Question 1

In a negligence per se lawsuit,the plaintiff must prove: 1)the existence of a statute applicable to the dispute; and 2)the defendant owed a case-specific,subjective duty of care.

Accepted Answer

In a negligence per se lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant violated a statute designed to protect a specific class of people, and that the plaintiff is within that class, not a subjective duty of care.

Question 2

When filing a lawsuit for negligence,the plaintiff must declare whether the contributory negligence or comparative negligence doctrine applies to the dispute.

Accepted Answer

This statement is false. The plaintiff is not required to declare whether contributory or comparative negligence applies. It is up to the court or jury to determine the percentage of fault of both the plaintiff and defendant in the case of comparative negligence or to determine if contributory negligence applies in states that still use that doctrine.

Question 3

A rare example of negligent infliction of emotional distress involves a bystander who witnesses the injury or death of a relative caused by another's negligent conduct.

Accepted Answer

The answer of A rare example of negligent infliction of...

Question 4

Most cities have an ordinance that places the responsibility for fixing public sidewalks in residential areas on the homeowners whose homes front the sidewalks.According to the negligence by proxy doctrine,in light of such an ordinance,a homeowner would be liable if he or she failed to repair a damaged sidewalk in front of his or her home and a pedestrian tripped and was injured because of the unrepaired sidewalk.

Accepted Answer

The negligence by proxy doctrine does not automatically make homeowners liable for injuries on public sidewalks; liability depends on specific local laws and ordinances, and typically, the city or municipality is responsible for public sidewalk maintenance.

Question 5

The Federal Torts Claims Act established the doctrine of sovereign immunity,freeing governments from liability for the acts of their governmental employees.

Accepted Answer

The Federal Torts Claims Act waived the doctrine of sovereign immunity, allowing individuals to sue the government for the wrongful acts of its employees.

Question 6

A defendant is not liable for injuries caused by a superseding or intervening event for which he or she is not responsible.

Accepted Answer

This is a basic principle in the legal doctrine of causation. If an event occurs after the defendant's actions but is not caused by the defendant's actions, then the defendant is not liable for any resulting injuries or damages. This is known as a superseding or intervening event.

Question 7

Ted crosses the street while not paying attention and fails to notice a flashing "Do Not Cross" sign.Alice,who is distracted,sees Ted at the last minute and hits him,breaking his leg.When Ted sues Alice,she can successfully use the defense of assumption of risk.

Accepted Answer

Assumption of risk is a defense where the plaintiff willingly and knowingly assumed the risks associated with the activity or situation. In this case, Ted did not willingly and knowingly assume the risk of being hit by a distracted driver. Therefore, Alice cannot use the defense of assumption of risk.

Question 8

Jane Erickson takes her ten-month-old baby,Benjamin,to a hockey game.During warm-ups,a player makes a "slap-shot" to the goal.The hockey puck flies off the ice,over the protective barrier located around the rink and into the stands,striking and seriously injuring Benjamin,who was in Jane's arms when he was hit by the puck.According to the assumption of the risk doctrine,Benjamin cannot recover for his injuries.

Accepted Answer

The assumption of the risk doctrine applies when a person knowingly and voluntarily assumes the risk of a particular activity. However, in the case of a ten-month-old baby, Benjamin cannot be said to have knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of attending a hockey game or being struck by a puck. Therefore, the assumption of the risk doctrine does not apply, and Benjamin may be able to recover for his injuries.

Question 9

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur constitutes a type of defense to a negligence action.

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not a defense to negligence, but rather a way for a plaintiff to establish a presumption of negligence by showing that the injury or harm would not have occurred without the defendant's negligence.

Question 10

Negligent infliction of emotional distress requires that the defendant commit an outrageous act against the plaintiff.

Accepted Answer

Negligent infliction of emotional distress typically does not require an outrageous act. Instead, it usually involves the defendant's negligence or recklessness in causing the plaintiff's emotional harm.

Question 11

A successful "bystander recovery" case requires the plaintiff to prove the following elements: 1)a relative was killed or injured by the defendant; 2)the plaintiff suffered emotional distress; and 3)the plaintiff's mental distress resulted from a later observance of the accident scene.

Accepted Answer

In a successful "bystander recovery" case, the plaintiff must typically prove that they were present at the scene of the accident and contemporaneously observed the injury or death, not that their distress resulted from a later observance.

Question 12

Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself."

Accepted Answer

Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine that refers to a situation where the mere occurrence of an accident or injury is enough to establish a presumption of negligence. The thing, in this case, speaks for itself, indicating that the defendant is likely responsible for the harm caused.

Question 13

Many states have replaced the doctrine of comparative negligence with the doctrine of contributory negligence.

Accepted Answer

Many states have replaced the doctrine of contributory negligence with the doctrine of comparative negligence, which allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they were partially at fault for the accident. Contributory negligence, on the other hand, bars a plaintiff from recovering any damages if their own negligence contributed to the accident.

Question 14

A baseball fan assumes the risk of being hit by a foul ball if he or she purchases a ticket and sits in a seat located down the first-base line.

Accepted Answer

When a person purchases a ticket and chooses to sit in a seat located near the field in baseball games, they assume the risk of being hit by a foul ball. This information is typically included on the back of the ticket and is known as the "baseball rule."

Question 15

Under negligence principles,a person is liable only for foreseeable events.

Accepted Answer

This statement is true. In neglect cases, a person can be held liable only for foreseeable events. Foreseeability means that a reasonable person could have predicted or anticipated that the act or omission of the defendant would cause harm to the plaintiff. If the harm was not foreseeable, the defendant cannot be held responsible.

Question 16

The defense of assumption of the risk assumes that the plaintiff had knowledge of the specific risk and voluntarily assumed the risk.

Accepted Answer

The defense of assumption of the risk is based on the premise that the plaintiff was aware of the risk involved in a particular activity and voluntarily chose to participate in it despite the risk. Therefore, this statement is true.

Question 17

Res ipsa loquitur applies in cases where the defendant had non-exclusive control of the instrumentality or situation that caused the plaintiff's injury,and the injury would not have ordinarily occurred but for someone's negligence.

Accepted Answer

Res ipsa loquitur typically applies when the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality or situation that caused the injury, and the injury is such that it would not ordinarily occur without negligence.

Question 18

The doctrine of negligence per se is used where the plaintiff was unable to observe the conduct of the defendant that led to the injury.

Accepted Answer

Negligence per se applies when a defendant violates a statute or regulation, and that violation causes the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent, not necessarily when the plaintiff couldn't observe the conduct.

Question 19

Good Samaritan laws protect medical professionals only from liability for their ordinary negligence,not for injuries caused by their gross negligence or reckless or intentional conduct.

Accepted Answer

Good Samaritan laws typically provide limited protection from liability for medical professionals who provide emergency care in good faith, but do not shield them from liability for gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct.

Question 20

Good Samaritan laws do not generally protect persons who are not medical professionals and who have not had training in CPR.

Accepted Answer

Good Samaritan laws typically only protect medical professionals and individuals who have received CPR training.

Quiz 5: Torts and Strict Liability