Question 1

Compliance with a legislative enactment or administrative regulation does not prevent a finding of negligence if a reasonable person would have taken additional precautions to avoid harm.

Accepted Answer

Compliance with a legal or administrative requirement does not absolve someone of negligence if additional precautions could have been taken. In other words, even if someone did everything legally required of them, they can still be found negligent if they could have taken further steps to prevent harm.

Question 2

Tom's dog has bitten three mail carriers, but Tom can't bear to chain him up.When the dog bites the newsboy, Tom will be strictly liable.

Accepted Answer

Strict liability means that the owner is responsible for any harm caused by their dog, regardless of whether they were aware of the dog's potential to be harmful or not. In this case, since Tom's dog has already bitten three mail carriers, it is reasonable to assume that Tom should have known the dog could pose a danger to others. Therefore, if the dog bites the newsboy, Tom will be held strictly liable for the injury.

Question 3

If a raccoon gets loose from a cage and harms someone, the owner can escape liability by showing that he took great care to keep the animal confined.

Accepted Answer

As a general rule, owners of wild animals are strictly liable for harms caused by their animals, regardless of whether they made efforts to keep the animal constrained. Therefore, the owner cannot escape liability by showing that he took great care to keep the raccoon confined.

Question 4

In most of the states, a sixteen-year-old who drives a car will be held to the same standard of care in driving as an adult for purposes of determining negligence.

Accepted Answer

In most states, sixteen-year-olds with a driver's license are considered to have the same level of responsibility as adult drivers when it comes to determining negligence in car accidents. This means they are expected to exercise reasonable care and caution while driving, just like any other driver on the road. However, some states may have different laws regarding the level of care expected from young or inexperienced drivers.

Question 5

In some instances, people may be held liable for injuries they have caused even though they have not acted intentionally or negligently.

Accepted Answer

This is known as strict liability, where a person or company can be held responsible for harm caused by their actions or products even if they took reasonable precautions and did not intend for the harm to occur. Examples include cases involving defective products, hazardous activities, and keeping dangerous animals.

Question 6

In the majority of states, in a case of negligence per se , the plaintiff would only have to prove violation of a statute in order to show negligent conduct.

Accepted Answer

In negligence per se cases, the plaintiff can establish negligence by showing that the defendant violated a statute or regulation designed to protect the plaintiff from the type of harm suffered. In most states, violation of a statute or regulation creates a presumption of negligence, meaning the plaintiff does not have to prove the defendant's conduct was unreasonable or breached a duty of care.

Question 7

A violation of a statute constitutes negligence per se regardless of whether the injured party is a member of the class protected by the statute.

Accepted Answer

Negligence per se requires that the injured party be a member of the class that the statute was designed to protect, and the injury must be of the type that the statute was intended to prevent.

Question 8

Liability for the negligent conduct of a defendant requires not only that the conduct in fact caused injury to the plaintiff but also that it was the proximate cause of the injury.

Accepted Answer

Liability for negligence requires both actual causation and proximate causation. Actual causation refers to the fact that the defendant's conduct was the cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injury, while proximate causation refers to the legal or policy reasons why a defendant should be held responsible for the injury. Proximate cause limits liability to those injuries that are a foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct.

Question 9

In applying the reasonable person standard, the court takes into account a person's physical, but not mental, handicaps.

Accepted Answer

The reasonable person standard takes into account a person's physical limitations or disabilities, but not their mental state. It is based on how a hypothetical person with ordinary prudence would act in the same situation.

Question 10

Even if a defendant's own negligent conduct created an emergency, he will not be liable for the consequences of the conduct if he acted with care in the resulting emergency situation.

Accepted Answer

A defendant may still be liable for the consequences of an emergency they created through their own negligence, even if they acted with care during the emergency, because their initial negligent act set the events in motion.

Question 11

A defendant will be liable for all harm that can be traced back to the defendant's negligence.

Accepted Answer

A defendant will only be liable for harm that is both a foreseeable consequence of their negligence and directly related to it, not for all possible harm that can be traced back to their actions.

Question 12

If negligence of the plaintiff and negligence of the defendant proximately caused the injury and damage sustained by the plaintiff, the plaintiff can recover some damages in those states where contributory negligence is still recognized.

Accepted Answer

In states where contributory negligence is recognized, if the plaintiff is found to be even slightly negligent, they cannot recover any damages from the defendant.

Question 13

The Love v.Hardee's Food Systems, Inc.case dealt with the responsibility of the owner or possessor of property to an invitee to warn of, remove, or barricade a dangerous condition of the premises.

Accepted Answer

The Love v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc. case did indeed deal with the responsibility of the owner or possessor of property to warn of, remove, or barricade a dangerous condition of the premises to an invitee.

Question 14

A blind person will be held to the standard of care of the reasonable blind person rather than that of the reasonable sighted person for purposes of determining negligence.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the "reasonable blind person standard" and acknowledges that blind individuals may take different precautions and have different limitations compared to sighted individuals. It is used to determine negligence in cases where a blind person may have caused or contributed to an accident.

Question 15

All intervening events that occur subsequent to the defendant's negligent conduct will relieve the defendant of liability.

Accepted Answer

This statement is false. The defendant may still be held liable if their negligent conduct is found to have contributed to the plaintiff's injuries, even if other events occurred that also played a role. This is known as the "but-for" test, meaning that but for the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff would not have suffered harm.

Question 16

The standard of conduct which is the basis for the law of negligence is usually determined by a cost-benefit or risk-benefit analysis.

Accepted Answer

The standard of conduct in the law of negligence is determined by a cost-benefit or risk-benefit analysis. This means that a person's actions are judged by whether a reasonable person would have recognized the risk and taken steps to prevent harm, weighing the costs and benefits of those actions. If a reasonable person would have done something different under the circumstances, the person accused of negligence may be liable for damages.

Question 17

The general rule for the standard of care used in tort law is: a person is under a duty to all others at all times to exercise reasonable care for the safety of other persons and their property.

Accepted Answer

This is the standard of care used in tort law, as established by case law and recognized by courts in the United States.

Question 18

Under the Second Restatement, the owner of land is liable to adult trespassers for failure to maintain the land in a reasonably safe condition.

Accepted Answer

Under the Second Restatement, the owner of land is generally not liable to adult trespassers for failure to maintain the land in a reasonably safe condition, except for intentional or reckless harm, or under specific exceptions such as known, frequent trespassers in areas where artificial conditions pose a risk of death or serious bodily harm.

Question 19

A reasonable person, as used in the law of torts, is a fictitious individual who is always careful, prudent, and never negligent.

Accepted Answer

The "reasonable person" standard in tort law is a legal fiction that represents how a typical, prudent, rational person would act in certain circumstances, serving as a benchmark for determining negligence.

Question 20

A "reasonable person standard" does not apply to children since they do not have the judgment, intelligence, knowledge, or experience of adults.

Accepted Answer

The "reasonable person standard" is modified when applied to children, taking into account their age, intelligence, and experience, rather than holding them to an adult standard of behavior.

Quiz 8: Negligence and Strict Liabilitypart Iii: Contracts