LB MC CHP 8

Ruby, who was driving too fast for conditions, collided with a truck carrying explosives. The truck was unmarked, so Ruby 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

b. Ruby's negligent driving is the proximate cause of John's injury.

Which of the following is a defense that a defendant could raise in an action based on strict liability?

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.

A form of strict liability applies to all except which of the following situations?

c. Abnormally risky medical procedures.

Which of the following would not be considered an abnormally dangerous activity, subjecting the person who carries it out to strict liability?

b. Transmitting gas through a gas pipe.

Under the Third Restatement, possessors of land

b. owe the same duty of reasonable care to all entrants on the land except for a category of entrants called "flagrant trespassers."

The rule which permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain events is

b. res ipsa loquitur.

An action for negligence consists of which of the following elements which the plaintiff must prove?

a. Injury.

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. ANSWER:d

The reasonable person standard is

a. external and objective.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

A(n) __________ is a sudden, unexpected event calling for immediate action, that is considered when determining whether conduct was reasonable in a negligence lawsuit.

c. emergency.

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

c. he will probably win if the court allows him to use the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

By law, all apartment buildings in the state where Morgan lives must have smoke alarms in the ceilings. Morgan suffers smoke inhalation during a fire when she could not get out quickly enough because the smoke alarm in her apartment building was not yet installed. To win a negligence action against the building owner, Morgan would have to prove

c. injury and causation.

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

c. it was not foreseeable that the lawnmower would explode.

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

c. negligence per se.

In determining the duty of care owed by a defendant using the reasonable person standard, the court will consider which of the following factors?

d. Both the existence of emergency conditions and also a physician's training and years of experience.

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

d. Both unforeseeable consequences and superseding causes are factors.

Which of the following is/are considered in determining the application of the reasonable person standard?

d. Each of these are considered.

Defenses to an action in strict liability include

d. Express voluntary assumption of risk and in some states comparative negligence.

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?

d. Mark must help the girl if he begins to rescue her and increases her danger.

Which of the following is correct with respect to the reasonable person standard?

c. It applies an individualized test to children that takes into consideration the child's age, intelligence, and experience.

As a general rule

c. any defense to an intentional tort is also available in an action for negligence.

The elements of common-law negligence include

b. (1) a legal duty owed by one person to another, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) damages proximately caused by the breach.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would permit the court to infer negligence in which of the following situations?

b. A sign over a storefront fell on your head.

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?

b. Sally is liable for Pat's injuries in proportion to the degree of fault or negligence found against her.

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

b. business visitor.

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

b. is not liable to Nelson since the door was well lighted and plainly visible.

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

b. not recover anything.

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?

c. Mindy crossed in the middle of the street, which is against the law.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

c. Moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct and the policy of preventing future harm.

The harshness of the contributory negligence doctrine has been mitigated by

d. both comparative negligence and the last clear change rule.

The legal doctrine upon which Justice Cardozo based his decision in the Palsgraf case is the doctrine of

b. foreseeability.

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?

b. Where an airline attendant witnessed one passenger threaten another passenger.