Question 1

The substantial factor test and the proximate cause rule produce significantly different results in negligence cases.

Accepted Answer

The answer of The substantial factor test and the proximate...

Question 2

Liability waivers are generally against public policy in tort cases and are not allowed as a defense.

Accepted Answer

Liability waivers can be used as a defense in certain circumstances, such as when the person signing the waiver was aware of the risks involved and voluntarily assumed them. However, whether a waiver is enforceable or not can depend on the specific details of the case and the jurisdiction involved.

Question 3

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, Palsgraf was hurt at a train station by equipment that fell on her during an explosion. The New York high court held that the railroad was liable for negligence in protecting its patrons.

Accepted Answer

The New York high court in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad held that the railroad was not liable for negligence because the injury suffered by Palsgraf was not foreseeable and not within the scope of their duty of care.

Question 4

A young woman let a strange man into her motel room and was assaulted by him. She sued the motel. Because she was found 97% responsible, the motel did not have to pay her anything.

Accepted Answer

While it is true that the woman let the man into her room, it is not necessarily true that the motel is not responsible for the assault. The motel has a duty to provide a safe environment for its guests, and if it can be proven that the motel failed to provide adequate security measures or acted negligently in some other way, they could still be held partially responsible for the assault. The percentage of fault assigned to the woman and the motel would depend on the specific circumstances of the case.

Question 5

A man was injured when riding a mechanical bull at a state fair. The ride was working properly, but riders usually get bucked off. The man signed a waiver that he accepted the possibility of injury from a fall. When he sued for his injuries, you would expect the court to throw out the suit if the waiver clearly stated the dangers.

Accepted Answer

The man signed a waiver that acknowledged the potential for injury from falling off the mechanical bull. Courts typically uphold waivers that clearly state the risks and consequences of participating in an activity. Therefore, it is likely that the court would dismiss the man's lawsuit.

Question 6

Because danger invites rescue, those people who attempt to rescue others and get hurt in the process must bear the costs of their harms themselves.

Accepted Answer

This statement is not entirely true as certain laws and regulations exist to protect and compensate rescue workers or good Samaritans who get injured while attempting to rescue others. For example, in the United States, the Good Samaritan laws provide legal protection to those who render emergency care or assistance in good faith, even if they make mistakes while doing so. Similarly, first responders, firefighters, and other emergency workers are usually covered under workers' compensation laws that provide benefits for medical treatment and lost wages due to injuries suffered on the job.

Question 7

California and other states use the "substantial factor" test instead of the proximate cause rule.

Accepted Answer

California and some other states have abolished the traditional proximate cause rule and have adopted the "substantial factor" test for determining causation in tort cases. This means that a defendant's conduct can be considered a cause of harm if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, even if other factors also contributed to the harm.

Question 8

In some states, if a plaintiff is found to have contributed fifty percent or more of the negligence to a situation, then there may be no recovery from the defendant.

Accepted Answer

This concept is known as "comparative negligence" and some states have a "50% bar rule" which means that if a plaintiff is found to have contributed 50% or more to the negligence in a situation, they cannot recover damages from the defendant. Other states have different percentages, such as a "51% bar rule" or a "modified comparative negligence" rule.

Question 9

In Geczi v. Lifetime Fitness, where Geczi was injured by a defective treadmill machine at Lifetime, the court held that Geczi lost her right to sue because she assumed the risks of playing and signed a liability waiver.

Accepted Answer

The court held that Geczi's assumption of the risks through her participation in the activity and her signing of the liability waiver barred her from pursuing a lawsuit against Lifetime Fitness for her injuries.

Question 10

If a plaintiff is found to be comparatively negligent in a tort suit, the plaintiff will recover no money from the defendant.

Accepted Answer

In most cases, the plaintiff can still recover money from the defendant even if they are found to be comparatively negligent. However, the damages awarded to the plaintiff may be reduced by the percentage of their own negligence. This is known as the rule of comparative negligence.

Question 11

In Geczi v. Lifetime Fitness, where Geczi was injured by a defective treadmill machine at Lifetime, the court held that the liability waiver signed by McCune violated public policy, so her suit should be tried.

Accepted Answer

The question inaccurately references a case and individual (Geczi), when it was actually McCune who was injured at Lifetime Fitness. Additionally, the court's ruling in the McCune v. Lifetime Fitness case held that the liability waiver McCune signed was enforceable, so her suit was dismissed.

Question 12

Damages in a negligence suit are found to be $100,000. If the jury finds the plaintiff was 40 percent responsible, the defendant would pay for 60 percent of the damages ($60,000) under the rule of comparative negligence.

Accepted Answer

This statement correctly describes how comparative negligence works in determining damages in a negligence suit. The defendant would be responsible for paying 60 percent of the damages, which in this case would be $60,000.

Question 13

The only defense in case of negligence is that of assumption of risk.

Accepted Answer

Assumption of risk is not the only defense in case of negligence. Other defenses may include contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and intervening or superseding cause.

Question 14

In Geczi v. Lifetime Fitness, where Geczi was injured by a defective treadmill machine at Lifetime, the court held that the state legislature had exempted such places of business from tort liability.

Accepted Answer

In Geczi v. Lifetime Fitness, the court did not hold that the state legislature had exempted such places of business from tort liability. Instead, the case likely involved issues of negligence, waivers, or premises liability specific to the facts of the case, rather than a broad legislative exemption from tort liability for fitness centers.

Question 15

Intervening conduct is similar to superseding cause in negligence cases.

Accepted Answer

Intervening conduct occurs when a third party's actions come in between the defendant's initial act of negligence and the plaintiff's injury. This can be similar to superseding cause, which is an unforeseeable event that breaks the causal chain between the defendant's initial act of negligence and the plaintiff's injury. Both intervening conduct and superseding cause can limit the defendant's liability in a negligence case.

Question 16

You see a house on fire and rush in to save a person trapped in the house. You suffer burns from the fire. The person who negligently started the fire has no legal obligation to you because there was no knowledge you would become involved.

Accepted Answer

The person who negligently started the fire may still have legal liability for any damages or injuries caused by their actions, even if they did not know that someone would try to save the person trapped in the house. This is based on the legal principle of negligence, which holds individuals responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions. However, the specific legal requirements for establishing liability in this situation would depend on the particular laws and circumstances involved.

Question 17

If the causal relationship between the defendant's act and the resulting harm is broken by an intervening act, there is an approximate cause.

Accepted Answer

The presence of an intervening act can break the chain of causation, meaning the defendant's act is no longer considered the proximate cause of the resulting harm.

Question 18

Liability waivers are also called exculpatory clauses.

Accepted Answer

Liability waivers and exculpatory clauses refer to the same legal concept: a contractual provision that attempts to release one party from liability for any injuries, damages, or losses that might arise from a particular activity or business transaction. Both terms are commonly used in legal documents and discussions.

Question 19

Damages in a negligence suit are found to be $100,000. If the jury finds the defendant was 60 percent responsible, the defendant would pay for 60 percent of the damages ($60,000) under the rule of comparative negligence.

Accepted Answer

This statement accurately describes how comparative negligence works in a negligence suit. The defendant would be responsible for paying a percentage of the total damages based on their degree of fault as determined by the jury. In this case, if the defendant is found to be 60 percent responsible, they would pay 60 percent of the damages ($60,000).

Question 20

As a general rule, any defense to an intentional tort is also available in a negligence action.

Accepted Answer

This is true because most, if not all, defenses that apply to intentional torts also apply to negligence actions. For example, the defense of consent is relevant in both types of cases.

Quiz 6: Elements of Torts