? a. Mindy had a mental deficiency. b. He was not negligent since he did not have a statutory duty to keep his brakes in top condition. c. Mindy crossed in the middle of the street, which is against the law. d. He was lawfully seeking a parking place and did not see her jump out.
c
A principal factor that the courts consider in determining limitations on the causal connection between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injury is: a. negligence per se. b. unforeseeable consequences. c. superseding causes. d. Both unforeseeable consequences and superseding causes are factors.
d