Question 1

Comparative negligence has replaced the contributory negligence doctrine in most states.

Accepted Answer

Comparative negligence is the legal principle where a plaintiff's compensation is reduced by their degree of fault in contributing to their own injury. Most states have adopted some form of comparative negligence as a fairer alternative to the harsh contributory negligence doctrine, which barred any recovery by a plaintiff who was even partially responsible for their own injury.

Question 2

A possessor of land is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against dangerous conditions they are unlikely to discover.

Accepted Answer

This statement is correct. Landowners have a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect those who enter their property, especially if there are hidden dangerous conditions that the invitees are unlikely to discover on their own. Failure to do so could result in the landowner being held liable for any injuries or harm caused to the invitee.

Question 3

A tiger gets loose from the tent of a circus and mauls a passerby.The circus claims it has always treated the animal well and that it was not at all negligent in its handling of the animal.The circus has no liability for the injury caused by the animal.

Accepted Answer

The circus may still be held liable for the injury caused by the animal, even if they claim to have treated it well and not been negligent in its handling. They have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the public, and failing to do so could result in legal liability.

Question 4

The Third Restatement of Torts limits the defense of assumption of risk to express assumption of the risk.

Accepted Answer

The Third Restatement of Torts limits assumption of risk to express assumption of the risk, meaning the plaintiff has explicitly and knowingly agreed to assume the risk involved in a particular activity or situation. Implied assumption of the risk is not recognized as a defense under the Third Restatement.

Question 5

The general rule in negligence is that a person is under a duty to all others at all times to exercise reasonable care for the safety of others.

Accepted Answer

This is the basic principle of negligence law.

Question 6

If a defendant acts under emergency conditions,these conditions will be taken into account in applying the reasonable person standard.

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of necessity recognizes that individuals may be excused from criminal liability if their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm or evil. In such cases, the reasonable person standard takes into account the emergency conditions under which the defendant acted.

Question 7

There is an established rule in the law of torts that even one who has not created a peril has a duty to take affirmative action to assist an imperiled person when there is little or no personal risk to the rescuer.

Accepted Answer

In the law of torts, generally, there is no duty to rescue or assist someone in peril unless a specific relationship exists between the parties (e.g., parent-child, carrier-passenger) or the person has created the peril.

Question 8

Because of the harshness of the all-or-nothing contributory negligence rule,nearly all states have now substituted the last clear chance doctrine for contributory negligence.

Accepted Answer

Most states have adopted comparative negligence instead of the all-or-nothing contributory negligence rule, not the last clear chance doctrine. The last clear chance doctrine allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they were also negligent, provided the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident. Comparative negligence, on the other hand, allocates damages based on the degree of fault of each party.

Question 9

A number of states have included social guests in the invitee category,although they have traditionally been labeled as licensees.

Accepted Answer

Some states have redefined their categorization of social guests from licensees to invitees.

Question 10

A social guest is a public invitee.

Accepted Answer

A social guest is considered a licensee, not a public invitee, because they are invited to enter or remain on the property for a non-business purpose by the property owner.

Question 11

A licensee for purposes of tort law is a person invited upon land as a member of the public or for a business purpose.

Accepted Answer

A licensee in tort law is someone who enters the property of another with the property owner's permission for their own purpose or business, not for the property owner's benefit, which contrasts with an invitee who is invited as a member of the public or for a business purpose that benefits the property owner.

Question 12

Ted is informed that his eight-year-old child is shooting in the street with a .22 rifle.Ted fails to take the gun away from the child.The child unintentionally shoots Carlton,a pedestrian.Ted is liable to Carlton.

Accepted Answer

Ted had a duty to prevent his child from possessing and using a dangerous weapon. He failed to fulfill that duty, and as a result, someone was injured. Therefore, he would be held liable for the damages caused by his child's actions.

Question 13

If Nadja's 180-pound Saint Bernard dog has a tendency to jump enthusiastically on visitors,Nadja would not be liable for any damages done by the dog's playfulness.

Accepted Answer

Nadja could be liable for damages done by her dog's behavior, especially if she was aware of the dog's tendency to jump on visitors and did not take reasonable steps to prevent it.

Question 14

In determining a defendant's liability for negligence,his or her superior skill or knowledge will be attributed in applying the reasonable person standard,thus increasing the chance that the defendant may be held liable.

Accepted Answer

This concept is known as the "standard of care" and is based on the idea that individuals with greater skill or knowledge have a higher duty to act with reasonable care than those without such expertise. Therefore, if a defendant with superior skill or knowledge fails to meet the reasonable person standard, they may be held liable for negligence.

Question 15

Res ipsa loquitur makes it easier for the defendant to prevail in a negligence action.

Accepted Answer

Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that they were not negligent, making it more difficult for the defendant to prevail in a negligence action.

Question 16

Special relations between the parties,such as babysitter and child,may impose a duty of reasonable care to aid or protect the child in situations where the duty would not otherwise exist.

Accepted Answer

This is true. Certain relationships, such as those between a babysitter and child, create a special duty of care beyond what would normally be expected under the law. This means that the caregiver must take reasonable steps to protect or assist the child in situations where harm could occur.

Question 17

A widely applied test for causation in fact is the "but-for" test.

Accepted Answer

This is true. The "but-for" test asks whether an event would have occurred if the alleged cause had not been present. If the answer is no, then the alleged cause is considered to be a factual cause of the event.

Question 18

Negligence per se is a defense in a negligence case.

Accepted Answer

Negligence per se is not a defense in a negligence case, but rather a form of proving negligence by showing a violation of a statute or regulation that was meant to prevent the type of harm that occurred.

Question 19

Even though contributory negligence is proven by a defendant in a state in which it acts as a complete bar to recovery,the plaintiff may still recover if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the injury but did not avail himself of the chance.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the "last clear chance" doctrine, which allows the plaintiff to recover even if they were partially at fault if the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the harm and failed to do so.

Question 20

The Third Restatement of Torts has abandoned the doctrine of implied voluntary assumption of risk in tort actions.

Accepted Answer

The Third Restatement of Torts does not recognize the doctrine of implied voluntary assumption of risk as a defense in tort actions.

Quiz 8: Negligence and Strict Liability