Question 1

With regard to torts, New Zealand differs from the United States in that:
A) events classified as torts in the United States do not occur in New Zealand
B) tort cases result in much higher payments to New Zealand victims than to US victims
C) events classified as torts in the United States occur, but personal injury suits for damages are not allowed
D) New Zealanders do not bring tort cases because of their history as a British colony
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

Events classified as torts in the United States also occur in New Zealand, but personal injury suits for damages are not allowed under the country's no-fault accident compensation system. Instead, a government agency handles compensation claims for personal injury, regardless of who caused the accident. This system is different from the US, where individuals can pursue personal injury suits against the party responsible for their injuries.

Question 2

A person has acted negligently if:
A) they were incapable of reaching the victim before the harm occurred
B) they tried to prevent the harm, but could not due to a lack of professional knowledge
C) their conduct was not that of a reasonable person
D) they admit to not liking the victim
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

Negligence is the failure to take reasonable care or precaution that a reasonable person would take in a similar situation. Therefore, if a person's conduct does not meet the standard of a reasonable person, they have acted negligently. Choices A, B, and D are not relevant to determining negligence based on the standard of care.

Question 3

With regard to torts, New Zealand differs from the United States in that:
A) events classified as torts in the United States do not occur in New Zealand
B) tort cases result in much higher payments to New Zealand victims than to US victims
C) tort cases occur in New Zealand, but result in much lower compensation payments
D) New Zealanders do not bring tort cases because of their history as a British colony
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The answer of With regard to torts, New Zealand differs...

Question 4

In a case in which a doctor is sued for negligence due to an accidentally botched surgery, the reasonable person standard would be that of:
A) an average college graduate
B) a recent graduate from medical school
C) a high school biology teacher
D) an average American
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

In cases of professional negligence, such as a botched surgery, the reasonable person standard is specific to the profession in question. Therefore, the standard would be that of a reasonably competent professional under similar circumstances, not an average person or professional from another field. None of the options provided (average college graduate, recent medical school graduate, high school biology teacher, or average American) accurately represent the standard of care expected from a practicing surgeon.

Question 5

With regard to torts, New Zealand differs from the United States in that:
A) personal injury tort suits are not allowed
B) personal injury tort suits must be filed within three days of the alleged harm occurring
C) personal injury tort suits have a maximum damage award
D) New Zealand tort law does not differ in any significant way
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

In New Zealand, personal injury tort suits are generally not allowed because the country has a comprehensive accident compensation scheme that covers personal injuries, regardless of fault. This system, known as the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), provides support to those injured, effectively removing the need for personal injury litigation in most cases.

Question 6

Ordinary care or due care is a standard of care that the law presumes:
A) the expert person meets
B) the standard person meets
C) the business owner meets
D) the average person meets
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The answer of Ordinary care or due care is a...

Question 7

To determine if a person's conduct was negligent, one asks:
A) what would the victim's best friend have done under the same or similar circumstances?
B) what would the victim's mother have done under the same or similar circumstances?
C) what would the victim have done under the same or similar circumstances?
D) what would a reasonable, qualified person have done under the same or similar circumstances?
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The standard for negligence is based on the conduct of a reasonable, qualified person under similar circumstances, not the victim or their loved ones. The focus is on the objectively reasonable behavior of a person in the same situation as the defendant, not what any particular individual would have done.

Question 8

Ordinary care or due care is a standard of care that the law presumes:
A) the expert person meets
B) the average person meets
C) the business owner meets
D) the reasonable person meets
E) the standard person meets

Accepted Answer

Due care or ordinary care is the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances. It is not based on the level of expertise or business ownership, but rather on what a reasonable person would do in that situation. Therefore, the best choice is D, the reasonable person meets.

Question 9

In Squish La Fish v. Thomco Specialty Products, involving an adhesive that did not work as claimed, the appeals court held that the claim of negligent misrepresentation:
A) failed because the defendant only recommended a product made by another company
B) failed because the defendant obtained no financial gain by the bad decision
C) failed because the plaintiff is a sophisticated business that could evaluate the product
D) could proceed because the defendant intended to extract a large payment from the plaintiff based on false information
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The appeals court held that the claim of negligent misrepresentation could proceed because the defendant provided false information that the plaintiff relied upon, regardless of the defendant's financial gain or the plaintiff's sophistication.

Question 10

In a case in which a doctor is sued for negligence due to an accidentally botched surgery, the reasonable person standard would be that of:
A) a reasonably skilled, competent and experienced doctor
B) a recent graduate from medical school
C) a high school biology teacher
D) an average American
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The reasonable person standard in a medical malpractice case would be that of a reasonably skilled, competent and experienced doctor. This means that the actions of the defendant doctor would be compared to those of a reasonable doctor under similar circumstances, taking into account the standard of care expected of the medical community. Graduation from medical school alone does not necessarily confer the level of skill and experience required for this standard, nor does being a high school biology teacher or an average American.

Question 11

Which of the following is not an element needed to show negligence:
A) the wrongdoer owed a duty of care to the injured party
B) a duty of care owed to the injured party was breached by an act of the wrongdoer
C) the wrongdoer intended to invade a protected interest of the injured party
D) there is a causal connection between the injured party's harm and the wrongdoer's conduct
E) all of the other choices are necessary elements

Accepted Answer

The element of intent is not necessary to show negligence. Negligence involves a failure to exercise reasonable care, regardless of whether or not the wrongdoer intended to harm the injured party. The other choices are necessary elements to show negligence.

Question 12

The reasonable person standard compares the actions of the wrongdoer/tortfeasor with those of a hypothetical person known as the reasonable person. The standard of care that the law presumes the reasonable person meets is:
A) ordinary care or due care
B) extraordinary care
C) minimal care
D) the law presumes no particular standard of care; each case is evaluated individually
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The reasonable person standard presumes that the hypothetical reasonable person meets the standard of ordinary care or due care. This means that the person acts with the level of care, skill, and caution that a reasonably prudent person in a similar situation would exercise.

Question 13

Negligence is:
A) an act that results in harm to another to whom the person owes a duty of care
B) an omission that results in harm to another to whom the person owes a duty of care
C) a willful omission of material information that leads to injury
D) choices a and b
E) choices a, b and c

Accepted Answer

Negligence can be either an act or an omission that results in harm to another to whom the person owes a duty of care. Therefore, both choice a and b are correct, but choice c is not. The correct answer is D, which includes both a and b.

Question 14

Conduct is likely to be held to be negligent if:
A) it results in misappropriation
B) it creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others
C) it results in profits for a business at the expense of its employees
D) it creates incentives for people to harm others' property
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

Negligence involves failing to take reasonable care and creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others. The other options are not directly related to negligence.

Question 15

A person has acted negligently if:
A) they were incapable of reaching the victim before the harm occurred
B) they tried to prevent the harm, but could not due to a lack of professional knowledge
C) they were not present at the time of the injury
D) they admit to not liking the victim
E) none of the other specific choices

Accepted Answer

None of the given options illustrate the definition of negligence. Negligence refers to the failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm or injury to another person or property. Being incapable of reaching the victim, lack of professional knowledge or absence at the time of injury do not necessarily indicate negligence. Similarly, personal feelings towards the victim also do not qualify as negligence. Therefore, none of these options are correct.

Question 16

With regard to torts, New Zealand differs from the United States in that:
A) personal injury tort suits are not allowed
B) there are no mega-damage awards
C) injured parties are compensated from a social insurance fund
D) all of the other specific choices
E) none of the other specific choices

Accepted Answer

New Zealand has a unique approach to personal injury compensation that differs significantly from the United States. In New Zealand, personal injury tort suits are generally not allowed (A), there are no mega-damage awards because the system does not operate on a litigation basis for personal injuries (B), and instead, injured parties are compensated through a social insurance fund, known as the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) (C). This system covers most types of injuries, including those from accidents, work-related injuries, and some types of medical injuries, providing comprehensive coverage without the need for litigation.

Question 17

In Squish La Fish v. Thomco Specialty Products, involving an adhesive that did not work as claimed, the appeals court held that the claim of negligent misrepresentation:
A) failed because the defendant only recommended a product made by another company
B) failed because the defendant obtained no financial gain by the bad decision
C) failed because the plaintiff is a sophisticated business and could evaluate the product
D) could proceed because the defendant may have negligently provided false information
E) could proceed because the defendant intended to extract a large payment from the plaintiff based on false information

Accepted Answer

The appeals court held that the claim of negligent misrepresentation could proceed because the defendant may have negligently provided false information. The fact that the defendant recommended a product made by another company, obtained no financial gain, and that the plaintiff was a sophisticated business were not relevant factors in determining whether negligent misrepresentation occurred in this case.

Question 18

The reasonable person standard compares the actions of the wrongdoer/tortfeasor with those of a hypothetical person known as the reasonable person. The reasonable person:
A) represents a standard of how the average American citizen ought to behave
B) represents a standard of how the average business CEO ought to behave
C) represents a standard of how middle class Americans ought to behave
D) represents a standard of how all voting-age Americans ought to behave
E) represents a standard of how persons in the relevant community ought to behave

Accepted Answer

The reasonable person represents a standard of how persons in the relevant community ought to behave. The relevant community varies depending on the circumstances of the particular case. The standard is not based on the behavior of an average person, but rather on what the community considers reasonable.

Question 19

Tort law makes every individual:
A) responsible for every injury related to actions
B) responsible for injuries that they witness
C) responsible for injuries that they cause, but could not prevent
D) all of the other specific choices
E) none of the other specific choices

Accepted Answer

Tort law generally holds individuals responsible for injuries that they cause due to their own negligence or intentional actions, not simply for witnessing an injury or for injuries they could not prevent.

Question 20

Negligence torts differ from intentional torts in that:
A) the government is the prosecutor in negligence torts
B) the victim does not receive compensation in a negligence tort case
C) in negligence the harmful results of a person's conduct are not intentional
D) intentional torts are also felonies
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

Negligence torts involve harm caused by someone's actions or inactions that were not intended to cause harm, whereas intentional torts involve actions that were intended to cause harm. The other choices are incorrect because A) the government may or may not be involved in either type of tort, B) victims can receive compensation in negligence tort cases, D) intentional torts are not necessarily felonies, and E) this is not a valid answer.

Quiz 6: Elements of Torts

With regard to torts, New Zealand differs from the United States in that:

A person has acted negligently if:

With regard to torts, New Zealand differs from the United States in that:

In a case in which a doctor is sued for negligence due to an accidentally botched surgery, the reasonable person standard would be that of:

With regard to torts, New Zealand differs from the United States in that:

Ordinary care or due care is a standard of care that the law presumes:

To determine if a person's conduct was negligent, one asks:

Ordinary care or due care is a standard of care that the law presumes:

In Squish La Fish v. Thomco Specialty Products, involving an adhesive that did not work as claimed, the appeals court held that the claim of negligent misrepresentation:

In a case in which a doctor is sued for negligence due to an accidentally botched surgery, the reasonable person standard would be that of:

Which of the following is not an element needed to show negligence:

The reasonable person standard compares the actions of the wrongdoer/tortfeasor with those of a hypothetical person known as the reasonable person. The standard of care that the law presumes the reasonable person meets is:

Negligence is:

Conduct is likely to be held to be negligent if:

A person has acted negligently if:

With regard to torts, New Zealand differs from the United States in that:

In Squish La Fish v. Thomco Specialty Products, involving an adhesive that did not work as claimed, the appeals court held that the claim of negligent misrepresentation:

The reasonable person standard compares the actions of the wrongdoer/tortfeasor with those of a hypothetical person known as the reasonable person. The reasonable person:

Tort law makes every individual:

Negligence torts differ from intentional torts in that: