Question 1

The general rule in negligence is that a person is under a duty to all others at all times to exercise reasonable care for the safety of others.

Accepted Answer

This is the basic premise of the duty of care in negligence law.

Question 2

A social guest is a public invitee.

Accepted Answer

A social guest is considered a licensee, not a public invitee, because they are invited to enter or remain on the property for a non-business purpose by the property owner.

Question 3

Comparative negligence has replaced the contributory negligence doctrine in most states.

Accepted Answer

Comparative negligence is a more flexible approach that allows damages to be apportioned between the parties based on their degree of fault. This approach has been adopted by most states, replacing the strict contributory negligence doctrine which barred any recovery if the plaintiff was even slightly at fault.

Question 4

Ted is informed that his eight-year-old child is shooting in the street with a .22 rifle. Ted fails to take the gun away from the child. The child unintentionally shoots Bill, a pedestrian. Ted is liable to Bill.

Accepted Answer

Ted had a duty to take the gun away from the child and prevent harm to others. By failing to do so, he breached that duty and is therefore liable for any harm caused by the child's actions.

Question 5

If a defendant acts under emergency conditions, these conditions will be taken into account in applying the reasonable person standard.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the doctrine of necessity, where a person is allowed to take reasonable action to prevent harm to themselves or others in emergency situations, and their actions will be judged by a reasonable person standard accounting for the emergency circumstances.

Question 6

A possessor of land is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against dangerous conditions they are unlikely to discover.

Accepted Answer

This is a basic principle of premises liability law. A landowner owes a duty of care to invitees, which includes taking reasonable steps to identify and remedy dangerous conditions on the property. Additionally, the landowner may be liable for injuries caused by hidden dangers of which they were aware or should have been aware.

Question 7

Even though contributory negligence is proven by a defendant in a state in which it acts as a complete bar to recovery, the plaintiff may still recover if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the injury but did not avail himself of the chance.

Accepted Answer

This is known as the doctrine of last clear chance, which allows a plaintiff to recover even if they were partially at fault, if the defendant had the opportunity to avoid the injury but failed to do so.

Question 8

A licensee for purposes of tort law is a person invited upon land as a member of the public or for a business purpose.

Accepted Answer

A licensee in tort law is someone who enters the property of another with the property owner's permission for their own purpose or business, not for the property owner's benefit, which contrasts with an invitee who is invited as a member of the public or for a business purpose that benefits the property owner.

Question 9

Negligence per se is a defense in a negligence case.

Accepted Answer

Negligence per se is not a defense but rather a theory that establishes the defendant's duty and breach of duty. It applies when a defendant violates a statute or regulation designed to protect a certain class of people, and the plaintiff belongs to that class and suffers harm as a result of the violation.

Question 10

Because of the harshness of the all-or-nothing contributory negligence rule, nearly all states have now substituted the last clear chance doctrine for contributory negligence.

Accepted Answer

Most states have adopted comparative negligence instead of the all-or-nothing contributory negligence rule, not the last clear chance doctrine. The last clear chance doctrine allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they were also negligent, provided the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident. Comparative negligence, on the other hand, allocates damages based on the degree of fault of each party.

Question 11

There is an established rule in the law of torts that even one who has not created a peril has a duty to take affirmative action to assist an imperiled person, no matter what the relationship with that person, when the imperiled person can be saved from harm at little or no personal risk to the rescuer.

Accepted Answer

The answer of There is an established rule in the...

Question 12

Special relations between the parties, such as babysitter and child, may impose a duty of reasonable care to aid or protect the child in situations where the duty would not otherwise exist.

Accepted Answer

Special relationships such as babysitter and child can create a higher duty of care.

Question 13

Res ipsa loquitur makes it easier for the defendant to prevail in a negligence action.

Accepted Answer

Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that they were not negligent, making it more difficult for the defendant to prevail in a negligence action.

Question 14

The Third Restatement of Torts has abandoned the doctrine of implied voluntary assumption of risk in tort actions.

Accepted Answer

The Third Restatement of Torts explicitly states that the doctrine of implied voluntary assumption of risk is no longer recognized in tort actions.

Question 15

A widely applied test for causation in fact is the "but-for" test.

Accepted Answer

The "but-for" test is a commonly used test for determining causation in fact, and it asks whether the harm would have occurred "but for" the defendant's actions.

Question 16

The Third Restatement of Torts limits the defense of assumption of risk to express assumption of the risk.

Accepted Answer

The Third Restatement of Torts limits assumption of risk to only include express assumption of risk, and does not include implied assumption of risk.

Question 17

If a person's 150-pound sheep dog has a tendency to jump enthusiastically on visitors, the animal's keeper would not be liable for any damages done by the dog's playfulness.

Accepted Answer

The keeper of the sheep dog would likely be liable for any damages caused by the dog's actions, as they have a responsibility to control their pet and prevent harm to others.

Question 18

In determining a defendant's liability for negligence, his or her superior skill or knowledge will be attributed in applying the reasonable person standard, thus increasing the chance that the defendant may be held liable.

Accepted Answer

This is called the "standard of care" for professionals, and it means that professionals are held to a higher standard than the average person because of their specialized knowledge or skill set. So, in some cases, their superior skill and knowledge may actually increase their likelihood of being found liable for negligence.

Question 19

A tiger gets loose from the tent of a circus and mauls a passerby. The circus claims it has always treated the animal well and that it was not at all negligent in its handling of the animal. The circus has no liability for the injury caused
by the animal.

Accepted Answer

The circus may still be held liable for the injury caused by the animal, regardless of whether they claim to have treated the animal well and not acted negligently. It will depend on factors such as whether the circus took reasonable precautions to prevent the tiger from escaping and causing harm to others.

Question 20

A number of states have included social guests in the invitee category, although they have traditionally been labeled as licensees.

Accepted Answer

This statement is true. Some states have expanded the categories of guests to include social guests under the invitee category, whereas traditionally they were classified as licensees.

Quiz 8: Negligence and Strict Liability