Question 1

Waivers of liability or exculpatory clauses:
A) are against common law public policy
B) are not permitted by statute in most states
C) are allowed in a narrow range of instances when approved by the Restatement of Torts
D) all of the other specific choices
E) none of the other specific choices

Accepted Answer

Waivers of liability or exculpatory clauses are generally not against common law public policy and are permitted by statute in many states, though their enforceability can vary based on the context and jurisdiction. They are not solely allowed in instances approved by the Restatement of Torts, as their use and enforceability can be broader, depending on the specific circumstances and the nature of the agreement.

Question 2

Waivers of liability or exculpatory clauses:
A) are against common law public policy
B) are not permitted by statute in most states
C) are allowed in many instances if clear to the party signing one
D) are allowed in a narrow range of instances when approved by the Restatement of Torts
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

Waivers of liability or exculpatory clauses are generally allowed in many instances if they are clear and unambiguous. However, they may be subject to scrutiny by courts to ensure that they do not violate public policy or other legal principles. Some states may have specific statutory provisions that limit or prohibit the use of such waivers. The Restatement of Torts provides guidance on the circumstances in which such clauses may be enforced, but its provisions are not binding law. Therefore, choice C is the best answer.

Question 3

In Geczi v. Lifetime Fitness, where Geczi suffered an injury when a treadmill at Lifetime malfunctioned but a jury held Lifetime not to be negligent, the appeals court held that Lifetime was not liable because Geczi.
A) implicitly assumed the risk of treadmill use
B) definitely assumed the risk of treadmill use by ignoring warnings of possible dangers
C) assumed the risk by her "wanton and careless" behavior
D) refused to assume the risk, which thereby voided her membership in Lifetime
E) none of the other choices are correct

Accepted Answer

The answer of In Geczi v. Lifetime Fitness, where Geczi...

Question 4

Express assumption of risk is when:
A) the parties agree beforehand that the defendant will relieve the plaintiff of his or her legal duty towards the defendant
B) the parties agree beforehand that the plaintiff will do everything in his power to protect the defendant from known risks
C) the parties agree beforehand that the defendant is only responsible for unknown risks
D) all of the other specific choices
E) none of the other specific choices

Accepted Answer

The answer of Express assumption of risk is when:
A) the...

Question 5

The doctrine of comparative negligence permits damages to be:
A) increased by the magnitude of defendants' wrongdoing
B) increased by the amount of plaintiffs' goodwill
C) increased by the amount the judge thinks necessary
D) decreased by the percentage of defendants' negligence
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of comparative negligence actually allows damages to be decreased by the percentage of the plaintiff's negligence, not increased by any factor related to the defendant's wrongdoing, the plaintiff's goodwill, or an arbitrary amount determined by the judge. None of the provided choices accurately describe the effect of comparative negligence on damages.

Question 6

Under the doctrine of ____, damages are reduced by the percentage of the injuries caused by a plaintiff's own careless conduct.
A) intervening conduct
B) substantial factor
C) comparative negligence
D) proximate cause
E) cause in fact

Accepted Answer

The doctrine that reduces damages by the percentage of the injuries caused by a plaintiff's own careless conduct is known as "comparative negligence." Under this doctrine, the court considers the degree of fault of both the plaintiff and the defendant and apportions the damages accordingly. Therefore, choice (C) is the correct answer.

Question 7

There are several key elements needed to establish the legal requirements for there to be an intentional tort. Which is not an element:
A) the wrongdoer knew what she was doing
B) the wrongdoer knew that certain results could occur
C) the wrongdoer knew possible consequences of his act
D) the wrongdoer knew who would suffer the injury
E) all of the other choices are necessary elements

Accepted Answer

The wrongdoer does not need to know specifically who would suffer the injury for there to be an intentional tort. The other elements (knowledge of action, possible consequences, and possible harm) are necessary for a finding of intentional tort.

Question 8

Express assumption of risk is when:
A) the parties agree beforehand that the defendant will relieve the plaintiff of his or her legal duty towards the defendant
B) the parties agree beforehand that the plaintiff will do everything in his power to protect the defendant from known risks
C) the parties agree beforehand that the defendant is only responsible for unknown risks
D) the parties agree beforehand that the plaintiff will relieve the defendant of his or her legal duty toward the plaintiff
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

Express assumption of risk occurs when the plaintiff has agreed, usually through a written contract or agreement, to relieve the defendant of an obligation to exercise care for the plaintiff's protection, effectively assuming the risk of injury. This means the plaintiff acknowledges the risks involved in certain activities or circumstances and agrees not to hold the defendant liable for injuries that may occur as a result of those risks.

Question 9

In Wassell v. Adams the plaintiff was 97% responsible for the attack she suffered in a hotel room. As a result, the jury awarded her 3% of an $850,000 verdict, or $25,500. This action reflects which of the following legal doctrines?
A) contributory negligence
B) assumption of risk
C) comparative negligence
D) intervening conduct
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

This action reflects the legal doctrine of comparative negligence, where the plaintiff's damages are reduced in proportion to their degree of fault in the incident. In this case, the plaintiff was found to be 97% responsible, and therefore only received 3% of the verdict amount. Contributory negligence would not be the right answer since it bars the plaintiff's recovery entirely if they are found to have contributed to their own injuries. Assumption of risk and intervening conduct would not be applicable in this case based on the information given.

Question 10

In Wassell v. Adams the plaintiff was 97% responsible for the attack she suffered in a hotel room when she opened her door for a stranger. As a result, the jury awarded her 3% of an $850,000 verdict, or $25,500. The appeals court agreed, holding that:
A) she would recover nothing because was primarily responsible for what happened
B) she would recover nothing because the criminal, who was not caught, was the responsible party, not the hotel owner
C) she would recover the entire verdict because the defendant was found partly responsible
D) she would recover the three percent under the comparative negligence rule
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The plaintiff would recover the three percent under the comparative negligence rule, which allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they were partly responsible for the harm they suffered, as long as their responsibility does not exceed a certain percentage set by the court. In this case, the plaintiff was found to be 97% responsible, which means she can only recover 3% of the damages awarded. This is in line with the concept of proportionality in tort law, which seeks to allocate liability according to the degree of fault of each party involved.

Question 11

In Geczi v. Lifetime Fitness, where Geczi suffered an injury when a treadmill at Lifetime malfunctioned but a jury held Lifetime not to be negligent, the appeals court held that Lifetime was not liable because:
A) Geczi expressly assumed the risk of injury
B) Geczi was over 18 when she signed the release of liability form
C) Geczi was a rational adult who should have understood the inherent risks of a treadmill
D) Geczi signed the release of liability form in front of witnesses
E) all of the other choices are correct

Accepted Answer

The court held that Geczi expressly assumed the risk of injury when she signed the release of liability form, which included the acknowledgment that she was using Lifetime's facilities and equipment at her own risk. As such, Lifetime was not liable for her injury.

Question 12

In Geczi v. Lifetime Fitness, where Geczi suffered an injury when a treadmill at Lifetime malfunctioned but a jury held Lifetime not to be negligent, the appeals court held that Lifetime was not liable because Geczi _____________.
A) implicitly assumed the risk
B) definitely assumed the risk
C) expressly assumed the risk
D) refused to assume the risk
E) none of the other choices are correct

Accepted Answer

Geczi expressly assumed the risk by signing a waiver that specifically released Lifetime from liability for any injuries she might suffer while using the facilities, including those resulting from the malfunctioning of equipment.

Question 13

If a jury finds there is comparative negligence in a tort case, which of the following happens:
A) damages are not allowed to be awarded
B) part of the injury is held to be the defendant's fault
C) the defendant is relieved of any fault
D) the judge issues a judgment notwithstanding the verdict
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The answer of If a jury finds there is comparative...

Question 14

If a jury finds there is comparative negligence in a tort case, which of the following happens:
A) damages are not allowed to be awarded
B) part of the injury is held to be the plaintiff's fault
C) the defendant is relieved of any fault
D) the judge issues a judgment notwithstanding the verdict
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

When a jury finds comparative negligence in a tort case, part of the injury is held to be the plaintiff's fault. This can result in a reduction of the damages awarded to the plaintiff, depending on the percentage of fault assigned to each party. It does not relieve the defendant of all fault, and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is a separate legal action taken by the judge.

Question 15

Intentional torts:
A) are determined by state statute
B) are based on careless actions of defendants
C) concern the interference with personal or property rights
D) only concern actions that inflict harm on humans
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

Intentional torts concern the interference with personal or property rights, such as assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespassing, and defamation. They are not determined by state statute, based on careless actions, or limited to harm inflicted on humans.

Question 16

The doctrine of ____ permits damages to be decreased by the percentage of plaintiffs' injuries caused by plaintiff's negligence.
A) substantial factor
B) proximate cause
C) intentional negligence
D) intervening conduct
E) comparative advantage

Accepted Answer

The doctrine described in the question is called "comparative negligence" or "comparative fault," which is the legal principle that allows for damages to be reduced based on the percentage of fault attributed to the plaintiff. This is often used in personal injury cases where both the plaintiff and the defendant may have contributed to the harm caused.

Question 17

Intentional torts:
A) are determined by state statute
B) are based on careless actions of defendants
C) are determined by international statute
D) only concern actions that inflict harm on humans
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

Intentional torts are civil wrongs resulting from deliberate actions rather than careless ones, and they are not exclusively governed by state or international statutes nor limited to actions that only harm humans. They can also involve harm to property or other interests.

Question 18

The doctrine of comparative negligence permits damages to be:
A) increased by the magnitude of defendants' wrongdoing
B) increased by the amount of plaintiffs' goodwill
C) increased by the amount the judge thinks necessary
D) decreased by the percentage of defendants' negligence
E) decreased by the percentage of plaintiffs' injuries caused by plaintiff's negligence

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of comparative negligence allows the damages to be reduced by the percentage of plaintiff's injuries caused by their own negligence.

Question 19

To establish the legal requirement of intent for an intentional tort:
A) the wrongdoer must have known what he was doing
B) the wrongdoer must have known that certain results could occur
C) the wrongdoer must have known the possible consequences of his act
D) all of the other specific choices
E) none of the other specific choices

Accepted Answer

The legal requirement of intent for an intentional tort involves all of the choices listed. The wrongdoer must have known what they were doing, understood that certain results may occur, and known the possible consequences of their actions. Only when all of these elements are present can the act be considered an intentional tort.

Question 20

The doctrine of ____ permits damages to be decreased by the percentage of plaintiffs' injuries caused by plaintiff's negligence.
A) substantial factor
B) proximate cause
C) intentional negligence
D) intervening conduct
E) none of the other choices

Accepted Answer

The doctrine described is known as "comparative negligence" or "contributory negligence," which is not listed among the provided options. These legal principles allow for the reduction of damages awarded to a plaintiff based on the plaintiff's own percentage of fault in contributing to the harm they suffered. None of the options provided (substantial factor, proximate cause, intentional negligence, intervening conduct) accurately describe this doctrine.

Quiz 6: Elements of Torts

Waivers of liability or exculpatory clauses:

Waivers of liability or exculpatory clauses:

In Geczi v. Lifetime Fitness, where Geczi suffered an injury when a treadmill at Lifetime malfunctioned but a jury held Lifetime not to be negligent, the appeals court held that Lifetime was not liable because Geczi.

Express assumption of risk is when:

The doctrine of comparative negligence permits damages to be:

Under the doctrine of ____, damages are reduced by the percentage of the injuries caused by a plaintiff's own careless conduct.

There are several key elements needed to establish the legal requirements for there to be an intentional tort. Which is not an element:

Express assumption of risk is when:

In Wassell v. Adams the plaintiff was 97% responsible for the attack she suffered in a hotel room. As a result, the jury awarded her 3% of an $850,000 verdict, or $25,500. This action reflects which of the following legal doctrines?

In Wassell v. Adams the plaintiff was 97% responsible for the attack she suffered in a hotel room when she opened her door for a stranger. As a result, the jury awarded her 3% of an $850,000 verdict, or $25,500. The appeals court agreed, holding that:

In Geczi v. Lifetime Fitness, where Geczi suffered an injury when a treadmill at Lifetime malfunctioned but a jury held Lifetime not to be negligent, the appeals court held that Lifetime was not liable because:

In Geczi v. Lifetime Fitness, where Geczi suffered an injury when a treadmill at Lifetime malfunctioned but a jury held Lifetime not to be negligent, the appeals court held that Lifetime was not liable because Geczi _____________.

If a jury finds there is comparative negligence in a tort case, which of the following happens:

If a jury finds there is comparative negligence in a tort case, which of the following happens:

Intentional torts:

The doctrine of ____ permits damages to be decreased by the percentage of plaintiffs' injuries caused by plaintiff's negligence.

Intentional torts:

The doctrine of comparative negligence permits damages to be:

To establish the legal requirement of intent for an intentional tort:

The doctrine of ____ permits damages to be decreased by the percentage of plaintiffs' injuries caused by plaintiff's negligence.