Question 1

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

This statement is true. Special relationships, such as that between a babysitter and child, may create a duty to provide care or protection beyond what would normally be required under the law.

Question 2

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 known as the "duty of care" and applies to anyone who possesses land, whether it is a homeowner, business owner, or government entity. The duty requires the possessor to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of any known hazards that may not be obvious to visitors. Invitees are those who are invited onto the property for business purposes, such as customers, clients, or vendors.

Question 3

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 known as the "professional standard of care." A defendant with superior skill or knowledge will be held to a higher standard of care than an ordinary person with no special knowledge or training in the specific area.

Question 4

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 the defense of assumption of risk to only express assumption of the risk, not implied assumption of the risk.

Question 5

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 6

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

In tort law, there is generally no duty to rescue or assist someone in peril unless a special relationship exists, such as between a parent and child or a lifeguard and swimmer.

Question 7

Negligence per se is a defense in a negligence case.

Accepted Answer

Negligence per se is not a defense, but rather a type of negligence where a defendant violates a law or regulation, and that violation is considered automatic proof of negligence in a civil case.

Question 8

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

Accepted Answer

Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine that shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant in a negligence action, making it easier for the plaintiff to prove their case. It allows the jury to infer negligence on the part of the defendant based solely on the occurrence of the accident and the circumstances surrounding it.

Question 9

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 is a person invited upon land for a social purpose or with permission, but not necessarily for a business purpose. A person on land for a business purpose would be classified as an invitee.

Question 10

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

Accepted Answer

The reasonable person standard takes into account the circumstances surrounding a defendant's actions, including any emergency conditions that may have existed. If a reasonable person in the same situation would have acted similarly, the defendant may not be held liable for any harm caused.

Question 11

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

Accepted Answer

Comparative negligence is the prevailing legal doctrine in most states, replacing the previous doctrine of contributory negligence which was considered more strict and resulted in plaintiffs receiving no compensation if they were found even partially at fault for an accident.

Question 12

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 the legal doctrine of last clear chance, which allows a plaintiff who was also negligent to recover if the defendant had a final opportunity to prevent the harm but failed to do so.

Question 13

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

Accepted Answer

Some states have expanded the definition of invitee to include social guests, which were previously classified as licensees.

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 has indeed abandoned the doctrine of implied voluntary assumption of risk in tort actions. It now recognizes only express assumption of risk as a complete defense to a tort claim.

Question 15

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 may be liable for negligence as he failed to take reasonable steps to prevent his child from causing harm to others by not taking the gun away, leading to Bill's injury.

Question 16

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

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.

Question 17

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

Accepted Answer

The "but-for" test is a widely used test for determining causation in fact. It asks whether the harm would have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct. If the harm would not have occurred without the defendant's conduct, then the conduct is considered a cause in fact.

Question 18

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

In many jurisdictions, pet owners can be held liable for damages caused by their pets, even if the animal was just being playful. The owner has a responsibility to control their pet and prevent it from causing harm or damage.

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 can still be held liable for the injury caused by the animal, regardless of whether they claim to have treated the animal well or not. They have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the public and should have taken adequate measures to prevent the animal from escaping.

Question 20

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.

Quiz 8: Negligence and Strict Liability

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.

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

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.

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

A social guest is a public invitee.

Negligence per se is a defense in a negligence case.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.