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.
a. The patient has assumed the risk of wandering onto the railroad tracks.
b. Because the patient was contributorily negligent, the railroad has no liability.
c. The train had the last clear chance to avoid the accident so, in a state following the
contributory negligence rule, 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
negligent.
Which of the following is true with regard to implied warranties under the Code?
a. They depend on the type of contract or sale entered into.
b. They are a result of specific language in the sales contract.
c. They continue the common law rule of caveat emptor.
d. They are intended to protect the seller rather than the buyer.
Patricia has a valid judgment against David. David lives in California, where he owns