Question 1

There are no defenses available for strict liability; it is imposed absolutely.

Accepted Answer

In strict liability cases, defenses such as assumption of risk or contributory negligence may be available, depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case.

Question 2

Mark is out sailing in his boat one evening when he hears a young girl crying for help in the middle of the lake.Which of the following is true?
A) Mark must help the girl or he will be liable for negligence.
B) Mark must help the girl only if he knows her.
C) Mark must help the girl if he is the girl's uncle.
D) Mark must help the girl if he begins to rescue her and increases her danger.

Accepted Answer

This situation falls under the legal doctrine of "duty to rescue" which means that if Mark starts to rescue the girl and fails to complete the rescue in a reasonable manner, he may be liable for her injuries or death. Therefore, Mark must help the girl if he begins to rescue her but must do so in a reasonable manner and not increase her danger.

Question 3

Chris was driving a car with defective brakes very slowly down Fifth Avenue looking for a parking place.Mindy jumped out into the street five feet in front of his car.Chris could not help but hit her.What is Chris's best defense to the charge of negligence?
A) Mindy had a mental deficiency.
B) He was not negligent since he did not have a statutory duty to keep his brakes in top condition.
C) Mindy crossed in the middle of the street, which is against the law.
D) He was lawfully seeking a parking place and did not see her jump out.

Accepted Answer

DChris's best defenses to the charge of negligence are that Mindy crossed in the middle of the street, which is against the law, and he was lawfully seeking a parking place and did not see her jump out. These defenses suggest that Chris was not acting negligently under the circumstances and that Mindy's actions contributed to the accident.

Question 4

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would permit the court to infer negligence in which of the following situations?
A) A rung on a brand new ladder broke under the weight of a worker's foot.
B) A sign over a storefront fell on your head.
C) A patron of a restaurant slipped on a wet spot on the floor from a drink she had just spilled.
D) You got sick from eating a bagged salad that was tainted with e coli .

Accepted Answer

The answer of The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would...

Question 5

A duty to act is imposed on those whose innocent conduct has injured another and left him helpless and in danger of further harm.

Accepted Answer

This statement is true. The duty to act in such a situation exists because the injured person is helpless and in danger, and someone must take action to avoid further harm. This duty is often referred to as the duty to rescue.

Question 6

While comparative negligence is generally not a defense in a strict liability case, contributory negligence generally is a successful defense.

Accepted Answer

Comparative negligence and contributory negligence are both potential defenses in negligence cases, but in strict liability cases, the defendant is typically liable regardless of the plaintiff's conduct. Therefore, comparative negligence is generally not a defense in strict liability cases. However, contributory negligence can still be a successful defense, meaning that if the plaintiff's own actions contributed to their injuries in any way, they may not be able to recover damages.

Question 7

Which of the following is correct with respect to the reasonable person standard?
A) It makes allowance for mental deficiency.
B) It holds someone with a physical disability to the same standard as someone without such disability.
C) It applies an individualized test to children that takes into consideration the child's age, intelligence, and experience.
D) All of these are true

Accepted Answer

The reasonable person standard applies an individualized test to children, considering factors such as the child's age, intelligence, and experience. This standard does not make allowances for mental deficiencies in adults nor does it hold someone with a physical disability to the same standard as someone without such disability; accommodations and considerations are typically made based on the individual's specific circumstances.

Question 8

Abnormally dangerous activity strict liability is imposed for any activity that (1) creates a highly significant risk of harm and (2) is one of common usage.

Accepted Answer

Abnormally dangerous activity strict liability is imposed for any activity that (1) creates a highly significant risk of harm and (2) is not one of common usage.

Question 9

If Janice, while driving her car, negligently runs into Paul, a pedestrian who is carefully crossing the street, Janice is liable for:
A) physical injuries Paul sustains from the collision because Janice's negligent conduct proximately caused harm to a legally protected interest.
B) offensive contact if her side mirror brushes against Paul, even if there are no physical injuries to him.
C) offensive contact if her car touches Paul's coat, even if there is no damage to the coat.
D) All of these.

Accepted Answer

The answer of If Janice, while driving her car, negligently...

Question 10

Under the Second Restatement, a possessor of land must warn licensees of dangerous conditions of which the possessor has knowledge and the licensees do not and which they are not likely to discover.

Accepted Answer

Under the Second Restatement of Torts, a possessor of land has a duty to warn licensees (individuals who enter the land with the possessor's permission for their own purposes rather than for the possessor's benefit) of any dangerous conditions on the property of which the possessor is aware, but the licensee is not, and which the licensee is unlikely to discover on their own.

Question 11

If a person's 150-pound sheep dog has a propensity to jump enthusiastically on visitors, the animal's keeper would be liable for any damages done by the dog's playfulness.

Accepted Answer

Owners are responsible for the behavior of their pets and can be held liable for any damages caused by their actions. It is important for pet owners to train their animals and take measures to prevent any unwanted behaviors, such as jumping on visitors.

Question 12

A number of states have abolished or modified the defense of implied assumption of risk.

Accepted Answer

Implied assumption of risk has been abolished or modified in various states, meaning that the defense may not be valid in certain situations or may be limited in its application.

Question 13

By law, all apartment buildings in the state where Morgan lives must have smoke alarms in the ceilings.Morgan suffers smoke inhalation during a fire when she could not get out quickly enough because the smoke alarm in her apartment building was not yet installed.To win a negligence action against the building owner, Morgan would have to prove:
A) a duty existed toward her.
B) a breach of that duty.
C) injury and causation.
D) All of these.

Accepted Answer

The answer of By law, all apartment buildings in the...

Question 14

Some states have today merged the implied assumption of risk doctrine into their comparative negligence systems.

Accepted Answer

Some states have merged the implied assumption of risk doctrine into their comparative negligence systems. This means that a plaintiff's recovery may be reduced by the percentage of fault assigned to them, even if they assumed the risk of the activity or situation that caused their injury.

Question 15

All intervening causes of harm are also superseding causes.

Accepted Answer

Intervening causes may contribute to harm, but they do not necessarily completely supersede the original cause. A superseding cause is one that breaks the chain of causation and absolves the original actor of liability.

Question 16

A person is not under a general duty to avoid the unintentional infliction of economic loss.

Accepted Answer

Generally, a person is not liable for negligence that results in unintentional economic loss to another person. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule, such as when there is a special relationship between the parties or when the negligence causes physical harm that in turn leads to economic loss.

Question 17

The "but for" test is useful when two or more forces, each of which is sufficient to bring about the harm in question, are actively operating.

Accepted Answer

The "but for" test is typically used to establish causation by determining whether the harm would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct. It is less effective in situations where multiple sufficient causes are present, and alternative tests like the "substantial factor" test may be more appropriate.

Question 18

Henry was burning leaves in his backyard.One of the burning leaves was lifted by the wind into Bob's yard next door.It landed on the lawnmower which exploded, setting fire to the wooden lawn furniture.Henry's best argument against liability to Bob would be:
A) the leaf was not a substantial factor in causing the damage.
B) the gasoline in the lawnmower is a superseding cause of the damage.
C) it was not foreseeable that the lawnmower would explode.
D) the damage was not caused by the leaf but by the gasoline.

Accepted Answer

Henry's best argument against liability would be that it was not foreseeable that the lawnmower would explode as a result of a burning leaf being carried into Bob's yard. This argument focuses on the unpredictability of the specific chain of events leading to the damage.

Question 19

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 replaced the contributory negligence rule with the comparative negligence system, 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 20

For an action of negligence, six elements must be proved.

Accepted Answer

For an action of negligence, typically only four elements must be proved: duty, breach, causation, and damages.

Quiz 8: Negligence and Strict Liabilitypart Iii: Contracts

There are no defenses available for strict liability; it is imposed absolutely.

Mark is out sailing in his boat one evening when he hears a young girl crying for help in the middle of the lake.Which of the following is true?

Chris was driving a car with defective brakes very slowly down Fifth Avenue looking for a parking place.Mindy jumped out into the street five feet in front of his car.Chris could not help but hit her.What is Chris's best defense to the charge of negligence?

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would permit the court to infer negligence in which of the following situations?