Question 1

Generally,property owners do not owe a duty of care to trespassers who regularly enter the land without authorization.

Accepted Answer

Traditionally,property owners did not owe a duty of care to trespassers.However,in recent years,many courts impose a duty of care on property owners for trespassers who are known to regularly enter the land,especially regular ones like children.

Question 2

Special duties that run from possessors of real estate to those who enter that property are called "premises liability" cases.

Accepted Answer

Premises liability cases are special duties that run from the possessor of the real estate to the one who enters it.

Question 3

In some states,social guests are classified as licensees.

Accepted Answer

A licensee enters the property for her own purposes,not for a purpose connected with the possessor's business.In some states,social guests are considered licensees,though today they are more commonly classified as invitees.

Question 4

Negligent defendants are never liable for the consequences of an unforeseeable intervening cause.

Accepted Answer

Intervening cause is for unforeseeable acts,not those that are caused by negligence.

Question 5

Negligence is conduct by an individual that falls below the reasonably necessary levels to protect others from the risk of harm.

Accepted Answer

Negligence is conduct that falls below the reasonably necessary levels to protect others against significant risks of harm.

Question 6

Negligence per se is defined as negligence where one party is a citizen of a foreign nation.

Accepted Answer

Under the doctrine of negligence per se,the defendant is found to have breached her duty to the plaintiff by failing to follow conduct mandated in statutes,ordinances,and administrative regulations.

Question 7

Whatever the type of injury experienced by the plaintiff,the usual rule is that only punitive damages are recoverable in a negligence case.

Accepted Answer

Whatever the type of injury experienced by the plaintiff,the usual rule is that only compensatory damages are recoverable in a negligence case.

Question 8

Contributory negligence is an individual's failure to take care for her/his own safety.

Accepted Answer

Contributory negligence is the plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care for her/his own safety.

Question 9

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for others."

Accepted Answer

Res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself")applies when (1)the defendant has exclusive control of the instrumentality of harm (and therefore probable knowledge of,and responsibility for,the cause of the harm); (2)the harm that occurred would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence;and (3)the plaintiff was in no way responsible for his own injury.

Question 10

The tort of negligent hiring is distinct from tort liability predicated upon the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Accepted Answer

The tort of negligent hiring is independent of a respondeat superior theory.The vast majority of negligent hiring cases involve intentional torts committed by an employee who is not acting within the scope of his or her employment.

Question 11

Under many "mixed" comparative negligence systems,a plaintiff recovers nothing where the plaintiff's own negligence was 50 percent or more responsible for the plaintiff's injury.

Accepted Answer

Courts seek to determine the relative negligence of the parties and award damages in proportion to the degrees of negligence determined.Under a mixed system,the plaintiff recovers nothing if his/her fault was 50 percent or more responsible for the injury.

Question 12

Unforeseeable acts are held to be an intervening cause.

Accepted Answer

Most courts hold that an unforeseeable act is an intervening cause,which absolves the defendant of liability for harms that resulted directly from it.

Question 13

Proximate causation presupposes the existence of actual or but-for causation;you can't have the former without the latter.

Accepted Answer

Courts typically say that a negligent defendant is liable only for the proximate results of his breach.Proximate cause,then,concerns the required degree of proximity or closeness between the defendant's breach and the injury it actually caused.

Question 14

In a strict liability case,the plaintiff must prove that the defendant breached a duty.

Accepted Answer

In strict liability cases,the defendant is liable even though he did not intend to cause the harm and did not bring it about through recklessness or negligence.

Question 15

In a case involving an ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activity,the plaintiff must prove recklessness on the defendant's part.Any lower fault standard would be unfair to the defendant in such a case.

Accepted Answer

Abnormally dangerous (or ultrahazardous)activities are those necessarily involving a risk of harm that cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care.The court will hold a defendant to a higher standard for willingly conducting dangerous activities.that the defendant knew could be potentially harmful to others.The plaintiff is not required to prove recklessness on the defendant's part.

Question 16

Many courts no longer distinguish between licensees and invitees.

Accepted Answer

Most notably,many courts no longer distinguish between licensees and invitees.These courts hold that the possessor owes a duty of reasonable care to persons regardless of whether they are licensees or invitees.

Question 17

If an individual can foresee that his/her actions will cause a risk of harm to another,then the individual has a duty to protect that other person from harm.

Accepted Answer

Courts typically hold that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care if the plaintiff was among those who would be at risk of harm stemming from the defendant's activities or conduct,or if a special relationship logically calling for such a duty existed between the parties.

Question 18

In some states that have eliminated assumption of risk as a separate and complete defense,assumption of risk reappears as one of the many kinds of fault that a court must weigh in applying the state's comparative fault defense.

Accepted Answer

In a comparative fault state,the fact-finder determines the plaintiff's and the defendant's relative shares of the fault-including assumption of risk-that caused the plaintiff's injury.

Question 19

Under the legal theory of negligence,each person must act as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence.

Accepted Answer

Negligence law contemplates that each person must act as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would have acted in similar circumstances.

Question 20

In many cases,a blind person will be held to a different standard of reasonable care than a person who can see.

Accepted Answer

To a limited extent,negligence law considers the personal characteristics of the defendant.A physically disabled person must act as would a reasonable person with the same disability.

Quiz 7: Negligence and Strict Liability