Question 1

[Diving Fiasco] Rogerio, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Rogerio is aware that the area where the divers will be visiting is occasionally visited by sharks. He is also aware that, while sting rays are usually tame, they can become aggressive when fed. Rogerio did not reveal the information about sharks or sting rays to the group of divers going with him because, in his experience, as soon as customers hear of a hint of danger, they refuse to pay and go on the trip. The divers go down into the water, and some have squid with which to feed the sting rays. During the dive, one of the sting rays becomes agitated and lashes diver Tamika's arm. Tamika is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable distress. Another diver, Billy, encounters a shark which snaps at him. Fortunately, the shark does not bite him but does damage his diving equipment. He is also in distress. Rogerio, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing and just returns to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Claudia, another diver on the trip, also returns to the boat without doing anything to help the divers in distress. Sam, on the other hand, goes to rescue the divers who are in distress. He manages to assist them, but in the process, he injures his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Rogerio.
-Did Rogerio have a duty to provide assistance to Tamika and Billy during the dive?
A) Rogerio had no duty to provide any assistance to them.
B) Rogerio had a duty to come to their aid because he arranged the dive and was charging them.
C) Rogerio had a duty to come to their assistance only if he had specifically agreed to do so prior to the dive.
D) Rogerio had a duty to come to their assistance only if they were minors.
E) Rogerio had a duty to come to their assistance only if no one else did so.

Accepted Answer

Rogerio had a duty to come to their aid because he arranged the dive and was charging them, making him responsible for their safety during the activity.

Question 2

[Diving Fiasco] Rogerio, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Rogerio is aware that the area where the divers will be visiting is occasionally visited by sharks. He is also aware that, while sting rays are usually tame, they can become aggressive when fed. Rogerio did not reveal the information about sharks or sting rays to the group of divers going with him because, in his experience, as soon as customers hear of a hint of danger, they refuse to pay and go on the trip. The divers go down into the water, and some have squid with which to feed the sting rays. During the dive, one of the sting rays becomes agitated and lashes diver Tamika's arm. Tamika is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable distress. Another diver, Billy, encounters a shark which snaps at him. Fortunately, the shark does not bite him but does damage his diving equipment. He is also in distress. Rogerio, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing and just returns to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Claudia, another diver on the trip, also returns to the boat without doing anything to help the divers in distress. Sam, on the other hand, goes to rescue the divers who are in distress. He manages to assist them, but in the process, he injures his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Rogerio.
-The diver whose equipment was damaged because of the shark incident, Billy, wants to sue Rogerio for damages. Which of the following is the most likely result?
A) Billy will win because Rogerio should have warned him about the occasional appearance of sharks.
B) Billy will lose because Rogerio had no duty to warn him of anything.
C) Billy will lose because he did not sustain physical injury.
D) Billy will win only if he can establish that he had a contract with Rogerio whereby Rogerio agreed to reveal harmful conditions.
E) Billy will win only if he can establish that he did not have insurance to cover the equipment.

Accepted Answer

Rogerio had a duty to inform the divers about potential dangers in the area, including the occasional appearance of sharks, to ensure their safety and the safety of their equipment. By failing to do so, he neglected his responsibility, making it likely for Billy to win the case based on Rogerio's omission to warn about known hazards.

Question 3

Which of the following is true regarding negligence under South African law?
A) South Africa's legal system is a combination of selected legal traditions involving Roman, Dutch, and French law, but not German law.
B) Under South African law, individuals can be found negligent in only one way, through failing to exercise reasonable care.
C) South African law models the law of the U.S. and is substantially the same.
D) South African law refuses to recognize sudden emergency as a standard for determining negligence in crisis situations.
E) South African law recognizes that one way to determine negligence is by determining whether the defendant could have prevented the consequent damages.

Accepted Answer

South African law recognizes negligence by assessing if the defendant could have taken reasonable steps to prevent the damages.

Question 4

Louisa decides to go on a zip line adventure. She signs a contract before she begins to go on the zip line, which says that she assumes the risks of accident or injury. While walking up the steps to grab the zip line, Louisa falls down due to a broken hand rail on the stairs. Could the property owner be held responsible?
A) No, because of Louisa's express assumption of the risk.
B) No, because of Louisa's implied assumption of the risk.
C) No, because Louisa fell on her own.
D) Yes, because a fall due to a faulty handrail was not the type of risk Louisa had assumed in the contract.
E) Yes, because she had not yet started zip lining but after she actually grabbed the line, the company would no longer be held responsible.

Accepted Answer

The property owner could be held responsible because the risk of a faulty handrail is not inherent to zip lining and likely not covered by the assumption of risk Louisa agreed to, which typically covers risks directly associated with the activity itself, not premises liability issues like unsafe infrastructure leading up to the activity.

Question 5

Breck and Brynn go to a new skate park in town. Before they are granted entry, they sign a written agreement indicating that they know there is a possibility of harm in using the skate park. If Brynn is injured when she falls off her skateboard, what defense might the skate park use?
A) Implied warranty against injury.
B) Express warranty against injury.
C) Express assumption of the risk
D) Implied assumption of the risk.
E) Danger invites rescue doctrine.

Accepted Answer

The skate park might use the defense of "Express assumption of the risk" because Brynn signed a written agreement acknowledging the potential for harm, which indicates she was aware of and accepted the risks involved in using the skate park.

Question 6

Why do superseding causes allow defendants to avoid liability?
A) Superseding causes do not allow defendants to avoid liability.
B) Superseding causes are an example of the res ipsa loquitur defense.
C) Superseding causes are evidence that a defendant's breach of duty was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
D) Superseding causes demonstrate the plaintiff was actually responsible for his own injuries.
E) Superseding causes are evidence that a defendant's duty of care was fulfilled and thus no negligence occurred.

Accepted Answer

Superseding causes break the direct link between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries, indicating that the defendant's breach of duty was not the proximate (direct) cause of the harm suffered. This can absolve the defendant of liability because it shows that an unforeseeable, intervening event was the actual cause of the injuries.

Question 7

[Diving Fiasco] Rogerio, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Rogerio is aware that the area where the divers will be visiting is occasionally visited by sharks. He is also aware that, while sting rays are usually tame, they can become aggressive when fed. Rogerio did not reveal the information about sharks or sting rays to the group of divers going with him because, in his experience, as soon as customers hear of a hint of danger, they refuse to pay and go on the trip. The divers go down into the water, and some have squid with which to feed the sting rays. During the dive, one of the sting rays becomes agitated and lashes diver Tamika's arm. Tamika is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable distress. Another diver, Billy, encounters a shark which snaps at him. Fortunately, the shark does not bite him but does damage his diving equipment. He is also in distress. Rogerio, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing and just returns to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Claudia, another diver on the trip, also returns to the boat without doing anything to help the divers in distress. Sam, on the other hand, goes to rescue the divers who are in distress. He manages to assist them, but in the process, he injures his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Rogerio.
-Is Rogerio liable for the injuries Sam sustained in coming to the rescue of the divers in distress?
A) Rogerio is not liable for Sam's injuries because Sam had no legal duty to come to the aid of the other divers.
B) Rogerio is not liable for Sam's injuries because Sam assumed the risk of harm.
C) Rogerio is not liable for Sam's injuries because the shark attack constituted a superseding cause of the injuries.
D) Rogerio is liable for Sam's injuries only if he made them worse by not getting Sam medical attention on a timely basis.
E) Rogerio is liable for Sam's injuries under the danger invites rescue doctrine.

Accepted Answer

Rogerio is liable for Sam's injuries under the "danger invites rescue" doctrine, which holds that a person who creates a peril that leads to the rescue attempt is liable for the rescuer's injuries. Rogerio's failure to inform the divers of the risks and his inadequate response to the emergency created a situation that necessitated rescue, making him liable for the consequences of that rescue attempt.

Question 8

Which of the following is an unforeseeable event which interrupts the causal chain between the defendant's breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered?
A) A surprise event
B) A superseding cause
C) A relative cause
D) An unusual cause
E) Assumption of the risk

Accepted Answer

A superseding cause is an unforeseeable event that interrupts the causal chain between the defendant's breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered, thereby relieving the defendant of liability.

Question 9

What is the term for when a plaintiff implicitly assumes a known risk?
A) Implied assumption of the risk.
B) Express assumption of the risk.
C) Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D) Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
E) Assumption by incident.

Accepted Answer

Implied assumption of the risk occurs when a plaintiff has an understanding of a hazard and voluntarily chooses to encounter it. This understanding and acceptance of risk are not explicitly stated but are inferred from the plaintiff's actions or the circumstances.

Question 10

Xavier decides to buy a tiger cub off of the Internet. As the tiger cub "Sasha" grows, Xavier works with the tiger cub to ensure that it behaves properly when his friends come over, but occasionally Sasha resorts to her tiger instincts. One Saturday as Xavier is grilling steaks for his friends, Sasha jumps on Xavier's guest Joann and bites her as she tries to eat her steak. If Joann sues Xavier, what theory will she use to recover her damages?
A) Pure negligence.
B) Strict liability.
C) Res ipsa loquitur.
D) Negligence per se.
E) Danger invites rescue doctrine.

Accepted Answer

Joann will likely use the theory of strict liability to recover her damages because Xavier owned a wild animal (the tiger), which is inherently dangerous. Owners of wild animals are strictly liable for any harm their animals cause, regardless of the precautions they take to prevent such incidents.

Question 11

On a vacation holiday, Anne decides to rent a fishing boat. She is asked to sign a contract stipulating that the defendant will not be held responsible for any boating accidents. If Anne signs, this is an example of:
A) Implied assumption of the risk.
B) Express assumption of the risk.
C) Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D) Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
E) Assumption by incident.

Accepted Answer

Express assumption of the risk occurs when an individual explicitly acknowledges and accepts the risks associated with an activity, often through a written agreement or contract, as in the scenario with Anne signing a contract regarding boating accidents.

Question 12

[Blow Up] Devin has several full gas cans in the bed of her pick-up truck, because she runs a landscaping company and needs the gas for her mowers. On the way home from the gas station, Devin stops at her bank and exits her truck. Teresa pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Devin's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Teresa for negligence claiming that Teresa should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claims that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
-Does actual cause exist in the bank's action against Teresa?
A) Actual causation would exist because the bank would not have been destroyed if Teresa had fulfilled her duty to drive properly.
B) Actual cause is present because as a matter of policy, it is believed that someone who rear-ends a vehicle should be responsible for damages.
C) Actual cause is present because Teresa was the legal cause of the bank burning.
D) Actual cause is not present because Teresa is not the legal cause of the bank burning.
E) Actual cause is not present because Teresa is not the proximate cause of the bank burning.

Accepted Answer

Actual causation exists in this scenario because Teresa's negligence in rear-ending Devin's truck directly led to the explosion and subsequent destruction of the bank. If Teresa had not rear-ended the truck, the bank would not have burned down, establishing a direct link between Teresa's action and the damage to the bank.

Question 13

[Blow Up] Devin has several full gas cans in the bed of her pick-up truck, because she runs a landscaping company and needs the gas for her mowers. On the way home from the gas station, Devin stops at her bank and exits her truck. Teresa pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Devin's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Teresa for negligence claiming that Teresa should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claims that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
-Is Teresa the proximate cause of the bank burning?
A) Teresa is not the proximate cause of the bank burning because it was not foreseeable that Devin would have gas in the back of her pick-up truck that would result in such a fire.
B) Teresa is not the proximate case of the accident because her actions were not the cause in fact of the accident.
C) Teresa's actions were not the proximate cause of the accident because actual causation cannot be established since it was foreseeable that gas can result in a fire.
D) Teresa's actions were the proximate cause of the bank's burning because actual cause is present.
E) Teresa's actions were the proximate cause of the bank's burning because cause in fact can be established.

Accepted Answer

The explosion and subsequent fire were not foreseeable consequences of Teresa's negligent driving, thus she is not the proximate cause of the bank burning.

Question 14

Which of the following is not true in regards to strict liability?
A) It is liability without fault.
B) It involves a risk of serious harm to people or property.
C) It is so inherently dangerous that it cannot be safely undertaken.
D) Plaintiffs always receive punitive damages.
E) It is not usually performed in the immediate community.

Accepted Answer

Strict liability involves holding a defendant liable without a finding of fault, but it does not guarantee that plaintiffs will always receive punitive damages. Punitive damages are awarded in addition to actual damages in certain circumstances, typically to punish or deter particularly egregious conduct, not as a matter of course in strict liability cases.

Question 15

When a defendant in a negligence suit avoids liability due to an unforeseen event that interrupts the causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered, this is known as a(n) ________.
A) assumption of the risk
B) contributory negligence
C) comparative negligence
D) superseding cause
E) good Samaritan cause

Accepted Answer

A superseding cause is an unforeseen event that interrupts the causal chain between the defendant's action (or inaction) and the harm suffered by the plaintiff, thereby relieving the defendant of liability.

Question 16

In reference to the case in the text, Swigart v. Bruno, what was the court's assessment with regards to the risk associated with riding horses in the American Endurance Ride Conference which was described as an "equestrian athletic event?"
A) The court ruled that under contributive negligence principles, Swigart was entitled to recover.
B) The court ruled that under pure comparative negligence principles, Swigart was entitled to recover.
C) The court ruled that under modified comparative negligence principles, Swigart was entitled to recover.
D) The court ruled that Swigart was entitled to recover damages, however, remanded the case to determine whether or not Swigart was really injured.
E) The court ruled that the assumption of risk doctrine applies to Swigart's claims and he could therefore not recover.

Accepted Answer

The court ruled that the assumption of risk doctrine applies, indicating that Swigart voluntarily took on the known risks associated with participating in an equestrian athletic event, and therefore could not recover damages for the injuries sustained.

Question 17

Luann voluntarily stops to render aid to a biker on the side of the road who had been hit by a car. As Luann pulls over she partially blocks the view of oncoming cars. A car driven by Kellip hits Luann's car, further injuring the biker. If the biker sues Luann for their additional injuries, what statute might be a defense for Luann?
A) Motorist Safety to Yield statute.
B) Aid to Others statute.
C) Good Samaritan statute.
D) Assumption of the Risk statute.
E) Clear the Danger statute.

Accepted Answer

The Good Samaritan statute is designed to provide legal protection to individuals who voluntarily provide assistance or aid to others in distress, particularly in emergency situations, without expectation of reward. This statute can protect Luann from liability for the biker's additional injuries incurred while she was attempting to help, as long as she acted without gross negligence or willful misconduct.

Question 18

Which of the following is a condition required for the imposition of strict liability?
A) The activity involves negligence pertaining to the preparation of food products.
B) The activity involves trespassing in a way that reasonably leads to fright on the part of home owners.
C) The activity is undertaken by a minor.
D) The activity is so inherently dangerous that it cannot ever be safely undertaken.
E) The activity is heavily regulated.

Accepted Answer

Strict liability is imposed for activities that are inherently dangerous and cannot be conducted safely under any circumstances, regardless of the precautions taken.

Question 19

[Diving Fiasco] Rogerio, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Rogerio is aware that the area where the divers will be visiting is occasionally visited by sharks. He is also aware that, while sting rays are usually tame, they can become aggressive when fed. Rogerio did not reveal the information about sharks or sting rays to the group of divers going with him because, in his experience, as soon as customers hear of a hint of danger, they refuse to pay and go on the trip. The divers go down into the water, and some have squid with which to feed the sting rays. During the dive, one of the sting rays becomes agitated and lashes diver Tamika's arm. Tamika is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable distress. Another diver, Billy, encounters a shark which snaps at him. Fortunately, the shark does not bite him but does damage his diving equipment. He is also in distress. Rogerio, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing and just returns to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Claudia, another diver on the trip, also returns to the boat without doing anything to help the divers in distress. Sam, on the other hand, goes to rescue the divers who are in distress. He manages to assist them, but in the process, he injures his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Rogerio.
-Did Claudia and Sam have a duty to aid the divers in peril?
A) Neither Claudia nor Sam had a duty to go to the aid of the divers who were in peril.
B) Claudia and Sam had a duty to go to the aid of the divers in peril only if Rogerio refused to do so.
C) Claudia and Sam did not have a duty to go to the aid of the divers in peril unless they were the first to see the problem.
D) Claudia and Sam had a duty to assist the divers in peril only if they were acquainted prior to the dive with the divers who were in peril. They had no duty to help strangers.
E) Sam and Claudia had a duty to help the divers who were in peril if personal safety was involved but not if the only issue was damage to property.

Accepted Answer

Generally, in the absence of a specific legal duty or relationship, individuals (including Claudia and Sam) do not have a legal obligation to rescue or aid others in peril.

Question 20

What was the final result on appeal in the Case Opener involving whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to the lawsuit brought against landowners after the plaintiff fell through a wooden dock located on the defendants' property?
A) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied.
B) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because there was insufficient proof that the type of accident at issue would not normally happen in the absence of negligence.
C) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because there was insufficient proof that the dock at issue was in the exclusive control of the defendants.
D) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because it only applies in contract cases.
E) That whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied should be decided by the jury.

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when the accident is of a kind that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence, and the instrumentality causing the injury was in the exclusive control of the defendant. In this case, the plaintiff fell through a wooden dock located on the defendants' property. The type of accident at issue would not normally happen in the absence of negligence, and the dock was in the exclusive control of the defendants. Therefore, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies.

Quiz 9: Negligence and Strict Liability

Which of the following is true regarding negligence under South African law?

Breck and Brynn go to a new skate park in town. Before they are granted entry, they sign a written agreement indicating that they know there is a possibility of harm in using the skate park. If Brynn is injured when she falls off her skateboard, what defense might the skate park use?

Why do superseding causes allow defendants to avoid liability?

Which of the following is an unforeseeable event which interrupts the causal chain between the defendant's breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered?

What is the term for when a plaintiff implicitly assumes a known risk?

On a vacation holiday, Anne decides to rent a fishing boat. She is asked to sign a contract stipulating that the defendant will not be held responsible for any boating accidents. If Anne signs, this is an example of:

Which of the following is not true in regards to strict liability?

When a defendant in a negligence suit avoids liability due to an unforeseen event that interrupts the causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered, this is known as a(n) ________.

In reference to the case in the text, Swigart v. Bruno, what was the court's assessment with regards to the risk associated with riding horses in the American Endurance Ride Conference which was described as an "equestrian athletic event?"

Which of the following is a condition required for the imposition of strict liability?

What was the final result on appeal in the Case Opener involving whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to the lawsuit brought against landowners after the plaintiff fell through a wooden dock located on the defendants' property?