Question 1

Express voluntary assumption of the risk is a defense to an action based upon strict liability.

Accepted Answer

Express voluntary assumption of the risk is a defense in strict liability cases because the plaintiff knowingly and willingly accepted the risk associated with the activity or product.

Question 2

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 is known as the "standard of care" and holds individuals with more skill or knowledge to a higher standard than the average person. This can increase the likelihood of their being held liable for negligence.

Question 3

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.

Accepted Answer

In jurisdictions where contributory negligence is a complete bar to recovery, the "last clear chance" doctrine allows a plaintiff to recover if the defendant had the final opportunity to avoid the accident but failed to do so.

Question 4

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

Accepted Answer

The reasonable person standard takes into account the circumstances and knowledge of the defendant at the time of their actions. If the defendant acted under emergency conditions, it would be considered in determining if their actions were reasonable under the circumstances. This is known as the "emergency doctrine."

Question 5

All states have enacted workers' compensation statutes that make employers liable to employees for injuries arising out of the course of employment. Because the law imposes this liability without regard to the employer's negligence, it is a form of strict liability.

Accepted Answer

Workers' compensation statutes indeed impose a form of strict liability on employers for employee injuries arising out of the course of employment, meaning the employer is liable regardless of fault or negligence.

Question 6

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, no matter what the relationship with that person, when the imperiled person can be saved from harm at little or no personal risk to the rescuer.

Accepted Answer

Generally, under the law of torts, there is no duty to rescue or assist someone in peril unless a specific relationship exists between the parties (e.g., parent-child, employer-employee) or the person has created the peril. The statement describes a broader duty than what is typically recognized in tort law.

Question 7

The plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligent conduct proximately caused harm to a legally protected interest in order to have a valid negligence action.

Accepted Answer

In a negligence action, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant's breach of duty (negligent conduct) was the proximate cause of the harm suffered, which affected a legally protected interest, such as personal safety or property.

Question 8

Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself" and it permits the jury to infer negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain types of events.

Accepted Answer

Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine that allows the fact of an accident's occurrence to imply negligence when the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not happen without negligence, and it was caused by an agent or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant.

Question 9

If an intervening cause is deemed to be a superseding cause, it does not relieve the defendant of liability for that harm.

Accepted Answer

An intervening cause deemed to be a superseding cause breaks the chain of causation from the defendant's actions to the harm, thereby relieving the defendant of liability for that harm.

Question 10

By law, bystanders are always required to help others in peril.

Accepted Answer

Laws requiring bystanders to help others in peril, known as "Good Samaritan" laws, vary by jurisdiction. Not all places have laws that obligate bystanders to assist, and where such laws exist, the requirements and protections offered can differ significantly.

Question 11

Negligence per se is a defense in a negligence case.

Accepted Answer

Negligence per se is not a defense in a negligence case. It is a doctrine that allows a plaintiff to establish a defendant's breach of duty by showing that the defendant violated a statute or regulation that was intended to prevent the type of harm that occurred. It does not excuse the defendant's negligence, but rather provides a shortcut for proving it.

Question 12

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

Accepted Answer

The "but for" rule is a widely applied test for causation in fact, used to determine if a particular event (e.g., an injury) would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct.

Question 13

Robert, a salesperson for Brightway Home Products, made a sales call at the Todds' house. The Todds have no duty of care toward Robert regarding the condition of their property since Robert was not an invitee or a licensee.

Accepted Answer

Robert, as a salesperson invited to the Todds' house for the purpose of conducting business, would typically be considered a licensee. Homeowners have a duty of care to ensure the safety of licensees by warning them of non-obvious dangers that the homeowner is aware of.

Question 14

Under the Restatement  Second   Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm , a possessor of land has a legal duty to warn business invitees of obvious dangers that invitees should be able to discover themselves.

Accepted Answer

Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a possessor of land is not typically required to warn business invitees of obvious dangers that are reasonably expected to be discovered by the invitee.

Question 15

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 under the legal principle of strict liability, which holds owners responsible for any harm caused by their animals regardless of negligence or intention. The circus may also be held liable if it can be shown that it was negligent in its handling or care of the animal.

Question 16

Under the Restatement  Second   Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm , 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, for purposes of tort law under the Restatement Second of Torts, is someone who enters or remains on land with the landowner's permission for their own purposes or benefit, rather than for the landowner's benefit, which is distinct from an invitee who is invited as a member of the public or for a business purpose.

Question 17

In the majority of states, a defendant is liable for negligently inflicted emotional distress, even in the absence of resultant physical harm.

Accepted Answer

In many jurisdictions, a claim for negligently inflicted emotional distress requires the plaintiff to also show some form of physical harm or injury, unless the case falls under certain exceptions, such as being a bystander to a traumatic event.

Question 18

The duty of employers includes the duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring, training, supervising, and retaining employees. This duty is independent of the vicarious liability of an employer for an employee's tortious conduct during the course of employment.

Accepted Answer

Employers have a duty to exercise reasonable care in the hiring, training, supervising, and retaining of employees, which is separate from the concept of vicarious liability, where an employer may be held liable for the actions of an employee if those actions occur in the course of their employment. This duty emphasizes the importance of preventive measures and due diligence in managing employees.

Question 19

Ray is informed that his six-year-old child is shooting in the street with a handgun. Ray fails to take the gun away from the child. The child unintentionally shoots Bill, a pedestrian. Ray is liable to Bill.

Accepted Answer

Ray's failure to act upon knowing his child was in possession of a handgun and was using it in a dangerous manner (shooting in the street) directly contributed to the harm caused to Bill. As a parent, Ray had a duty to control his child's actions to prevent foreseeable harm to others, which he neglected.

Question 20

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, making it easier for the plaintiff to prove negligence.

Quiz 8: Negligence and Strict Liability