Question 1

Richard, an engineer, supervises the construction of a new mountainside roadway. When the road collapses in a landslide due to faulty grading, Richard is sued by motorists and hikers injured in the collapse. As a professional, Richard is held to the same standard of care as​

Accepted Answer

As an engineer, Richard is held to the same standard of care as other engineers in his field. This means that he is expected to take reasonable precautions and use his professional expertise to ensure the safety of the roadway. If he fails to do so, he may be held liable for any injuries or damages that result from his negligence. The other answer choices are not applicable to Richard's profession as an engineer.

Question 2

An Illinois state statute requires amusement parks to maintain equipment in certain condition for the protection of patrons. Jasper's Fun Park fails to maintain its equipment. Kaitlin, a patron, is thereby injured. Jasper's committed​

Accepted Answer

Jasper's Fun Park committed negligence by failing to maintain its equipment, which resulted in injury to Kaitlin. Negligence refers to a failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another person. The state statute requiring amusement parks to maintain their equipment in a certain condition creates a duty of care owed to the park patrons, and Jasper's Fun Park breached that duty by failing to maintain its equipment. Therefore, Jasper's Fun Park can be held liable for the injury suffered by Kaitlin under the theory of negligence.

Question 3

Precision Craft, Inc., makes tools. While using a Precision tool to replace an electrical fixture, Stan neglects to shut off the power and is electrocuted. Stan's heirs file a suit against Precision. In a contributory negligence jurisdiction, the plaintiffs could recover​

Accepted Answer

In a contributory negligence jurisdiction, if the plaintiff was even slightly negligent, they cannot recover anything from the defendant. Therefore, in this scenario, since Stan was negligent in neglecting to shut off the power, the plaintiffs cannot recover anything from Precision.

Question 4

Cal is driving a car in which Duff is a passenger when an accident occurs. Cal and Duff are emotionally rattled, but neither is physically hurt. Cal is not liable to Duff on a negligence theory because​

Accepted Answer

Duff was not injured, which is a necessary element for a negligence claim. Negligence requires that the plaintiff suffer actual harm or injury, which did not occur in this scenario.

Question 5

Omar, a driver for Piece'a Pizza Delivery Service, causes a multi-vehicle accident on a city street. Omar and Piece'a Pizza are liable to​

Accepted Answer

Omar and Piece'a Pizza are liable to only those whose injuries could have been reasonably foreseen. This means that they are responsible for any injuries or damages that were a direct result of their actions and could have been anticipated as a foreseeable consequence. They would not be liable for damages caused by unforeseeable events or for injuries that were not a direct result of the accident.

Question 6

Dixie, a driver for Express Delivery Company, leaves the truck's motor running in neutral and carelessly forgets to set the parking brake while she makes a delivery. The truck rolls and crashes into a nearby gas station pump, igniting a fire that spreads quickly to a construction site a block away. A burned wall collapses onto a crane, which falls on Fazio, a bystander, and injures him. What must Fazio show to recover damages from Express Delivery?​

Accepted Answer

The answer of Dixie, a driver for Express Delivery Company,...

Question 7

Elise, an emergency medical technician renders aid to a participant in Forest Trail Marathon, an athletic event. Regarding a suit by the participant against Elise for negligence, Elise is immune from liability under​

Accepted Answer

Elise, being an emergency medical technician rendering aid at an athletic event, could be protected by an applicable Good Samaritan statute. Good Samaritan laws are designed to protect individuals who offer assistance in emergency situations from being sued for negligence.

Question 8

A Georgia state statute requires commercial vehicle drivers to "fully attend to the operation of the vehicle." Hale, a driver for Interstate Trucking, Inc., is driving and talking on his cell phone when his rig collides with Jocelyn's car, injuring her. Jocelyn's best theory for recovery against Hale and Interstate Trucking is​

Accepted Answer

The Georgia state statute requiring commercial vehicle drivers to "fully attend to the operation of the vehicle" creates a duty of care for drivers, and violating this statute may constitute negligence per se. Jocelyn may argue that Hale's talking on his cell phone while driving violated this statute and thus he was negligent. Therefore, negligence per se is the best theory for recovery against Hale and Interstate Trucking. Neither the Good Samaritan statute, res ipsa loquitur, nor the "danger invites rescue" doctrine would apply in this situation.

Question 9

Ichiro is injured in a two-car accident and sues Heather, the driver of the other vehicle, alleging negligence. Heather claims that Ichiro was driving more carelessly than she was. Comparative negligence may reduce Ichiro's recovery​

Accepted Answer

Comparative negligence allows for a plaintiff's recovery to be reduced by the percentage of their fault, even if they were only slightly at fault. This means that if Ichiro was found to be at fault to any degree, his recovery could be reduced accordingly.

Question 10

Data Analytics, Inc., and eProducts Corporation market competing software products. Data Analytics launches an advertising campaign claiming that eProducts, instead of testing software before it is marketed, has customers "test" the software by using it. eProducts knows this is not true but begins to lose sales to Data Analytics. On what ground could eProducts sue Data Analytics for injury to eProducts' reputation?​

Accepted Answer

The answer of Data Analytics, Inc., and eProducts Corporation market...

Question 11

Driving his motorcycle negligently, Joe crashes into a streetlight. The streetlight falls onto Kim, who is standing nearby, resulting in her death. But for Joe's negligence, Kim would not have died. Regarding the death, the crash is​

Accepted Answer

The crash is the cause in fact because Joe's negligent driving directly led to the streetlight falling and causing Kim's death.

Question 12

Robin is a spectator at State Tennis Tournament, an athletic competition. Regarding the risk of injury, Robin assumes the risks​

Accepted Answer

Robin assumes the risks normally associated with the tournament. As a spectator, Robin is aware that tennis matches involve physical activity, balls being hit at high speeds, and players moving on the court, which are all risks normally associated with the tournament. Therefore, Robin assumes these risks by attending the tournament.

Quiz 4: Tort Law

Richard, an engineer, supervises the construction of a new mountainside roadway. When the road collapses in a landslide due to faulty grading, Richard is sued by motorists and hikers injured in the collapse. As a professional, Richard is held to the same standard of care as​

An Illinois state statute requires amusement parks to maintain equipment in certain condition for the protection of patrons. Jasper's Fun Park fails to maintain its equipment. Kaitlin, a patron, is thereby injured. Jasper's committed​

Precision Craft, Inc., makes tools. While using a Precision tool to replace an electrical fixture, Stan neglects to shut off the power and is electrocuted. Stan's heirs file a suit against Precision. In a contributory negligence jurisdiction, the plaintiffs could recover​

Cal is driving a car in which Duff is a passenger when an accident occurs. Cal and Duff are emotionally rattled, but neither is physically hurt. Cal is not liable to Duff on a negligence theory because​

Omar, a driver for Piece'a Pizza Delivery Service, causes a multi-vehicle accident on a city street. Omar and Piece'a Pizza are liable to​

Elise, an emergency medical technician renders aid to a participant in Forest Trail Marathon, an athletic event. Regarding a suit by the participant against Elise for negligence, Elise is immune from liability under​

Ichiro is injured in a two-car accident and sues Heather, the driver of the other vehicle, alleging negligence. Heather claims that Ichiro was driving more carelessly than she was. Comparative negligence may reduce Ichiro's recovery​

Driving his motorcycle negligently, Joe crashes into a streetlight. The streetlight falls onto Kim, who is standing nearby, resulting in her death. But for Joe's negligence, Kim would not have died. Regarding the death, the crash is​

Robin is a spectator at State Tennis Tournament, an athletic competition. Regarding the risk of injury, Robin assumes the risks​

Richard, an engineer, supervises the construction of a new mountainside roadway. When the road collapses in a landslide due to faulty grading, Richard is sued by motorists and hikers injured in the collapse. As a professional, Richard is held to the same standard of care as

An Illinois state statute requires amusement parks to maintain equipment in certain condition for the protection of patrons. Jasper's Fun Park fails to maintain its equipment. Kaitlin, a patron, is thereby injured. Jasper's committed

Precision Craft, Inc., makes tools. While using a Precision tool to replace an electrical fixture, Stan neglects to shut off the power and is electrocuted. Stan's heirs file a suit against Precision. In a contributory negligence jurisdiction, the plaintiffs could recover

Cal is driving a car in which Duff is a passenger when an accident occurs. Cal and Duff are emotionally rattled, but neither is physically hurt. Cal is not liable to Duff on a negligence theory because

Omar, a driver for Piece'a Pizza Delivery Service, causes a multi-vehicle accident on a city street. Omar and Piece'a Pizza are liable to

Elise, an emergency medical technician renders aid to a participant in Forest Trail Marathon, an athletic event. Regarding a suit by the participant against Elise for negligence, Elise is immune from liability under

Ichiro is injured in a two-car accident and sues Heather, the driver of the other vehicle, alleging negligence. Heather claims that Ichiro was driving more carelessly than she was. Comparative negligence may reduce Ichiro's recovery

Driving his motorcycle negligently, Joe crashes into a streetlight. The streetlight falls onto Kim, who is standing nearby, resulting in her death. But for Joe's negligence, Kim would not have died. Regarding the death, the crash is

Robin is a spectator at State Tennis Tournament, an athletic competition. Regarding the risk of injury, Robin assumes the risks