Question 1

If alleged consequences are too far removed from the negligent conduct:

Accepted Answer

When alleged consequences are too far removed from the negligent conduct, it may break the chain of causation, making it difficult to establish liability. The specific outcomes listed in the other choices are not automatic legal consequences of such a situation.

Question 2

If causal connection between a person's act and the resulting harm to another is broken by an intervening act or event, the act or event is called:

Accepted Answer

A superseding cause is an intervening act or event that breaks the causal connection between a person's act and the resulting harm to another. It becomes the predominant cause of the harm and relieves the original wrongdoer of liability.

Question 3

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company, involving a woman injured by an accidentally dropped package of fireworks that exploded as it was run over by a train, the railroad should not have been held liable for negligence because:

Accepted Answer

The railroad should not have been held liable for negligence because there was nothing about the package that would suggest it was dangerous if dropped. The court ruled that the railroad employees could not have reasonably foreseen that dropping the package would cause harm to someone standing so far away.

Question 4

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company, involving a woman injured by an accidentally dropped package of fireworks that exploded as it was run over by a train, Palsgraf's injuries were not a result of negligence on the part of the railroad because:

Accepted Answer

The court ruled that there was no negligence on the part of the railroad because there was nothing in the situation to suggest to a cautious mind that the package would cause harm. In other words, the railroad had no way of knowing that the package of fireworks would cause harm to anyone else, so they could not be held liable for Palsgraf's injuries.

Question 5

Due to criticism that the proximate cause rule is difficult to understand and apply, some states have replaced it with the:

Accepted Answer

The proximate cause rule, indeed criticized for its complexity, has not been widely replaced by any of the specific alternatives listed (A, B, C, D). Instead, legal systems and courts may approach the concept of causation in various nuanced ways, but none of the options provided are standard replacements for the proximate cause rule.

Question 6

A superseding cause is an act that:

Accepted Answer

A superseding cause is an intervening act that breaks the direct causal link between the original act and the harm that occurred, making the original actor no longer legally responsible for the harm. None of the provided choices accurately describe this concept.

Question 7

In some states, such as California, proximate cause has been replaced by a negligence rule of liability that holds: A legal cause of injury is a cause which is a(n) ____ in bringing about the injury.

Accepted Answer

The best choice is D, substantial factor, as it is the only option that directly relates to the legal cause of injury. A substantial factor is defined as a factor that plays a significant part in bringing about an injury, and it is used in cases where multiple factors may have contributed to the injury. The other options (A, B, and C) are not generally used to determine legal causation in cases of negligence.

Question 8

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, where Palsgraf was hit by machinery that fell when an explosion occurred at a train station, and she sued the railroad for negligence, the New York high court held that the railroad:

Accepted Answer

The New York high court held that the railroad was not negligent because the harm to Palsgraf was not a foreseeable result of the railroad's actions, thus establishing the principle of foreseeability in determining negligence.

Question 9

If alleged consequences are too far removed from the negligent conduct:

Accepted Answer

In order for negligence to result in liability, the alleged consequences must be reasonably foreseeable as a result of the negligent conduct. If the alleged consequences are too far removed, it would not be considered a foreseeable consequence, and therefore the negligent conduct would not result in liability.

Question 10

In some states, such as California, proximate cause has been replaced by a negligence rule of liability that holds: A legal cause of injury is a cause which is a(n) ____ in bringing about the injury.

Accepted Answer

The answer of In some states, such as California, proximate...

Question 11

The ____ test states "A legal cause of injury is a cause which is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury."

Accepted Answer

The "substantial factor" test is a legal principle used to determine if a defendant's actions were a significant cause of the plaintiff's injury.

Question 12

If causal connection between a person's act and the resulting harm to another is broken by an intervening act or event, the act or event is called:

Accepted Answer

The correct term for an intervening act or event that breaks the causal connection between a person's act and the resulting harm is "superseding cause" or "intervening cause," which is not listed among the provided options. Therefore, none of the given choices accurately describe this concept.

Question 13

Due to criticism that the proximate cause rule is difficult to understand and apply, some states have replaced it with the:

Accepted Answer

Some states have replaced the proximate cause rule with the substantial factor test, which focuses on whether the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury (rather than just the proximate cause). This test is considered more straightforward and easier to apply than the proximate cause rule.

Question 14

Due to the requirement of proximate cause, in order for a person to be held liable for negligence it must be shown that:

Accepted Answer

All of the specific choices must be met in order for a person to be held liable for negligence. The defendant must have acted with less than reasonable care, despite the foreseeability of harm to the victim. Additionally, a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen the danger and done something to prevent it, and the defendant knew or should have known that the victim would be harmed. Therefore, all three choices must be met for proximate cause to be established.

Question 15

A superseding cause is an act that:

Accepted Answer

A superseding cause is an intervening act that breaks the causal chain of events between the defendant's act and the plaintiff's harm. This means that the defendant may not be held liable for the harm caused by the superseding cause, even though their act may have led to the superseding cause. Therefore, choice B accurately describes a superseding cause as an act that breaks the causal connection between the defendant's act and the resulting harm to the plaintiff.

Question 16

For a person's negligent conduct to be legally linked to its consequences, the chain of events connecting the two must be:

Accepted Answer

For a person's negligent conduct to be legally linked to its consequences, it must be foreseeable that their conduct could result in those consequences. Whether or not the chain of events is unbroken, explainable, or undisputable may also be important factors, but they are not as crucial as the foreseeability of the consequences.

Question 17

For a person's negligent conduct to be legally linked to its consequences, the chain of events connecting the two must be:

Accepted Answer

The answer of For a person's negligent conduct to be...

Question 18

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, where Palsgraf was hit by machinery that fell when an explosion occurred at a train station, and she sued the railroad for negligence, the New York high court held that the railroad:

Accepted Answer

The New York high court held that the railroad was not liable for Palsgraf's injuries because there was a lack of proximate cause between the railroad's actions and the injury suffered by Palsgraf. The court found that the injury was not a foreseeable consequence of the railroad's actions, thus negating the element of negligence.

Question 19

The ____ test states "A legal cause of injury is a cause which is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury."

Accepted Answer

The answer of The ____ test states "A legal cause...

Question 20

While Mrs. O'Leary may have been negligent in leaving an oil lamp in the barn for her cow to kick over, she would not be held liable for the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 because the chain of events from the cow kicking the lantern to the destruction of the city was not:

Accepted Answer

Negligence requires a foreseeable consequence of one's actions, and it would not have been foreseeable to Mrs. O'Leary that her actions would lead to the destruction of the entire city. Therefore, she cannot be held liable.

Quiz 6: Elements of Torts

If alleged consequences are too far removed from the negligent conduct:

If causal connection between a person's act and the resulting harm to another is broken by an intervening act or event, the act or event is called:

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company, involving a woman injured by an accidentally dropped package of fireworks that exploded as it was run over by a train, the railroad should not have been held liable for negligence because:

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company, involving a woman injured by an accidentally dropped package of fireworks that exploded as it was run over by a train, Palsgraf's injuries were not a result of negligence on the part of the railroad because:

Due to criticism that the proximate cause rule is difficult to understand and apply, some states have replaced it with the:

A superseding cause is an act that:

In some states, such as California, proximate cause has been replaced by a negligence rule of liability that holds: A legal cause of injury is a cause which is a(n) ____ in bringing about the injury.

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, where Palsgraf was hit by machinery that fell when an explosion occurred at a train station, and she sued the railroad for negligence, the New York high court held that the railroad:

If alleged consequences are too far removed from the negligent conduct:

In some states, such as California, proximate cause has been replaced by a negligence rule of liability that holds: A legal cause of injury is a cause which is a(n) ____ in bringing about the injury.

The ____ test states "A legal cause of injury is a cause which is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury."

If causal connection between a person's act and the resulting harm to another is broken by an intervening act or event, the act or event is called:

Due to criticism that the proximate cause rule is difficult to understand and apply, some states have replaced it with the:

Due to the requirement of proximate cause, in order for a person to be held liable for negligence it must be shown that:

A superseding cause is an act that:

For a person's negligent conduct to be legally linked to its consequences, the chain of events connecting the two must be:

For a person's negligent conduct to be legally linked to its consequences, the chain of events connecting the two must be:

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, where Palsgraf was hit by machinery that fell when an explosion occurred at a train station, and she sued the railroad for negligence, the New York high court held that the railroad:

The ____ test states "A legal cause of injury is a cause which is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury."

While Mrs. O'Leary may have been negligent in leaving an oil lamp in the barn for her cow to kick over, she would not be held liable for the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 because the chain of events from the cow kicking the lantern to the destruction of the city was not: