Business & Finance Chapter 21 There Failure Use Reasonable Care Prevent

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

58. If there is a failure to use reasonable care to prevent pollution from causing a foreseeable injury, a defendant may

be liable for:

a. negligence

b. battery

c. assault

d. inattention

e. failure to protect

59. If there is a failure to use reasonable care to prevent pollution from causing a foreseeable injury, a defendant may

be liable for:

a. failure to protect

b. battery

c. assault

d. inattention

e. none of the other choices are correct

60. In pollution cases, strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities applies to which of the following:

a. businesses that produce or emit toxic pollutants

b. businesses that import raw materials from China

c. businesses that sell food

d. businesses with more than 5 employees

e. business with more than $10,000 in government contracts

61. In pollution cases involving strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, courts have found which of the

following activities to be abnormally dangerous:

a. crop dusting

b. leakage of chemicals into ground water

c. storing of flammable liquids in quantity in a populated area

d. emitting of noxious gases by factories

e. all of the other specific choices are correct

62. In pollution cases involving strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, courts have found which of the

following activities to be abnormally dangerous:

a. lawn mowing

b. using wasteful amounts of water in product production

c. storing of flammable liquids in quantity in a populated area

d. emitting of steam by factories

e. all of the other specific choices are correct

63. In pollution cases involving strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, courts have found which of the

following activities to be abnormally dangerous:

a. lawn mowing

b. using wasteful amounts of water in product production

c. crop dusting

d. emitting of steam by factories

e. all of the other specific choices are correct

64. In pollution cases involving strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, courts have found which of the

following activities to be abnormally dangerous:

a. leakage of chemicals into groundwater

b. using wasteful amounts of water in product production

c. storing of flammable liquids in quantity in an unpopulated area

d. emitting of steam by factories

e. all of the other specific choices are correct

65. In pollution cases involving strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, courts have found which of the

following activities to be abnormally dangerous:

a. emitting of noxious gases by factories

b. using wasteful amounts of water in product production

c. storing of flammable liquids in quantity in an unpopulated area

d. emitting of steam by factories

e. all of the other specific choices are correct

66. In pollution cases involving strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, courts have found which of the

following activities to be abnormally dangerous:

a. emitting of steam by factories

b. using wasteful amounts of water in product production

c. storing of flammable liquids in quantity in an unpopulated area

d. all of the other specific choices are correct

e. none of the other specific choices are correct

67. In pollution cases involving strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, courts have NOT found which of the

following activities to be abnormally dangerous:

a. crop dusting

b. leakage of chemicals into ground water

c. storing of flammable liquids in quantity in a populated area

d. emitting of noxious gases by factories

e. all of the other specific choices have been found to be abnormally dangerous by the courts

68. In pollution cases involving strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, courts have NOT found which of the

following activities to be abnormally dangerous:

a. crop dusting

b. leakage of chemicals into ground water

c. storing of flammable liquids in quantity in an unpopulated area

d. emitting of noxious gases by factories

e. all of the other specific choices have been found to be abnormally dangerous by the courts

69. In pollution cases involving strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, courts have NOT found which of the

following activities to be abnormally dangerous:

a. crop dusting

b. leakage of chemicals into ground water

c. storing of flammable liquids in quantity in a populated area

d. emitting of steam gases by factories

e. all of the other specific choices have been found to be abnormally dangerous by the courts

70. If a defendant company was found to have secretly dumped hazardous chemicals in a pond next to plaintiff’s

property, the court would be likely to hold that the:

a. defendant was disposing of pollutants according to industry standards and, although plaintiff was injured, the

defendant was not liable under nuisance law

b. defendant breached a duty of care to the plaintiff by dumping the pollutants into the pond and was

responsible for plaintiff’s injuries under negligence law

c. plaintiff was negligent when he breached a duty of care by not taking adequate precautions to protect his

property from being damaged by the pollutants dumped by the defendant.

d. defendant‘s actions were so outrageous it constituted a taking under the common law

e. defendant was strictly liable for plaintiff’s injuries because its pollutants contaminated the surface and ground

water

71. The Williams live on a farm. BG Company has been drilling for oil next to their property. The Williams‘ water now

stinks and contains assorted chemicals. Tests show the water has been tainted with the chemicals used in BG‘s

drilling. If the Williams sue BG for damages for their tainted water well, what theory would they best use?

a. public nuisance

b. fraud

c. conversion

d. strict liability in tort

e. misappropriation

72. Under the doctrine of riparian water law, persons living along a body of water:

a. may use the water in a reasonable manner

b. may not use the water for industrial purposes, only household purposes

c. must pass on the water in usable form

d. may use the water in a reasonable manner and must pass on the water in usable form

e. may use the water in a reasonable manner and must pass on the water in usable form but may not use the

water for industrial purposes, only household purposes

73. Under the doctrine of riparian water law, persons living along a body of water:

a. have a right of unlimited water use

b. may not use the water for industrial purposes

c. must obtain permits from the EPA to have the right to use water

d. have no rights against upstream water users

e. none of the other choices

74. Under the common law, there is:

a. no right to pollute water

b. a right to pollute water

c. a right to pollute water as long as you then clean it up

d. a right to pollute water as long as you have an appropriate permit

e. a right to pollute water as long as you compensate the people downstream

75. Under people who live along rivers and other bodies of water have the right to use the water in reasonable

amounts but must allow the water to flow downstream in usable form.

a. western water law

b. riparian water law

c. federal water law

d. clean water law

e. free flowing water law

76. Under people who live along rivers and other bodies of water have the right to use the water in reasonable

amounts but must allow the water to flow downstream in usable form.

a. western water law

b. free flowing water law

c. federal water law

d. clean water law

e. none of the other choices are correct

77. Under riparian water law, people who live along rivers and other bodies of water have the right to use the water in

reasonable amounts but must allow the water to flow downstream:

a. in usable form

b. without altering it in any way

c. however they wish

d. at no less than half potential flow rate

e. none of the other choices are correct

78. In Whalen v. Union Bag & Paper Co., where a paper mill polluted a farmer‘s creek so he sued to stop the

pollution, the court held that:

a. enjoining the defendant from polluting would cause too great an economic loss

b. the plaintiff contributed his negligence and so could not sue the defendant

c. although damage was small, defendant must respect plaintiff’s riparian rights, pay damages and cease

damaging pollution

d. the riparian rights of the defendant outweighed the rights of the plaintiff

e. because the defendant acted without malice, no riparian rights were violated

79. In Whalen v. Union Bag & Paper Co., where a paper mill polluted a farmer‘s creek so he sued to stop the

pollution, the court held that:

a. enjoining the defendant from polluting would cause too great an economic loss

b. the plaintiff contributed his negligence and so could not sue the defendant

c. the riparian rights of the defendant outweighed the rights of the plaintiff

d. because the defendant acted without malice, no riparian rights were violated

e. none of the other choices

80. In Whalen v. Union Bag & Paper Co., where a paper mill polluted a farmer‘s creek so he sued to stop the

pollution, the appeals court held that:

a. the fact that the damage to the plaintiff was slight compared with the defendant‘s expense of abating the

condition was not a good reason for refusing an injunction

b. the fact that the damage to the plaintiff was slight compared with the defendant’s expense of abating the

condition was a good reason for refusing an injunction

c. since the damage to the plaintiff was slight, there was no case

d. since the damage to the plaintiff was slight, so the defendant should not have to pay damages

e. the plaintiff did not have any rights with regard to the water flowing through his property

81. In Whalen v. Union Bag & Paper Co., where a paper mill polluted a farmer‘s creek so he sued to stop the

pollution, the appeals court held that:

a. the plaintiff did not have any rights with regard to the water flowing through his property

b. the fact that the damage to the plaintiff was slight compared with the defendant’s expense of abating the

condition was a good reason for refusing an injunction

c. since the damage to the plaintiff was slight, there was no case

d. since the damage to the plaintiff was slight, so the defendant should not have to pay damages

e. none of the other choices are correct

82. In Whalen v. Union Bag & Paper Co., where a paper mill polluted a farmer‘s creek so he sued to stop the

pollution, the appeals court noted that:

a. if courts refused to grant injunctions when the damage to the plaintiff is slight compared with the defendant’s

expense of abating the condition, it would favor the poor litigant over rich defendants

b. if courts refused to grant injunctions when the damage to the plaintiff is slight compared with the defendant’s

expense of abating the condition, it would deprive the poor litigant of his little property by giving it to those

already rich

c. if courts refused to grant injunctions when the damage to the plaintiff is slight compared with the defendant’s

expense of abating the condition, it would increase pollution

d. if courts refused to grant injunctions when the damage to the plaintiff is slight compared with the defendant’s

expense of abating the condition, there would be no more pollution suits

e. if courts refused to grant injunctions when the damage to the plaintiff is slight compared with the defendant’s

expense of abating the condition, it would unfairly favor low income plaintiffs

83. In Whalen v. Union Bag & Paper Co., where a paper mill polluted a farmer‘s creek so he sued to stop the