Question 1

Which of the following is not associated with the scope of employment?

Accepted Answer

All of the choices listed are associated with the scope of employment. The "coming and going rule" generally states that employees are not acting within the scope of employment when they are commuting to and from work. The "frolic and detour rule" differentiates between minor detours (still within the scope of employment) and major detours or frolics (outside the scope of employment). "Respondeat superior" is a legal doctrine that holds an employer liable for the actions of an employee when those actions take place within the scope of employment.

Question 2

Many state legislatures have enacted motor vehicle vicarious liability statutes.

Accepted Answer

Many state legislatures have enacted motor vehicle vicarious liability statutes to hold vehicle owners responsible for damages caused by the negligent operation of their vehicles by others.

Question 3

Licensees are persons invited onto another's land.

Accepted Answer

Licensees are not merely invited onto another's land; they are individuals who have permission to be on the property for their own purposes, not for the benefit of the property owner, distinguishing them from invitees who are invited for the benefit of the property owner.

Question 4

In motor vehicle consent statutes,

Accepted Answer

Motor vehicle consent statutes typically impose vicarious liability on the owner of a vehicle for the negligence of individuals who are permitted to drive the owner's vehicle. This means if someone is driving your car with your permission and causes an accident due to negligence, you, as the owner, could be held legally responsible for damages resulting from that negligence.

Question 5

Respondeat superior is normally associated with which type of negligence case?

Accepted Answer

Respondeat superior is a legal doctrine most commonly associated with vicarious liability, where an employer is held liable for the actions of its employees performed within the scope of their employment.

Question 6

In vicarious liability, the ______ is liable for the torts of the _______.

Accepted Answer

In vicarious liability, the principal (such as an employer) is held liable for the torts (wrongful acts) committed by the agent (such as an employee) in the course of their employment.

Question 7

The theory of absolute liability and the theory of negligence per se are essentially the same.

Accepted Answer

The theory of absolute liability holds a party responsible for damages caused by their actions regardless of fault or negligence, whereas negligence per se involves a violation of a statute or regulation that automatically deems the violator negligent.

Question 8

Scope of employment means the range of conduct that an employer expects an employee to perform as part of his or her job.

Accepted Answer

Scope of employment refers to the activities an employee is reasonably expected to perform as part of their job duties, which are typically defined by the nature of the employment, the employer's instructions, or the business's needs.

Question 9

A person who hires an independent contractor is usually liable for the independent contractor's torts.

Accepted Answer

Generally, a person who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor's torts because the hiring party does not have direct control over how the independent contractor performs their work.

Question 10

Lauren walked into a grocery store to buy some vegetables. As she walked down an aisle, she slipped on some spilled milk and fell down, breaking her arm. For purposes of premises liability, Lauren would be classified as

Accepted Answer

Lauren would be classified as an invitee because she entered the grocery store for the purpose of doing business, which benefits the owner of the premises. Invitees are owed the highest duty of care, including the responsibility to keep the premises reasonably safe.

Question 11

Keeping in mind any applicable defenses, which of the following examples best shows negligence per se?

Accepted Answer

Bubba's failure to clean the grill as required by the local health code constitutes negligence per se.

Question 12

Treyvon walked into a construction site after working hours. He slipped and fell into an open pit, injuring himself. For purposes of premises liability, Treyvon would be classified as

Accepted Answer

Treyvon would be classified as a trespasser because he entered the construction site without permission, especially after working hours, indicating he did not have the legal right to be on the property at that time.

Question 13

The coming and going rule

Accepted Answer

The coming and going rule generally states that employers are not vicariously liable for the actions of their employees while they are commuting to or from their place of work. This is because the employees are not considered to be acting within the scope of their employment during their commute.

Question 14

In some jurisdictions, recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress is partially limited to cases in which the plaintiff witnesses serious injury to a family member.

Accepted Answer

Many jurisdictions require a plaintiff to have a close familial relationship with the injured person and to have been present at the scene of the injury (and to have perceived it) in order to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress. This is often referred to as the "bystander" or "direct victim" rule.

Question 15

As a general rule, employers are vicariously liable for torts committed by employees as they come from and go to work.

Accepted Answer

Employers are generally not vicariously liable for torts committed by employees as they commute to and from work, as this is considered outside the scope of employment.

Question 16

The special negligence rule that applies to trespassing children is called attractive nuisance.

Accepted Answer

The attractive nuisance doctrine is a legal principle that holds property owners liable for injuries to children who trespass on their land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition that is likely to attract children.

Question 17

With regard to vicarious liability, employment is an essential element in proving the principal/agent relationship.

Accepted Answer

Employment is not essential for vicarious liability; the principal/agent relationship can exist outside of formal employment, such as in independent contractor situations.

Question 18

Mike is a door-to-door salesperson. As he walks to Holly's apartment door, he slips on a roller skate. For purposes of premises liability, Mike would be classified as

Accepted Answer

Mike would be classified as a licensee because he enters the property for his own purpose (selling products) but with the occupant's permission, implied or explicit. Unlike invitees, who are invited for the benefit of the property owner, licensees enter for their own purposes.

Question 19

An independent contractor is distinguishable from an employee because

Accepted Answer

All of these choices are correct distinctions between an independent contractor and an employee. Independent contractors typically supply their own tools, do not have social security taxes withheld by the employer, and have more control over how they perform their work, highlighting their independence from the employer's direct control.

Question 20

Many states have abolished the three-tier landowner standards of care.

Accepted Answer

Many states have moved away from the traditional three-tier system of landowner liability (invitee, licensee, trespasser) in favor of a more unified standard of reasonable care.

Quiz 4: Special Negligence Actions