Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
True/False Questions
1) A duty of care may be imposed on a person but not on a corporation.
a. True
b. False
2) As a general rule, liability cannot be imposed under the tort of negligence if the
defendant carelessly made a statement that caused the plaintiff to suffer a physical injury.
a. True
b. False
3) Omikron Ltd hired Mekhi, a recent graduate from law school, to act as its lawyer in a
business transaction. Omikron suffered a substantial financial loss as a result of a mistake
that Mekhi made. Nevertheless, Mekhi cannot be held liable for the tort of negligence if he
acted as a reasonable person with a similar level of experience would have acted, even if a
more experienced lawyer probably would have acted differently.
a. True
b. False
4) Shakira was injured by the explosion of a widget that was manufactured by Delta Corp.
The evidence indicates that Delta was not careless with respect to the manufacture or
design of the widget. Nevertheless, Delta may be held liable to Shakira on the basis of the
tort of negligence if the company negligently failed to warn Shakira of the danger of
explosion where that danger was a reasonable foreseeable risk of the intended use of the
widget.
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
a. True
b. False
5) Maura was injured by the unexpected explosion of a widget that was manufactured by
Theta Ltd. As a general rule, it will be easier for Maura to prove a claim in negligence
against Theta if the explosion was caused by the negligent manufacture, rather than the
negligent design, of the widget.
a. True
b. False
6) Aisha suffered a stroke after consuming allergy medicine manufactured by Upsilon Inc.
The evidence indicates that the stroke was caused by the combined effect of the medicine
and Aisha’s poor diet. The evidence also indicates that the stroke would not have occurred
unless both of those factors were present. Finally, the evidence indicates that the medicine
was 40 percent to blame for the stroke, while Aisha’s poor diet was 60 percent to blame.
The court held that Upsilon negligently failed to warn Aisha of the risk that its medicine
could cause a stroke to people who have a diet like Aisha. If the total value of Aisha’s
losses is $100 000, she will be entitled to receive $100 000 from Upsilon.
a. True
b. False
7) Maritza suffered a heart attack after consuming cold medicine manufactured by Omega
Inc. The evidence indicates that there is a 75 percent chance that Maritza’s heart attack was
caused by the medicine and a 25 percent chance that it was caused by Maritza’s poor diet.
The court held that Omega negligently failed to warn Maritza of the risk that its medicine
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
could cause a heart attack. If the total value of Maritza’s losses is $100 000, she will be
entitled to receive $75 000 in damages from Omega.
a. True
b. False
8) Alpha Corp recently suffered two losses. First, as a result of the carelessness of its
financial adviser, Jewel, it lost $100 000 when it invested in worthless shares. Second, in a
separate incident, it lost $50 000 when its lawyer, Maia, failed to file a certain document at
the land registry office on time. Both Jewel and Maia are liable to Alpha for the tort of
negligence. The doctrine of joint and several liability, would therefore always apply as
there are two tortfeasors. Alpha is entitled to claim $150 000 from Jewel, and Jewel would
then be entitled to claim $50 000 in contribution from Maia.
a. True
b. False
9) Ocala Corp operated a factory that caused corrosive particles to drift in the air and land
on a building that was owned by Broderick Inc. Those particles damaged the roof of the
building. The damage could have been repaired immediately at a cost of $250 000, but
Broderick did not have the money necessary to do so. It therefore sued Ocala in negligence.
By the time the trial ended several years later, inflation had run rampant and the cost of
repairing Broderick’s roof has increased to $900 000. Because of the modern approach to
the “thin wallet” rule, Ocala cannot possibly be held liable for more than $250 000.
a. True
b. False
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
10) Jane carelessly caused an accident that resulted in Perry’s leg being broken. Perry
subsequently suffered a broken arm when he fell down a flight of stairs. Perry satisfied the
judge, on the basis of expert evidence, that it is common for people who are wearing leg
casts to fall more often than usual. That is true even for people who reasonably take extra
precautions while wearing leg casts. Jane consequently may be held liable for Perry’s
broken leg and his broken arm.
a. True
b. False
11) The courts use the test of reasonable foreseeability to determine whether or not the
defendant is legally responsible for the effects of an intervening act.
a. True
b. False
12) The defence of contributory negligence may apply even if the plaintiff carelessly
contributed to the severity of the injuries that they suffered, but not to the actual occurrence
of the accident that caused those injuries.
a. True
b. False
13) Danica was injured as a result of an accident that also involved Elmer and Lloyd. The
judge found that all three parties had acted carelessly, and that Elmer and Lloyd were
jointly and severally liable. The judge also found that Danica was 50 percent to blame for
her injuries, while Elmer was 30 percent to blame and Lloyd was 20 percent to blame. The
losses caused by Danica’s injuries are valued at $100 000. Danica may be able to recover
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
more than $30 000 from Elmer if Lloyd is unable to pay anything because of his extreme
poverty.
a. True
b. False
14) After paying a price of $50, Mustaffa jumped off a low bridge while tied to a bungee
cord that was operated by X-Adventure Inc. He was injured when the bungee cord broke
and he fell to the ground. X-Adventure denies liability on the basis of a document that
Mustaffa carefully read and signed before jumping from the bridge. The relevant portion of
that document said that Mustaffa accepted “only the physical risk of injury.” A court will
probably reject Mustaffa’s claim in negligence on the basis of the defence of voluntary
assumption of risk.
a. True
b. False
15) In determining whether or not the defendant can escape liability on the basis of the
defence of illegality, a court is most influenced by the extent to which the plaintiff’s illegal
act involved violence or the threat of violence.
a. True
b. False
Multiple Choice Questions
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
1) Chantal has sued Phi Corp for negligence. Which of the following statements is TRUE
with respect to the duty of care?
a. Since it is based on the reasonable person test, a duty of care can be owed by a person to
a corporation but not by a corporation to a person.
b. A duty of care will be imposed on Phi Corp unless it proves that Chantal was not a
reasonably foreseeable victim of its carelessness.
c. A duty of care will not be recognized unless Chantal suffered a physical injury.
d. A duty of care will be recognized only if Phi Corp and Chantal had a pre-existing
relationship.
e. The court will conduct a principle based inquiry into the existence of a duty of care only
if the facts of the case do not fall within a recognized category.
2) Andreas has sued Kathryn for negligence. Kathryn argues that she did not owe a duty of
care to Andreas. Which of the following statements is TRUE?
a. The court cannot recognize a duty of care if Andreas was injured as a result of Kathryn’s
omission, rather than by her action.
b. The court may refuse to recognize a duty of care even if it was reasonably foreseeable
that Andreas might be injured as a result of Kathryn’s carelessness, on grounds that public
policy does not permit the extension of the duty of care to this relationship.
c. A court may recognize a duty of care even if it was not reasonably foreseeable that
Andreas might be injured as a result of Kathryn’s carelessness.
d. The court cannot recognize a duty of care if Kathryn was Andreas’s mother.
e. The court cannot recognize a duty of care if Andreas and Kathryn were parties to the
same contract.
3) The case of Donoghue v Stevenson established the concept of
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
a. a general duty of care based on the “neighbour principle.”
b. the learned intermediary rule.
c. market share liability.
d. contributory negligence.
e. professional negligence.
4) Careless statements are different than careless acts because
a. people are almost always more careful with words than with actions.
b. careless statements can never support a duty of care.
c. careless statements seldom cause substantial losses.
d. careless statements always result in pure economic losses.
e. careless statements can often be repeated in a way that careless acts cannot and are
usually more “volatile” than deeds.
5) Luke sued Michelle for negligence. In formulating the standard of care, the court will
properly consider whether or not
a. Michelle has liability insurance.
b. Luke has personal injury insurance.
c. there was great social utility to the act that Luke was performing when he was injured.
d. Michelle took precautions against reasonable foreseeable risks.
e. Michelle’s age and other personal circumstances.
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
6) Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the standard of care in
negligence?
a. A child is never required to meet the standard of a reasonable adult.
b. The standard of care never takes account of the defendant’s subjective characteristics.
c. The defendant can never escape liability by proving a mental disability.
d. The sudden peril doctrine allows the defendant to act in a way that could be considered a
mistake made in difficult circumstances, which is not therefore a breach of the standard of
care.
e. The standard of care is always met if the defendant followed an approved practice within
a particular industry.
7) The Iota Corp sued Araceli for negligence. It claims that it suffered a loss as a result of
her careless performance of a professional service. Which of the following statements is
TRUE with respect to the issue of breach?
a. Araceli cannot possibly be held liable if she complied with a practice that was approved
by her professional body.
b. Araceli cannot possibly be held liable if she did not realize that her services were
careless when she performed them.
c. Araceli cannot possibly be held liable if she did her best, but her best was not good
enough because she had received very poor training in school.
d. Araceli cannot possibly be held liable if Iota Corp should have realized that she was
incompetent but did not take reasonable precautions to investigate the competence of
Araceli.
e. Araceli may not be held liable for an error in judgment even if another professional in her
position would have acted differently.
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
8) Chyna acted as Evan’s accountant. In the course of her professional duties, she made a
mistake that caused Evan to lose $100 000. Evan has sued Chyna for negligence. She
claims, however, that she did not breach the standard of care. Chyna can avoid liability by
proving that
a. her carelessness occurred while she was performing a contractual obligation.
b. she was inexperienced at the time of the mistake and by proving that a reasonable novice
accountant might have made the same mistake.
c. She met the standard of care of a reasonable accountant at the time she performed the
work for Evan, and her alleged mistake seems careless only in hindsight in different
circumstances then were reasonably foreseeable at the time she did the work.
d. she was not really a qualified accountant, even though she had told Evan that she was.
e. Evan paid her less than the market rate.
9) Jennet recently sued Lamda Corp for failing to warn her about the risks associated with a
widget that it manufactured and that caused her to suffer an injury. Lamda Corp seeks to
avoid liability on the basis of the learned intermediary rule. Which of the following
statements is TRUE?
a. The learned intermediary rule is usually considered in connection with the duty of care.
b. The learned intermediary rule is usually considered in connection with the issue of
causation.
c. The learned intermediary rule applies only if Jennet had been trained in the proper use of
widgets.
d. The learned intermediary rule applies only if Lamda Corp’s experts knew of the risk that
led to Jennet’s injury.
e. The learned intermediary rule applies only if at least one other party was involved in the
events leading up to Jennet’s injury and that other party was provided with a reasonable
warning, and that party was a professional who provided the widget to Jennet.
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
10) You work as a risk management advisor for Sigma Ltd. Sigma Ltd intends to place a
new type of widget on the market. It wants to know what steps it should take with respect
to warning people about the dangers associated with that type of widget. Which of the
following statements is TRUE?
a. Sigma Ltd only needs to issue a warning to people who purchase widgets.
b. Sigma Ltd only needs to issue a warning with respect to dangers that it is aware of before
the widgets are sold.
c. Sigma Ltd only needs to issue a warning with respect to dangers that arise when a widget
is used for its intended purpose.
d. Sigma Ltd is not required to warn about every possible danger that it knows about when
a widget is sold. The warning must be reasonable.
e. As the manufacturer, Sigma Ltd is the only party that could be required to issue a
warning.
11) Which of the following statements most accurately describes the but-for test for
causation?
a. The defendant should be held liable if the answer to the but-for test is “no.”
b. The defendant should be held liable if the answer to the but-for test is “yes.”
c. The but-for test requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
d. The but-for test compares the actual events with the events that would have occurred if
the defendant had breached the standard of care.
e. The but-for test is relevant to the issue of negligence but not to the issue of contributory
negligence, because the plaintiff does not owe a duty of care to him or herself.
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
12) Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the issue of factual
causation in negligence?
a. The issue of factual causation is always decided on the basis of the but-for test.
b. Liability cannot be imposed if the defendant’s carelessness was only a cause, and not the
only cause, of the plaintiff’s losses.
c. Liability cannot be imposed if the defendant’s carelessness was only a cause, and not the
most important cause, of the plaintiff’s losses.
d. The issue of factual causation is decided on the basis of the reasonable person test.
e. The plaintiff will recover damages if the plaintiff proves on the balance of probabilities
that but-for the negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff would not have suffered the loses
the plaintiff has suffered.
13) Selena has cancer. She has sued the Tau Corp for negligence. She claims that her
condition was caused by fumes that the Tau Corp carelessly allowed its factory to emit.
Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the issue of causation?
a. If Selena proves that there is a 75 percent chance that her condition was caused by Tau
Corp’s carelessness, she will receive 75 percent of her damages.
b. If Selena proves that there is a 50 percent chance that her condition was caused by Tau
Corp’s carelessness, she will receive 100 percent of her damages.
c. If Selena proves that there is a 25 percent chance that her condition was caused by Tau
Corp’s carelessness, she will receive 25 percent of her damages.
d. If Selena proves that there is a 51 percent chance that her condition was caused by Tau
Corp’s carelessness, (but-for the carelessness Selenea would not have her condition) Selena
will recover 100 percent of her damages.
e. If Selena proves that there is a 50 percent chance that her condition was caused by Tau
Corp’s carelessness, she will receive 50 percent of her damages.
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
14) Diana and Naomi both carelessly shot in Randall’s direction at the same time. He was
struck by one bullet. He can prove that the bullet came from either Diana’s gun or from
Naomi’s gun, but he has no way of determining which woman shot him. Which of the
following statements is TRUE?
a. Neither woman will be held liable because Randall cannot prove, on a balance of
probabilities, which one fired the bullet that hit him.
b. Randall’s claim will be decided by the concept of market share liability.
c. Diana and Naomi will be held jointly and severally liable even though Randall cannot
satisfy the requirement of causation in the usual way. This is an exception to the usual rule
of but-for causation.
d. The difficulty in this case involves the issue of remoteness of damage.
e. The court most likely will impose liability upon one defendant only.
15) The concept of remoteness
a. arises for consideration under concept of duty of care.
b. asks whether a person in the plaintiff’s position could have reasonably foreseen that loss
that occurred because of a breach of care.
c. is relevant only if the defendant in fact carelessly caused the plaintiff’s loss.
d. is a defence to the action in negligence.
e. is most closely connected to the concept of the standard of care.
16) Kendra suffered a broken back as a result of Duncan’s carelessness. Duncan has argued,
however, that Kendra’s injury is remote from his carelessness, and that he therefore cannot
be held liable. Which of the following statements is TRUE?
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
a. Duncan cannot be held liable unless the manner in which Kendra suffered her injury was
reasonably foreseeable.
b. Duncan cannot be held liable unless the type of harm that Kendra suffered was
reasonably foreseeable.
c. If Kendra was unusually vulnerable to a back injury, Duncan cannot be held liable unless
the severity of Kendra’s injury was reasonably foreseeable.
d. Duncan cannot be held liable unless Kendra’s injury was likely to occur as a result of his
carelessness.
e. Duncan will be held liable only if Kendra’s injury was a direct result of his carelessness.
17) Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the concept of remoteness?
a. The concept of remoteness is part of the test for a duty of care.
b. The concept of remoteness is based mostly on statutes.
c. The concept of remoteness has been rejected as a test in thin skull cases.
d. The concept of remoteness has been rejected as a test in cases of intervening acts.
e. The concept of remoteness is a defence that arises even if it is proved that the defendant’s
careless conduct caused the loss.
18) The concept of a crumbling skull
a. does not exist in Canadian law.
b. is exactly the same as the concept of a thin skull.
c. allows the plaintiff to recover damages for the full extent of their loss, as long as it was
reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s negligence would cause a normal person to
suffer some injury.
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
d. allows the plaintiff to recover some damages when the defendant’s negligence hastens
the occurrence of a loss that the plaintiff eventually would have suffered in any event.
e. allows a court to find that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff.
19) Jamari negligently hit Samantha in the head with a stick. Most people would have
suffered a simple bruise as a result of that accident. If so, damages would have been worth
$200. Such damages were reasonably foreseeable before the accident occurred. Samantha,
however, actually suffered brain damage because she had an unusually fragile skull.
Consequently, she suffered a loss valued at $5 million. A loss of that size was not
reasonably foreseeable before the accident occurred. Which of the following statements is
TRUE?
a. Jamari is liable for $5 million in damages payable to Samantha.
b. Jamari is liable for $200.
c. Jamari is not liable for any damages because the actual consequences of his negligence
were not reasonably foreseeable.
d. Jamari is liable for $5 million only if he actually knew that Samantha had a fragile skull
before he hit her.
e. Jamari is liable for $5 million only if Samantha knew that she had a fragile skull before
the accident occurred.
20) Psi Corp owned a ship called The Greek. It intended to use that ship to fulfill a contract
with Omega Inc under which it promised to deliver widgets from Vancouver to Los
Angeles. If it failed to perform that contract, it would be required to pay $5 million to
Omega Inc. Wilson negligently created a fire that destroyed The Greek. Psi Corp wanted to
buy a replacement ship for the purpose of performing its contract with Omega Inc, but
could not immediately afford the purchase price of $20 million. It therefore rented a ship,
The Canadian, for $2 million and used it to fulfill its contractual obligation. Psi Corp has
successfully sued Wilson for negligence. The court agrees that Psi Corp is entitled to $20
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
million, which was the value The Greek. Psi Corp, however, claims that it is also entitled to
$2 million, representing the money that it was required to pay in order to rent The
Canadian. Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to Psi Corp’s claim for
$20 million?
a. That claim is properly decided under the concept of an intervening act.
b. That claim will probably fail because there was a lack of factual causation.
c. That claim will probably fail because there was no duty of care.
d. That claim traditionally would have failed because the relevant loss is partially
attributable to the plaintiff’s own impecuniosity.
e. That claim will be decided by the crumbling skull rule.
21) Oprah suffered a broken collarbone as a result of Sheldon’s negligence. She later
suffered a broken foot as a result of Tom’s negligence. Tom dropped a heavy box on
Oprah’s foot while she was getting out of her car at her physiotherapist’s office. She was
visiting her physiotherapist for rehabilitation of her collarbone. She would not have been in
that parking lot, and therefore would not have suffered a broken foot, if Sheldon had not
negligently caused the first injury. Which of the following statements is most likely TRUE?
a. Tom is liable for contributory negligence.
b. A court will deny damages on the basis that Oprah voluntarily assumed the risk
c. Tom did not owe a duty of care to Oprah because she was already injured.
d. If Oprah’s injuries cause her to miss work, she will be able to recover full damages from
Tom and again from Sheldon.
e. The case involves an issue of intervening act which may affect the chain of causation.
22) The Town of Sussex Corner owned a bridge. Ruby negligently damaged the bridge by
ramming it with a boat. At that point, it would have cost $30 000 to repair the bridge.
Before the town could do so, however, Oswald negligently rammed the bridge in a different
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
spot with his own boat. The town had the damage from both incidents repaired at the same
time for a total cost of $50 000. Which of the following statements is TRUE?
a. Oswald’s conduct falls under the heading of contributory negligence.
b. Sussex Corner has the option of recovering $50 000 from either Ruby or Oswald.
c. Ruby and Oswald are jointly and severally liable for the full loss.
d. Ruby will not be held liable at all because Oswald’s negligence is an intervening act.
e. Oswald may be held liable for some damages even though Ruby had already damaged
the bridge.
23) Peter has sued Calista and Lailani for negligence. The evidence indicates that Peter’s
injury was caused by the combined effect of negligent acts by himself, Calista, and Lailani.
That injury would not have occurred at all if any one of the three parties had acted
carefully. The judge held that Calista and Lailani are jointly and severally liable. The judge
also apportioned responsibility for the injury on the following basis: Peter 60 percent,
Calista 30 percent, and Lailani 10 percent. The value of the loss that Peter suffered as a
result of his injury is $100 000. Which of the following statements is TRUE?
a. Peter can collect a total of $100 000 from Calista and Lailani.
b. Peter can collect $40 000 from Lailani.
c. Peter cannot collect any damages from either Calista or Lailani because he was
responsible for more than half of the loss that he suffered.
d. Peter can collect $60 000 from Calista.
e. Peter can collect $60 000 from Calista and Lailani combined.
24) Coco sued Vincent for negligence. He has relied on the defence of contributory
negligence. That defence may be successful only if the evidence indicates that
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
a. it was reasonably foreseeable that a careless act by Coco might inflict a loss upon
Vincent.
b. Coco actually knew that she might suffer a loss to herself if she acted carelessly.
c. Coco’s carelessness created one injury and Vincent’s carelessness caused a different
injury.
d. Coco breached the standard of care regarding taking reasonable precautions to prevent
the event that caused him injury.
e. Vincent suffered some injury or loss.
25) Dashawn was severely injured while participating in a “fitness challenge” that was
organized and operated by Zeta Inc. He has sued for negligence. Zeta relies on the defence
of voluntary assumption of risk. In support of that defence, Zeta has produced a
“Disclaimer of Liability” that Dashawn signed. Which of the following statements is
TRUE?
a. The court will struggle to uphold the disclaimer clause and deny liability if at all
possible.
b. Zeta will be relieved of liability only if the disclaimer clause applied to the factual and
legal risk of injury and is otherwise enforceable contractually.
c. Because of general contractual principles, the disclaimer clause may be effective in
response to a claim for breach of contract but not in response to a claim for negligence.
d. As a general rule, a disclaimer clause is effective only if the plaintiff carelessly
contributed to their own loss.
e. If the defence applies, the court will reduce liability only to the extent that is fair, so that
Dashawn will still recover some damages.
26) Demarcus sued Marguerite for negligence. She has relied on the defence of illegality.
Which of the following statements is TRUE?
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
a. That defence allows for the apportionment of responsibility between the parties.
b. That defence may apply if the recovery of damages would allow Demarcus to avoid a
criminal penalty.
c. That defence will not apply if it would re-enforce a criminal penalty.
d. That defence could apply only if Demarcus committed a crime that was punishable by
imprisonment.
e. The Supreme Court of Canada has abolished the defence of illegality on the basis that it
often creates unfair results.
27) Which of the following is a defence to the tort of negligence?
a. strict liability
b. mental incapacity
c. inexperience
d. res ipsa loquitur
e. volenti.
28) Which of the following statements is TRUE?
a. The effect of a thin skull is usually considered in the context of the breach of the standard
of care.
b. The concept of reasonable foreseeability requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
the plaintiff would likely be injured by the defendant’s carelessness.
c. Product liability in Canadian tort law is strict.
d. An “error in judgment” is always a breach of the standard of care.
McInnes/Kerr/VanDuzer: Managing the Law: The Legal Aspects of Doing Business, Fourth Edition
Chapter 6: Negligence
e. The defence of contributory negligence may apply even though the plaintiff’s
carelessness did not contribute to the creation of the accident, as long as it contributed to
the extent of the plaintiff’s injury.
29) Which of the following statements is TRUE?
a. Contributory negligence originally was a partial defence.
b. The effect of an intervening act is usually considered in the context of the standard of
care.
c. Canadian law does not include the learned intermediary rule.
d. Product liability may arise from a careless act in the manufacture of a product or
carelessness in the design of a product but not from a careless failure to warn of the risks
associated with a product.
e. The Crown—that is, the government—may be sued, because of statutory provisions that
allow for the Crown to be sued.
30) The concept of reasonable foreseeability is directly relevant to
a. the duty of care and the standard of care but not remoteness.
b. the standard of care but not the defence of contributory negligence.
c. factual causation.
d. the duty of care.
e. both the but-for test and the concept of an intervening act.
