Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
53. An action for negligence consists of five elements, each of which the plaintiff must prove. These elements include:
a. harm.
b. res ipsa loquitur.
c. a reasonable person.
d. All of these.
54. Joe intentionally pushed Bill into a fence negligently erected by Sam around Sam's swimming pool. The fence caved
in and Bill nearly drowned. Under the Second Restatement, who is liable?
a. Sam, because of his negligent conduct.
b. Sam, because Joe's conduct would be foreseeable.
c. Joe, because of his intentional intervening conduct.
d. Sam and Joe, because they both contributed to the harm.
55. 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 modified comparative negligence state, who is liable?
a. Sally is liable for ALL of Pat's injuries.
b. If Sally is found negligent, Sally is liable for a proportionate share of Pat's injuries unless Pat’s negligence was
as great as or greater than Sally’s.
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.
56. 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 feed 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.
57. If a statute establishing a reasonable person standard of conduct 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.
58. Mr. and Mrs. Weaver have a duty to:
a. control the behavior of their minor son with regard to foreseeable risks.
b. merely warn their dependent son regarding his activities related to third persons involving foreseeable risks.
c. Either (a) or (b), depending upon the circumstances.
d. use reasonable care under the circumstances to third persons with regard to foreseeable risks that arise within
the family relationship no matter what their son’s age.
59. 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. All of the above are considered.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Sarah goes to Marlin's Seafood Restaurant for dinner. The restaurant has a loose tile on the floor near the entry,
which is known to the owner, but not marked. Sarah trips and falls and breaks her arm. Sarah's status with regard
to the store is that of:
a. licensee.
b. business visitor.
c. public invitee.
d. trespasser.
63. Conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection
and which cooperates with the negligence of the defendant in bringing about the plaintiff's harm is:
a. comparative negligence.
b. contributory negligence.
c. res ipsa loquitur.
d. voluntary assumption of the risk.
64. Stella goes to Ranger's Department Store to look for clothes. The store is in the process of remodeling, and there is a
lot of clutter in the aisle. Stella trips over the clutter and breaks her leg. What standard of care does the store have
toward Stella under the circumstances?
a. None, because she came to the store voluntarily.
b. The store owes her a duty of only ordinary care, because she is a trespasser.
c. Because she is a licensee, the store must warn her of hazards of which the store knows but which Stella is
not likely to discover.
d. Because Stella is a business visitor, the store must exercise reasonable care to protect her against dangerous
conditions she is unlikely to discover.
65. Perry is injured on the job at the factory where he works. He files a workers' compensation claim against his
employer. The liability of the employer under the workers' compensation statute is:
a. comparative.
b. strict.
c. contributory.
d. negligence per se.
66. 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. The
store:
a. is strictly liable to Nelson.
b. is not liable to Nelson.
c. is liable under res ipsa loquitur.
d. has no duty to Nelson.
67. Adam 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. In this case:
a. Tim is a trespasser on Adam's property, and Adam has the right to use animal traps to strongly discourage
anyone from trespassing.
b. Adam has no duty toward Tim.
c. Adam is not free to inflict intentional injury on a trespasser.
d. All of these.
68. Seventeen-year-old Todd 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.
a. Todd is engaging in an adult activity and will be held to the same standard as an adult in most of the states.
b. Todd is a minor and will have no responsibility for his torts.
c. Todd's parents are responsible for any torts he commits.
d. Todd is responsible only if he has been driving for more than one year.
69. In determining the duty of care owed by a defendant using the reasonable person standard, the court will consider all
of the following factors except:
a. The existence of emergency conditions
b. A physician's training and years of experience
c. A person's severe mental retardation
d. Physical disability
70. 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 cars if the
cars are unattended, is likely to be characterized as:
a. negligence per se.
b. res ipsa loquitur.
c. contributory negligence.
d. assumption of risk.
71. The harshness of the contributory negligence doctrine has been mitigated by all of the following except:
a. the last clear chance rule.
b. substitution of the doctrine of comparative negligence.
c. strict liability.
d. None of these.
72. A form of strict liability applies to all of the following situations except:
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. a medical procedure.
d. a herd of goats that travel onto a neighbor's property, eating and trampling the neighbor's roses.
73. Defenses to an action in strict liability include:
a. contributory negligence only.
b. contributory negligence and comparative negligence.
c. comparative negligence only.
d. express assumption of risk under the Third Restatement and, in some states, comparative negligence.
74. Arthur negligently stopped his car on the highway. Betty, who was driving along, saw Arthur's car in sufficient time
to attempt to stop. However, Betty negligently put her foot on the accelerator instead of the brake and ran into
Arthur's car. If Arthur sues Betty for damages:
a. Arthur's contributory negligence will prevent his recovery from Betty in all jurisdictions.
b. Betty had the last clear chance to avoid the accident and will bear full legal responsibility for it.
c. Arthur has assumed the risk of the accident.
d. because both parties were negligent, in a state that follows the modified comparative negligence doctrine, both
parties will share the liability for their injuries in proportion to their degree of fault unless the court finds
Arthur’s contributory negligence was as great as or greater than Betty’s negligence.
75. While driving his car five miles over the speed limit, Carl struck Darla, who was jaywalking across the street. Darla
sues and when the case comes to trial, the jury determines that Carl was 60% negligent and that Darla was 40%
negligent. Darla's damages for injuries are $10,000. If this accident occurred in a state following the comparative
negligence theory of recovery, Darla will:
a. recover $10,000.
b. not recover anything.
c. recover $6,000.
d. recover $4,000.
76. Andrew negligently hit a dog, which lay stunned in the street for a moment and then ran toward Bill, a bystander, and
bit him. In this case:
a. the dog's action is a foreseeable cause of harm.
b. the dog's action is a superseding cause of harm.
c. Andrew will be liable to Bill, because the dog's behavior is a natural consequence of the situation caused by
Andrew's negligence.
d. the dog's owner will be held strictly liable for Bill's injuries, but Andrew will be liable to the dog's owner.
77. Oscar, who was driving too fast, collided with a truck carrying explosives. The truck was unmarked, so Oscar 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. Oscar's negligent driving is the proximate cause of Ida's injury.
b. Oscar'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.
78. In which of the following situations would a landowner NOT have liability to a trespasser?
a. Where the landowner has rigged up a trap to injure anyone coming onto the property without permission.
b. Where a landowner next to a nursery school has an unfenced swimming pool and a trespassing child drowns.
c. Where a trespasser trips over some lawn furniture in an unlighted backyard.
d. The landowner would have liability to a trespasser in all of these situations.
79. To which of the following does a property owner owe the highest duty of care?
a. A stranded motorist who comes onto the property to seek help
b. A social guest and close friend who have come to the house for a party
c. A client who has come to an accountant's office in a building which the accountant owns
d. A neighbor who comes over uninvited to use a backyard lounge chair
80. 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 signed a waiver of potential damages if he 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.
81. 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 this case:
a. the patient has assumed the risk of wandering onto the railroad tracks.
b. because the patient was contributorily negligent, most states would hold that the railroad has no liability.
c. in states that follow the contributory negligence rule, the train had the last clear chance to avoid the accident,
so the patient’s 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 strictly liable.
82. In which of the following situations would a court be likely to find an affirmative duty to act?
a. Where a pedestrian witnesses an auto accident in which one of the drivers is injured.
b. Where an airline attendant sees one passenger threaten another passenger.
c. Where the driver of a car sees 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.
83. Which of the following statements is true?
a. A plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligent conduct proximately caused harm to a legally protected
interest.
b. A defendant has the burden of proof that his negligent conduct did not proximately cause harm.
c. Negligent conduct that is the proximate cause of offensive physical contact results in liability based on social
policy.
d. All of these statements are true.
84. 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.
85. Under the Third Restatement of Torts, if the plaintiff is a veterinarian who accepts for treatment a dog from the
defendant:
a. the defendant is strictly liable if the dog is abnormally dangerous and it bites the plaintiff.
b. the plaintiff, if charging a fee, is beyond the scope of strict liability, even if the dog is abnormally dangerous.
c. the doctrine of implied voluntary assumption of risk applies.
d. the defendant is strictly liable for any damage to the plaintiff whether or not the dog is considered abnormally
dangerous.
86.
a. How does liability based upon negligence differ from liability based upon strict liability?
b. How is liability based upon negligence similar to strict liability?
87. What is the difference between contributory negligence and comparative negligence? Why have so many states
adopted comparative negligence?
88. Define "emergencies" as it affects tort law and explain how a defendant’s negligence creating an emergency affects
liability in the situation.
89. Identify the elements required in an action for negligence.
90. What is the reasonable person standard? How is it applied to each of the following?
a. Children
b. Persons with physical disabilities
c. Persons who are mentally retarded
d. Professional people with advanced degrees and training, such as doctors, lawyers, and
accountants
e. Persons acting in emergency situations
f. Persons who violate statutory duties
91. Think about and then discuss why, in your analysis, the reasonable standard of care differs for the following
categories of individuals: children, persons with physical disabilities, persons with mental disabilities, people with
superior skill or knowledge, people in emergency situations, and those who violate statutory duties. Is there any logic
on which to base these differences because of societal need and expectations? Does justice demand a different
result? Why would the courts make these distinctions?
92. Jack is a trucker who makes his living moving modular homes. This is a dangerous business in that the portions of the
houses once on the truck are wider than the road lanes. Also, Jack frequently has to travel much more slowly than
the other vehicles on the road. One day, Jack, on his way to Atlanta with a modular home in tow, found himself
approaching two trucks coming from the opposite direction with the words “High Museum Exhibits” on the truck
panels. When Jack swerves to avoid a bicyclist, a museum truck runs off the road and tumbles down an
embankment. No one is harmed, but the exhibit being transported is damaged. Discuss the various theories of liability
that might be applied here and why they would be appropriate.
