Chapter 7
Negligence and Strict Liability
N.B.: TYPE indicates that a question is new, modified, or unchanged, as follows.
N A question new to this edition of the Test Bank.
+ A question modified from the previous edition of the Test Bank.
= A question included in the previous edition of the Test Bank.
TRUE/FALSE QUESTIONS
A1. Under the theory of negligence, the duty of care requires an intentional act.
A2. To determine whether a duty of care has been breached, a judge asks how he or she
would have acted in the same circumstances.
A3. An ordinary person standard determines whether allegedly negligent conduct resulted
in a breach of a duty of care.
A4. A business owner has a duty to use reasonable care to protect its customers against
foreseeable risks about which the owner should have known.
A5. The degree of care to be exercised in a situation can vary with a person’s profession or
occupation.
A6. Under the theory of negligence, the duty of care requires one person to come to the
aid of another in “peril.”
A7. Causation in fact can be determined by use of the but for test.
A8. Proximate cause exists when injuries sustained were too remotely connected to an
incident to trigger liability.
A9. If no harm results from an allegedly negligent act, there is no liability.
A10. A defense available in an action based on a negligence theory is that the plaintiff
failed to prove one or more of the required elements.
A11. A person assumes all risks associated with any activity in which he or she participates.
A12. A superseding cause is an intervening event that imposes liability on a defendant for
injuries caused by the intervening event.
A13. Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, both the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s
negligence are taken into consideration.
A14. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies if an event causing harm does not normally
occur in the absence of negligence.
A15. Under the “danger invites rescue” doctrine, a person who tries to rescue another individual
from harm is liable for any injuries to the individual.
A16. The extreme risk of an activity is a primary basis for imposing strict liability.
A17. Under the doctrine of strict liability, liability is imposed strictly according to fault.
A18. One of the requirements for a suit based on strict liability is a failure to exercise due
care.
A19. One characteristic of an abnormally dangerous activity is that it involves a low degree
of risk.
A20. A person who keeps a wild animal is always strictly liable for any harm that the animal
inflicts.
MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS
A1. Bette backs out of City Parking Garage, colliding with Dill’s car. Dill may recover $7,500
to cover the cost of the repairs if Bette failed to act as
a. a blameless person.
b a faultless person.
c. a reliable person.
d. a reasonable person.
Fact Pattern 7–A1 (Questions A2–A3 apply)
Roy owns an apartment building that contains units of different sizes. The sidewalks around
the building are in poor repair. Many sections have buckled from the growth of tree roots
over the years.
A2. Refer to Fact Pattern 7–A1. As the owner of the building, Roy has a duty to
a. arrange to escort anyone who walks onto the property.
b. do nothing.
c. repair the sidewalks.
d. repair the sidewalks only if he is notified that it is a problem.
A3. Refer to Fact Pattern 7–A1. As the landlord of the building, when a prospective tenant
asks about the size of an apartment, Ray has a duty to
a. arrange to correct the rent to match the tenant’s ability to pay.
b. do nothing.
c. supply correct information.
d. tell tenants what they want to hear even if it is not correct.
A4. Amber shops in a Breezy Bargains store, whose employee Connor recently mopped the
floor. Amber slips, falls, and suffers an injury. Breezy is liable to Amber on a negligence
theory if there was a “Wet Floor” warning sign and
a. Amber cannot read it.
b. Amber was distracted by other patrons.
c. Amber was enticed by a nearby display.
d. Connor did not place the sign near the wet floor.
A5. Sam, an engineer, supervises the construction of a new bridge. When the bridge col–
lapses due to faulty construction, Sam is sued by those injured in the collapse. As a
professional, Sam is held to the same standard of care as
a. ordinary persons.
b. other engineers.
c. other professionals, including doctors, dentists, and lawyers.
d. those injured in the collapse of the bridge.
A6. Leon files a suit against Moira, a medical doctor, alleging negligence. As a physician,
Moira is held to the standard of
a. a blameless individual.
b a faultless ordinary person.
c. a reliable professional.
d. a reasonable physician.
A7. Nick sees Opal, a stranger, in peril, but does not attempt to rescue her. Opal could
successfully sue Nick for
a. negligence per se.
b nothing.
c. a violation of the “danger invites” rescue doctrine.
d. a violation of a Good Samaritan statute.
A8. Driving his sport utility vehicle negligently, Bart crashes into a streetlight. The
streetlight falls, smashing through the roof of a house, killing Chris. But for Bart’s
negligence, Chris would not have died. Regarding the death, the crash is the
a. cause in fact.
b intervening cause.
c. proximate cause.
d. superseding cause.
A9. John sees that Kris is about to step into the path of an oncoming bus. If John does not
warn Kris of the danger, John is liable
a. only if Kris is injured.
b. only if Kris is not injured.
c. regardless of the consequences to Kris.
d. under no circumstances.
A10. Ralph, a van driver for Standard Delivery Company, causes a multi-vehicle accident on
a city street. Ralph and Standard are liable to
a. all those who were injured.
b. only those who were uninsured.
c. only those whose injuries could have been reasonably foreseen.
d. only those whose vehicles were closest to Rod’s van.
A11. Edie is injured when she is struck by debris from an explosion at Finest Fireworks
Factory. The rule that harm must be foreseeable to constitute the proximate cause of
an injury under a negligence theory was established in
a. Edie v. Finest Fireworks Factory.
b. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
c. Rylands v. Fletcher.
d. Congress.
A12. Caleb is driving a car in which Dona is a passenger when an accident occurs. Caleb and
Dona are emotionally rattled, but neither is physically hurt. Caleb is not liable to Dona
on a negligence theory because
a. both parties were emotionally rattled.
b. Caleb did not apparently intend to cause an accident.
c. Dona must have been comparatively negligent.
d. Dona was not injured.
A13. Kay carelessly bumps into Lyle, knocking him to the ground. Kay has committed the
tort of negligence
a. only if Lyle is injured.
b. only if Lyle is not injured.
c. under any circumstances.
d. under no circumstances.
A14. Clyde enters Desert Decathlon, an athletic competition in which Clyde has often
competed. Regarding the risk of injury, Clyde assumes the risks
a. attributable to the Decathlon in any way.
b. different from the risks normally associated with the Decathlon.
c. greater than the risks normally associated with the Decathlon.
d. normally associated with the Decathlon.
A15. Nadine is a spectator at the Metro City Softball Tournament, an athletic competition.
Regarding the risk of injury, Nadine assumes the risks
a. attributable to the tournament in any way.
b. different from the risks normally associated with the tournament.
c. greater than the risks normally associated with the tournament.
d. normally associated with the tournament.
A16. Beth is injured in a car accident and sues Cash, alleging negligence. Cash claims that
Beth was driving more carelessly than he was. Comparative negligence may reduce
Beth’s recovery
a. even if Beth was only slightly at fault.
b. only if Beth was as equally at fault as Cash.
c. only if Beth was less at fault than Cash.
d. only if Beth was more at fault than Cash.
A17. An Illinois state statute requires commercial vehicle drivers to “fully attend to the
operation of the vehicle.” Jerry, a driver for Crosstown Taxi Company, is driving and
talking on his cell phone when his cab collides with Kayla’s car, injuring her. Kayla’s
best theory for recovery against Jerry and Crosstown is
a. a Good Samaritan statutes.
b. negligence per se.
c. res ipsa loquitur.
d. the “danger invites rescue” doctrine.
A18. In an emergency situation, Milena, an emergency medical technician, renders aid to
Lothar, who needs help. Lothar would most likely be prohibited from suing Milena for
negligence under
a. any circumstances.
b. a Good Samaritan statute.
c. a social host statute.
d. no circumstances.
A19. Earth Movers, Inc., uses dynamite to prepare land for highway projects. Strict liability
is imposed on this activity because
a. Earth Movers is a corporation.
b. the activity is inherently negligent.
c. the activity is of a dangerous nature.
d. the government pays for highway construction.
A20. Eva owns Fast-Rate Salvage, a demolition company. A demolition by a Fast-Rate crew
injures Glen, a passerby. Under the theory of strict liability, Eva must pay for Glen’s
injury
a. only if Glen’s injury was not reasonably foreseeable.
b only if Glen’s injury was reasonably foreseeable.
c. only if the Fast-Rate crew was at fault.
d. whether or not the Fast-Rate crew was at fault.
ESSAY QUESTIONS
A1. Biff went to Carraba’s Market to pick up a few items for dinner. It was a rainy, windy
day, and the wind had blown water through the entrance to Carraba’s each time the
door opened. As Biff entered, he slipped and fell in the rainwater that had
accumulated on the floor. Dorothea, the manager, knew of the weather conditions
but had not posted any sign to warn customers of the water hazard. Biff injured his
back as a result of the fall and sued Carraba’s for damages, alleging negligence. Is
Carraba’s liable? Why or why not?
A2. Neal, a twelve-year-old, buys a pair of skis from Outdoor Outfitters (OO), telling the
salesperson that he has never been skiing but “really wants to do it.” The salesperson
urges Neal to take a lesson in the sport before attempting a run, but Neal ignores the
advice. On the first run, Neal loses control, hits a tree, and is injured. Neal files a suit
against OO, alleging that it was negligent to have sold the skis to him, when he was
clearly too young and inexperienced. How might OO defend itself?