978-0077733711 Chapter 7 Solution Manual

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

Chapter 07 – Negligence and Strict Liability

V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEM CASES:

1. Yes. Cingular owes no duty to Williams. Although it is widely understood that auto accidents

are more likely when the driver is operating a cellular phone, responsibility for those

2. No. The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that the plaintiff could rely on negligence per se to

establish the duty and breach of duty elements of her claim against Baize. The government

3. No, Sears has not breached a duty under the reasonable person standard. This is a landowner

case and Hresil is an invitee. Therefore, the relevant duty is Sears’s obligation to protect

4. No. Delgado was an invitee to whom Trax owed a duty of reasonable care to keep the

premises reasonably safe. That duty can include an obligation to take reasonable steps to

guard against harm coming to the invitee at the hands of third parties who are on the

5. Performance was not liable on respondeat superior grounds. With the accident occurring as

Weese drove home from work, Weese was outside the scope of employment at that time.

Neither was Performance liable for negligent hiring. Although Performance failed to verify

that Weese had a driver’s license when he was hired (and also failed to check Weese’s driving

7-1

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

Chapter 07 – Negligence and Strict Liability

6. The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the

case for a new trial because the legal instructions had the potential to confuse the jury and to

do so in a way that gave an unfair advantage to the defendant. Hence, a new trial was

7. The Supreme Court of Indiana holds that the trial court correctly denied Kroger’s motion for

summary judgment and that the Indiana Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the

summary judgment denial. The court noted other courts’ decisions establishing that a

8. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that the trial court wrongly granted summary judgment

in Carolina Forge’s favor. Given the nature of the business trip (which was sole reason why

Garris and Billlups were sent to Joplin) and given Carolina Forge’s allowance of considerable

9. Yes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that the applicable proximate

cause test under Texas law (which controlled the case) was whether the defendants “might by

the exercise of ordinary care have foreseen that some similar injury [similar to what occurred

10. No. Acrylonitrile is one of a large number of hazardous chemicals shipped in highest volume

on the nation’s railroads. Among the other materials that rank higher on the hazard scale are

phosphorous (number 1), anhydrous ammonia, liquified petroleum gas, vinyl chloride,

gasoline, crude petroleum, motor fuel antiknock compound, methyl and ethyl chloride,

sulfuric acid, and chloroform. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit observed

that the logic of the district court’s opinion would dictate strict liability for all 52 materials

7-2

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

Chapter 07 – Negligence and Strict Liability

11. Yes, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In light of the facts,

APCO had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of potential histoplasmosis risks

and therefore did not owe Hoschar a duty of reasonable care. There was no evidence that

12. The South Carolina Supreme Court held that in view of South Carolina’s adoption of

comparative negligence, implied assumption of risk no longer is a complete defense to

recovery in a negligence case. Instead, it is one of the factors to be balanced against the

7-3

manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.