Question 1

Annette drove through an intersection without looking and hit Vincent's car that he had driven into the intersection without obeying a stop sign. Annette sued Vincent. The jury found that Annette's fault contributed 20 percent to the collision and determined that her total loss was $100,000. Under comparative negligence, the jury should award Annette

Accepted Answer

Under comparative negligence, Annette can still recover damages but her recovery will be reduced by her percentage of fault. Since the jury found that Annette was 20% at fault, her damages will be reduced by 20%, leaving her with 80% of the total loss amount, which is $100,000. Therefore, she should be awarded $80,000.

Question 2

Evaluate the following scenarios and determine which represents Micha's highest liability?

Accepted Answer

C

Question 3

Tort issues are firmly ingrained in law and do not change.

Accepted Answer

Tort issues can evolve and adapt over time to changes in society, technology, and legal precedent. As new situations arise, courts may need to reassess and adapt the principles and rules governing tort law.

Question 4

Negligence concerns harm that

Accepted Answer

Negligence concerns harm that arises by accident, meaning it was not intentional but occurred due to a failure to exercise reasonable care. The harm can range in severity, it is not always substantial. While harm may be unforeseeable in certain situations, negligence specifically refers to harm that could have been prevented if reasonable care was taken.

Question 5

Silas asks his friend Shelby to come to his property to go fishing at his pond. If he fails to warn her that the pier has a rotten spot and she falls through and is injured, Silas would be held liable in most states.

Accepted Answer

Silas has a duty of care to warn his friend of known hazards on his property, and failing to do so could make him liable for any resulting injuries.

Question 6

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must establish

Accepted Answer

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must establish duty of due care, breach, factual cause, proximate cause, and damages. These elements are commonly referred to as the "five elements of negligence." A) is incorrect as strict liability does not apply in a negligence case. B) includes mens rea which is not required in a negligence case. C) is missing the element of breach.

Question 7

Kenneth was exposed to radiation on his job in an environmental cleanup. In a lawsuit against his employer, the court must decide the full extent of both present and future damages rather than allowing Kenneth to return to court years later if medical problems develop at that time.

Accepted Answer

When determining damages in a lawsuit, the court will consider both present and future damages in order to compensate the victim fully and avoid the need for future lawsuits.

Question 8

A sports fan, injured by a hockey puck that flew into the stands during an NHL game, would be subject to the defense of assumption of the risk in a suit to recover for her injuries.

Accepted Answer

The defense of assumption of the risk applies in situations where the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumes the risk of injury. In attending a hockey game, spectators are well aware that pucks may fly into the stands and have the potential to cause injury. As such, the injured sports fan would likely be subject to the defense of assumption of the risk in a lawsuit seeking to recover for her injuries.

Question 9

For the defendant to be liable in a negligence case, it must be proven that the defendant's conduct actually caused the injury. This is referred to as

Accepted Answer

Factual cause, also known as "but-for" causation, means that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's conduct. If the plaintiff cannot prove factual cause, the defendant cannot be held liable for negligence.

Question 10

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad addressed the issue of furnishing alcohol to minors.

Accepted Answer

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad did not address the issue of furnishing alcohol to minors. It was a case on negligence and duty of care in tort law.

Question 11

The duty of care that each of us must follow is to behave as a reasonable person.

Accepted Answer

The duty of care requires us to act as a reasonable person would in similar circumstances. This is known as the reasonable person standard.

Question 12

Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant.

Accepted Answer

Res ipsa loquitur, which means "the thing speaks for itself," is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to establish a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant. This shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that they were not negligent.

Question 13

A defendant set off fireworks at a fully licensed Fourth of July show. The result of the activity caused harm to the plaintiff. In order for the plaintiff to win a case of negligence, he or she need only prove that it was foreseeable that the defendant's conduct might cause harm.

Accepted Answer

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Foreseeability of harm is part of establishing duty and causation, but the plaintiff must also show that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff and that this breach directly caused the damages suffered.

Question 14

Most states recognize some form of comparative negligence.

Accepted Answer

Most states have adopted some form of comparative negligence, meaning that a plaintiff's damages may be reduced based on their percentage of fault in the incident.

Question 15

The doctrine of contributory negligence is followed in most states.

Accepted Answer

Most states have adopted comparative negligence instead of contributory negligence, allowing for the apportionment of fault among parties.

Question 16

A defendant engaging in an ultrahazardous activity is almost always liable for any harm that results.

Accepted Answer

This is because ultrahazardous activities are activities that involve a high degree of risk of harm to others, regardless of whether the defendant acted negligently or not. As such, the defendant is usually strictly liable for any harm that results from the activity, which means they are responsible for compensating the injured party for their losses, even if they took all possible precautions to prevent the harm from occurring.

Question 17

A landowner's highest duty is owed to licensees.

Accepted Answer

A landowner's highest duty is owed to invitees, not licensees. Licensees are those who are on the property with the owner's permission but for their own purposes, such as a social guest. The duty owed to licensees is to warn of known, hidden dangers that the licensee is unlikely to discover. Invitees are those who are on the property with the owner's express or implied invitation, such as customers in a store, and the duty owed to them is to take reasonable care to make the property safe.

Question 18

In a strict liability case, the courts still consider if the defendant acted in a reasonable and prudent manner.

Accepted Answer

In a strict liability case, the defendant is liable regardless of whether they acted with fault or intent. The focus is on the fact that harm was caused, not on whether the defendant acted reasonably or prudently.

Question 19

While hunting, Roger enters Adele's property without permission and is injured by falling into a ditch that was obscured by the underbrush. Under the common law, Adele is liable for Roger's injuries.

Accepted Answer

The common law doctrine of "attractive nuisance" would potentially hold Adele liable if there was a dangerous condition on her property that would attract children or others who may not be able to appreciate the risk. However, since Roger was hunting and not a child, the doctrine of attractive nuisance would not apply, and Adele is not liable under the common law.

Question 20

In strict liability, if a company sells a beverage in a can that has sharp edges and injures several consumers, it will be held liable even if it didn't know about the problem.

Accepted Answer

In strict liability, the focus is on the product itself and the harm it causes, rather than on the company's knowledge. If the product is inherently dangerous or defective, the company can be held liable for any harm caused to consumers.

Quiz 9: Negligence, Strict Liability, and Product Liability