Question 1

Jennet bought a widget that the Lamda Corp had manufactured.After the widget caused her to suffer an injury, she sued the company for failing to warn her about the risks associated with the product.Lamda Corp seeks to avoid liability on the basis of the learned intermediary rule.The learned intermediary rule

Accepted Answer

The learned intermediary rule applies when a manufacturer provides a product to a professional (such as a doctor or a specialist), who then provides the product to the consumer. The manufacturer's duty to warn of the product's risks is considered fulfilled if they properly warned the professional, who is expected to pass on the warning to the consumer. This rule is often applied in pharmaceutical cases, where the medication is prescribed by a doctor who acts as the 'learned intermediary' between the drug manufacturer and the patient.

Question 2

Jamari negligently hit Samantha on the head with a stick.A reasonable person would expect the normal victim to suffer a simple bruise in that situation.A simple bruise would require compensation of $200.Samantha, however, actually suffered brain damage because she had an unusually fragile skull.Her losses have been valued at $5 million.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

Accepted Answer

The principle of "take your victim as you find them," often referred to as the "eggshell skull rule," means that a defendant is liable for the full extent of an injury caused, even if the severity of the injury was unforeseeable due to the victim's pre-existing vulnerability. In this case, Jamari is liable for the full $5 million in damages to Samantha, despite the unforeseeable severity of her injury.

Question 3

Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the issue of factual causation in negligence?

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of joint and several liability allows for liability to be imposed on multiple defendants who have contributed to a single injury, even if their individual actions were not the sole or most important cause.

Question 4

You work as a risk management advisor for Sigma Ltd.Sigma Ltd intends to place a new type of widget on the market.It wants to know what steps it should take with respect to warning people about the dangers associated with that type of widget.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

Accepted Answer

Sigma Ltd is not required to warn about every possible danger that it knows about when a widget is sold. However, the warning must be reasonable and address the foreseeable risks associated with the intended use of the product. Additionally, Sigma Ltd is not the only party that could be required to issue a warning. Distributors, retailers, and other parties involved in the sale of the product may also have a duty to warn consumers about the potential risks.

Question 5

Peter has sued Calista and Lailani for negligence.The evidence indicates that Peter's injury was caused by the combined effect of negligent acts by himself, Calista, and Lailani.That injury would not have occurred at all if any one of the three parties had acted carefully.The judge held that Calista and Lailani are jointly and severally liable.The judge also apportioned responsibility for the injury on the following basis: Peter 60 percent, Calista 30 percent, and Lailani 10 percent.The value of the loss that Peter suffered as a result of his injury is $100 000.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Peter has sued Calista and Lailani for...

Question 6

Which of the following statements most accurately describes the but-for test for causation?

Accepted Answer

The but-for test asks whether the harm would have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct. If the answer is "no," the defendant's conduct is a cause of the harm.

Question 7

Kendra suffered a broken back as a result of Duncan's carelessness.Duncan has argued, however, that Kendra's injury is remote from his carelessness, and that he therefore cannot be held liable.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

Accepted Answer

In order for someone to be held liable for a particular harm caused by their actions, that harm must have been reasonably foreseeable as a potential outcome of their conduct. The type of harm suffered by Kendra (a broken back) would need to have been reasonably foreseeable for Duncan to be held liable, regardless of whether or not the manner or severity of the injury were foreseeable. Therefore, of the given answer choices, option B is the best answer.

Question 8

Dashawn was severely injured while participating in a "fitness challenge" that was organized and operated by Zeta Inc.He has sued for negligence.Zeta relies on the defence of voluntary assumption of risk.In support of that defence, Zeta has produced a "Disclaimer of Liability" that Dashawn signed.Which of the following statements is most likely to be TRUE?

Accepted Answer

In Canada, the courts have generally held that exclusion clauses, such as the disclaimer of liability signed by Dashawn, will be given effect as long as they meet certain requirements, including that they apply to the specific harm suffered and that they are contractually enforceable. However, exclusion clauses will not be given effect if they are found to be unconscionable, contrary to public policy, or if the person seeking to rely on the clause engaged in gross negligence. Therefore, the correct answer is B, as it accurately reflects the requirements for the disclaimer to be effective in this case.

Question 9

Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the standard of care in negligence?

Accepted Answer

The sudden peril doctrine recognizes that even reasonable people sometimes make mistakes during emergencies, such as during a sudden and unexpected event that requires immediate action. This may excuse a defendant's conduct that fell short of the reasonable standard of care under normal circumstances.

Question 10

The Iota Corp sued Araceli for negligence.It claims that it suffered a loss as a result of her careless performance of a professional service.Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the issue of breach?

Accepted Answer

This is an example of the professional standard of care. Professionals are judged based on the standard of care that others in their profession would provide in the same situation. If an error in judgment is made but it was within the standard of care, Araceli may not be held liable. However, if another professional in her position would not have acted similarly, she may be held liable for negligence. Options A, B, C, and D are incorrect because compliance with professional standards, lack of realization of carelessness, poor training or incompetence, and failing to investigate Araceli's competence do not necessarily exclude her from being held liable for negligence.

Question 11

Diana and Naomi both carelessly shot in Randall's direction at the same time.He was struck by one bullet.He can prove that the bullet came from either Diana's gun or from Naomi's gun, but he has no way of determining which woman shot him.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

Accepted Answer

Under an exception to the but-for test, when multiple parties act negligently towards the plaintiff but it's unclear which one caused the harm, they can be held jointly and severally liable. This allows the plaintiff to recover damages even when direct causation by one party cannot be established.

Question 12

Oprah suffered a broken collarbone as a result of Sheldon's negligence.She later suffered a broken foot as a result of Tom's negligence.Tom dropped a heavy box on Oprah's foot while she was getting out of her car at her physiotherapist's office.She was visiting her physiotherapist for rehabilitation of her collarbone.She would not have been in that parking lot, and therefore would not have suffered a broken foot, if Sheldon had not negligently caused the first injury.Which of the following statements is most likely TRUE?

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of intervening acts considers whether an unforeseen event interrupted the causation between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injury. In this case, Tom's dropping the box on Oprah's foot is an intervening act, but it may not relieve Sheldon of liability since the broken foot resulted from the first injury inflicted by Sheldon's negligence.

Question 13

Chloe sued Vincent for negligence.He has relied on the defence of contributory negligence.That defence may be successful only if the evidence proves that

Accepted Answer

The defence of contributory negligence is successful only if the defendant can prove that the plaintiff failed to act like a reasonable person would have acted in their circumstances. Therefore, choice D is the correct answer.

Question 14

The Town of Sussex Corner owned a bridge.Ruby negligently damaged the bridge by ramming it with a boat.At that point, it would have cost $30 000 to repair the bridge.Before the town could do so, however, Oswald negligently rammed the bridge in a different spot with his own boat.The town had the damage from both incidents repaired at the same time for a total cost of $50 000.Which of the following statements is most likely to be TRUE?

Accepted Answer

Since Oswald's negligence caused further damage to the bridge after Ruby's initial damage, he can be held liable for the additional damages caused by his own conduct. Therefore, both Ruby and Oswald may be held liable for some damages, but the extent of their liability would depend on the specific circumstances of the case. Option A may also be true, but it does not necessarily exclude the possibility of Oswald being held liable as well. Option B is not accurate because the town cannot recover the same amount from both Ruby and Oswald. Option C is possible but not necessarily true, as the extent of the liability would depend on the specific circumstances of the case. Option D is incorrect because Ruby's negligence was a contributing factor to the total loss, and she can still be held liable for the damages she caused.

Question 15

Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the concept of remoteness?

Accepted Answer

The concept of remoteness includes various doctrines such as the thin skull (or "eggshell skull") doctrine, which holds that a defendant must take their victim as they find them, including any pre-existing vulnerabilities. The crumbling skull doctrine is an extension of this, acknowledging pre-existing conditions that might worsen due to the defendant's actions. The thin wallet doctrine, though less commonly referenced in this context, relates to the idea that a defendant cannot argue against the full compensation of damages based on the plaintiff's financial status. These doctrines are part of understanding how far the liability extends in terms of foreseeability and the directness of the consequences of one's actions, which are central to the concept of remoteness in tort law.

Question 16

Chyna acted as Evan's accountant.In the course of her professional duties, she made a mistake that caused Evan to lose $100 000.Evan has sued Chyna for negligence.She claims, however, that she did not breach the standard of care.Chyna can avoid liability by proving that

Accepted Answer

Chyna can avoid liability by proving that she did not breach the standard of care. If she can prove that although some professional accountants would have avoided the mistake that she committed, she merely committed an error of judgment, then she can avoid liability. This defense is known as the standard of care defense. The other options do not provide valid defenses for Chyna's negligence.

Question 17

Selena has cancer.She has sued the Tau Corp for negligence.She claims that her condition was caused by fumes that the Tau Corp carelessly allowed its factory to emit.Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the issue of causation?

Accepted Answer

The legal principle of "more likely than not" applies in cases of causation, which means that if Selena can prove that there is a 51 percent or greater chance that her condition was caused by Tau Corp's carelessness, she will recover 100 percent of her damages. This is known as the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which is the burden of proof in civil cases. Therefore, options A, B, and C are incorrect because they do not reflect the legal standard for causation in civil cases. Option E is also incorrect because if Selena proves that there is a 50 percent chance of causation, she would not meet the legal standard of "more likely than not" and would not recover any damages.

Question 18

Psi Co owned a ship called The Greek that was worth $15 million.It intended to use that ship to perform a contract with Omega Inc that required it to deliver Omega's widgets from Vancouver to Los Angeles.Wilson negligently created a fire that destroyed The Greek.Psi Co wanted to buy a replacement ship, called The Athenian, for the purpose of performing its contract with Omega, but it could not immediately afford the full purchase price.Psi Co therefore rented a ship, called The Canadian, for $2 million and used it to perform its contract with Omega.After being paid by Omega, Psi Co bought The Athenian for $15 million.Psi Co has successfully sued Wilson for negligence.The court agrees that Psi Co is entitled to $15 million for the loss of its original ship.Psi Co, however, claims that it is also entitled to $2 million, representing the money that it was required to pay in order to rent The Canadian.Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to Psi Co's claim for $2 million?

Accepted Answer

The "relevant loss" in this case is the $2 million Psi Co had to pay to rent The Canadian. The fact that Psi Co did not have the funds to immediately purchase The Athenian does not affect Wilson's liability for the loss of The Greek. However, the doctrine of "contributory negligence" would traditionally apply to reduce Psi Co's damages by the amount that their own financial situation contributed to the loss. This is known as the "plaintiff's own impecuniosity." Therefore, choice D is the correct answer. The other options are not applicable in this case.

Question 19

The concept of a crumbling skull

Accepted Answer

The crumbling skull rule acknowledges that a defendant can be liable for damages if their actions hasten the occurrence of harm to a plaintiff, even if the plaintiff was already in a fragile state and would have eventually suffered harm. This contrasts with the thin skull rule, which holds defendants liable for the full extent of harm caused, even if the plaintiff was more susceptible to injury than a normal person.

Question 20

The concept of remoteness

Accepted Answer

The answer of The concept of remoteness
...

Quiz 6: Negligence