Question 1

When negligence per se applies,the plaintiff is required to show that a reasonable person would exercise a heightened duty of care toward the plaintiff.

Accepted Answer

When negligence per se applies, the defendant is deemed to have breached the duty of care by violating a statute or regulation. The plaintiff is not required to show that a reasonable person would exercise a heightened duty of care because this duty is already established in the statute or regulation that was violated.

Question 2

A defendant must be more than 25% at fault before the plaintiff can recover,according to the pure comparative negligence defense,

Accepted Answer

Under the pure comparative negligence defense, a plaintiff can recover damages even if they were partially at fault for the accident. There is no minimum percentage of fault required for the plaintiff to recover.

Question 3

Duty in a negligence case refers to ________.

Accepted Answer

A)Duty refers to the standard of care a reasonable person owes to another.
B)Duty refers to the standard of care a reasonable person owes to another.
C)Duty refers to the standard of care a reasonable person owes to another.
D)Duty refers to the standard of care a reasonable person owes to another.
E)Duty refers to the standard of care a reasonable person owes to another.

Question 4

Which of the following was the result on appeal in John Coomer v.Kansas City Royals Baseball Team,the case in the text in which the plaintiff sued after being hit in the eye by a hotdog thrown into the stands by a team mascot during the "Hotdog Launch," a customary activity during games?

Accepted Answer

A)According to the court "that tossing out promotional items is a customary activity does not equate to a fan's consent to the risk of being hit by a promotional item."
B)According to the court "that tossing out promotional items is a customary activity does not equate to a fan's consent to the risk of being hit by a promotional item."
C)According to the court "that tossing out promotional items is a customary activity does not equate to a fan's consent to the risk of being hit by a promotional item."
D)According to the court "that tossing out promotional items is a customary activity does not equate to a fan's consent to the risk of being hit by a promotional item."
E)According to the court "that tossing out promotional items is a customary activity does not equate to a fan's consent to the risk of being hit by a promotional item."

Question 5

A plaintiff in a negligence lawsuit may choose whether the plaintiff wishes pure comparative negligence or modified comparative negligence rules to be applied by the court.

Accepted Answer

The choice between pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence is determined by the laws of the jurisdiction where the lawsuit is filed, not by the preference of the plaintiff.

Question 6

To use the assumption of the risk defense successfully,a defendant must prove that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm the defendant caused.

Accepted Answer

This is the standard definition of the assumption of the risk defense. The defendant must show that the plaintiff knew and appreciated the risk involved and chose to accept it anyway. Additionally, the plaintiff's decision to encounter the risk must have been unreasonable, meaning that a reasonable person in the same situation would not have taken the same action.

Question 7

Negligent torts involve willfully refusing to exercise extraordinary care to protect another's person or property.

Accepted Answer

Negligent torts involve unintentional actions that result in harm or injury to another person or their property. It is not a willful act of refusing to exercise care. Therefore, the statement is false.

Question 8

Good Samaritan statutes impose liability upon people for refusing to stop at accident scenes.

Accepted Answer

Good Samaritan statutes typically provide legal immunity, rather than imposing liability, for individuals who voluntarily stop and render aid at the scene of an accident or emergency. However, some states do have "hit-and-run" laws that impose liability for leaving the scene of an accident without stopping to render aid, depending on the circumstances.

Question 9

If a plaintiff cannot establish all four elements of a negligence claim,what result should the plaintiff expect?

Accepted Answer

A)A plaintiff must prove four elements to win a negligence claim.A plaintiff who cannot establish all four of the elements duty;breach of duty;causation and damages)will be denied recovery.
B)A plaintiff must prove four elements to win a negligence claim.A plaintiff who cannot establish all four of the elements duty;breach of duty;causation and damages)will be denied recovery.

Question 10

Assumption of the risk is a doctrine which makes it easier for a plaintiff to prevail in a negligence lawsuit.

Accepted Answer

Assumption of the risk is a defense that may be used by a defendant in a negligence lawsuit, not a doctrine that makes it easier for a plaintiff to win. This defense is typically used when the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly engages in an activity that carries a risk of harm, and therefore cannot hold the defendant liable for any resulting injuries.

Question 11

Claudio,who has never had prior health issues,suddenly has a heart attack while driving.He runs over a student who is crossing the street,breaking her leg.Which of the following is true?

Accepted Answer

A)Sometimes harm occurs because an individual suffers an unfortunate accident,an incident that simply could not be avoided,even with reasonable care.
B)Sometimes harm occurs because an individual suffers an unfortunate accident,an incident that simply could not be avoided,even with reasonable care.
C)Sometimes harm occurs because an individual suffers an unfortunate accident,an incident that simply could not be avoided,even with reasonable care.
D)Sometimes harm occurs because an individual suffers an unfortunate accident,an incident that simply could not be avoided,even with reasonable care.
E)Sometimes harm occurs because an individual suffers an unfortunate accident,an incident that simply could not be avoided,even with reasonable care.

Question 12

The term strict liability refers to liability without fault.

Accepted Answer

Strict liability holds a person or entity responsible for their actions, even if they did not intend harm or were not negligent. It is a form of liability without fault or negligence.

Question 13

In some situations,the law specifies the duty of care one individual owes to another.

Accepted Answer

Yes, in certain circumstances, the law establishes the obligation of one person to take reasonable care to prevent harm or injury to another. For example, a doctor has a legal duty of care to treat their patients competently, and a driver has a legal duty of care to others on the road to drive safely and responsibly.

Question 14

Generally speaking,courts hold that landowners have a duty to protect individuals on their property.

Accepted Answer

This is generally true, as landowners are expected to ensure that their property is safe for visitors and take measures to prevent foreseeable harm. However, the extent of the duty and the potential liability of landowners may vary depending on the circumstances and the applicable laws.

Question 15

Res ipsa loquitor allows a judge or jury to infer that the defendant's negligence was,more likely than not,the cause of the plaintiff's harm.

Accepted Answer

Res ipsa loquitor is a legal doctrine that allows a judge or jury to infer negligence on the part of the defendant based on circumstantial evidence. In other words, if the plaintiff can show that the harm was caused by an event that would not have occurred without someone's negligence, and the defendant was in control of the circumstances at the time of the event, then the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove that they were not negligent. This means that the judge or jury can infer that the defendant's negligence was more likely than not the cause of the plaintiff's harm.

Question 16

Which of the following must a plaintiff prove to win a negligence case?

Accepted Answer

A)To win a negligence case,the plaintiff must prove four elements: 1)duty,2)
breach of duty,3)causation,and 4)damages.
B)To win a negligence case,the plaintiff must prove four elements: 1)duty,2)breach of duty,3)causation,and 4)damages.
C)To win a negligence case,the plaintiff must prove four elements: 1)duty,2)breach of duty,3)causation,and 4)damages.
D)To win a negligence case,the plaintiff must prove four elements: 1)duty,2)breach of duty,3)causation,and 4)damages.
E)To win a negligence case,the plaintiff must prove four elements: 1)duty,2)breach of duty,3)causation,and 4)damages.

Question 17

The severity of potential harm is a factor in determining whether a reasonable person would have owed a duty to others.

Accepted Answer

The severity of potential harm is a relevant factor in determining the existence of a duty of care. If the harm that could result from someone's actions is significant, then a reasonable person would likely owe a duty to take steps to avoid causing that harm.

Question 18

Implied assumption of the risk occurs when the plaintiff expressly agrees,usually in a written contract,to assume the risk posed by the defendant's behavior.

Accepted Answer

Implied assumption of the risk occurs when the plaintiff's actions or behavior indicate they are aware of and accept the risks involved, not through an express written agreement. Express assumption of the risk is what occurs through a written contract.

Question 19

Three-quarters of the states remain contributory negligence states.

Accepted Answer

Contributory negligence is less common, with only a few states following this rule. Most states follow comparative negligence systems.

Question 20

When a plaintiff uses res ipsa loquitor,the plaintiff must show direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due care to prove the defendant's negligence was the cause of harm.

Accepted Answer

Res ipsa loquitur allows for the negligence of the defendant to be inferred from the facts of the case, without direct evidence of their lack of due care.

Quiz 9: Negligence and Strict Liability