Question 1

One day, Jon carelessly left a rake next to the sidewalk when he went to lunch. Deb, a customer of the bank, stepped on the rake as she walked next to the sidewalk and was injured. Which statement is most likely correct?

Accepted Answer

Jon, an employee of the bank, carelessly left the rake next to the sidewalk, creating a dangerous condition for customers. As a result, the bank may be held liable for Deb's injuries under the principle of premises liability, as the bank has a duty to ensure the safety of its customers. It is not relevant whether or not Deb used due care, as the bank's negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.

Question 2

_____ is the plaintiff's voluntary consent to a known danger.

Accepted Answer

Assumption of risk is when the plaintiff willingly takes on the risk of harm and cannot hold the defendant liable for any resulting injury or damage. This defense is valid only if the plaintiff had knowledge of the potential danger and voluntarily chose to expose themselves to it.

Question 3

Today, trespassers who are injured while on someone else's land:

Accepted Answer

Some courts have created additional duties that possessors owe to trespassers.For example,a higher level of care is often required as to trespassers who are known to regularly enter the land,and as to children known to be likely to trespass.

Question 4

Ann had gone hiking into the woods. On the way, one of the tires of her new car failed. Her vehicle was rendered inoperable. The road was deserted. Rick, a co-hiker was passing on the way. He abducted her and sexually assaulted her. Ann wants to sue the car company for negligence. Will she succeed?

Accepted Answer

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

Question 5

Catherine decided to have lunch at Tom's, one of the most popular restaurants in town. She ordered soup before her main course as usual. The soup served to Catherine contained a maggot floating about in it. Fortunately, she noticed this before she had it. She sued Tom's for negligence. The most likely result will be:

Accepted Answer

The answer of Catherine decided to have lunch at Tom's,...

Question 6

What is the term to describe a plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care for her own safety?

Accepted Answer

Contributory negligence is the term used to describe a plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care for her own safety. This means that the plaintiff's negligence partially contributed to the injury they suffered, and therefore they may be barred from recovering damages.

Question 7

Parsons, a pedestrian watching a construction project, sees that a metal beam being lifted by a crane is about to drop on some unsuspecting workers. Thus, he rushes to the scene to warn the workers. For his efforts, he is struck by the falling beam. He sues the construction company in negligence. Which of the following is true? Assume that the falling beam was caused by a breach of duty on the company's part.

Accepted Answer

Parsons will likely recover against the construction company in negligence since the company breached its duty of care by allowing a dangerous condition (the potential dropping of the metal beam) to exist and not taking reasonable steps to prevent harm to others. Parsons did not assume the risk of being hit by the beam since he was trying to warn the workers and did not contribute to his own injuries. The worker operating the crane may also be liable, but this does not preclude the company's liability as well.

Question 8

A defendant who is negligent is not liable for the unlikely or unforeseeable harm that results. This rule is called:

Accepted Answer

The rule that a defendant is only liable for harm that is foreseeable as a consequence of their negligence is known as proximate cause. The other choices are not correct legal terms in this context. The "but for" rule is a related legal doctrine that establishes causation in cases where multiple factors contribute to an outcome. However, it is not the answer to this particular question.

Question 9

Rebecca goes for a ride in Owen's car, even though he has told her that the car's brakes frequently fail. In case of any injuries due to this defect, Rebecca would be said to have:

Accepted Answer

Any voluntary consent to a known danger constitutes an assumption of risk on the part of the plaintiff.

Question 10

The owner of a theatre negligently failed to install the requisite number of emergency exit. During the show of Shakespeare's Macbeth, one of the intoxicated viewers got carried away and burned himself. The entire hall was ablaze. There was only one emergency exit. Thus many people were killed in the stampede. Will the theatre owner be liable for negligence?

Accepted Answer

The answer of The owner of a theatre negligently failed...

Question 11

Many courts have adopted a test in resolving the proximate cause question, under which a defendant who has breached a duty of care is liable:

Accepted Answer

The "natural and probable consequences" test is the most commonly used test to determine proximate causation in tort law. Under this test, a defendant who has breached a duty of care is only liable for the injuries that are the direct result of his or her conduct and that were foreseeable at the time of the conduct. This test limits the scope of liability and ensures that defendants are not held liable for injuries that are too remote or unforeseeable.

Question 12

Which of the following characteristics is NOT considered by the court to determine the "reasonableness of the risk"?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Which of the following characteristics is NOT...

Question 13

Which of the following personal traits or conditions will not change the normal reasonable person standard to which defendants are subject?

Accepted Answer

Voluntary and negligent intoxication does not relieve a person from the duty to conform to the usual reasonable person standard.

Question 14

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be translated as:

Accepted Answer

Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase meaning "the thing speaks for itself." It is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to establish a defendant's negligence by relying solely on the occurrence of the accident or injury itself, without the need for additional evidence of specific acts of negligence.

Question 15

Jack had taken his girlfriend Jenny on a long drive. While driving on the highway, he suddenly had a severe headache and lost control of the car. They were hit by a passing car. The doctor had earlier warned Jack that he has a brain tumor, due to which he would experience occasional pains. Jenny sued Jack for negligence. Will she succeed?

Accepted Answer

Jack could reasonably foresee that his medical condition might lead to severe pain and potentially cause an accident, which constitutes negligence.

Question 16

Questions of proximate cause assume the existence of _____.

Accepted Answer

Questions of proximate cause assume the existence of actual cause. Proximate cause is the legal term for the cause-and-effect relationship between a breach of duty (a negligent act or omission) and the harm or damage caused. It requires proof of both actual cause (the defendant's actions directly caused the harm) and proximate cause (the harm was foreseeable and not too remote). Intervening cause refers to a distinct, intervening event that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's actions and the harm. Strict liability refers to liability without fault, usually in cases involving dangerous activities or defective products. Comparative fault is a defense used to reduce the defendant's liability by apportioning fault to other parties, including the plaintiff.

Question 17

State X has a "Sunday Closing Law" making it a crime to operate a retail business on Sundays. The law's legislative history reveals that it was enacted to promote respect for the Sabbath by all the people of the state, and thus to promote public decency and morality. One Sunday, Judy Smith slips on a puddle of spilled soft drink at Joe's Hamburger joint (which is operating in violation of the statute), and suffers an injury to her spine. The soft drink would not have been spilled if the store had not been open on Sunday. Judy sues Joe in negligence. One part of her complaint relies on the doctrine of negligence per se. Under the doctrine of negligence per se:

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of negligence per se applies when a defendant violates a statute that was enacted to protect a specific class of people from harm of a specific kind - in this case, the Sunday Closing Law was enacted to promote public decency and morality. However, the harm suffered by Judy (injury from slipping on a spilled drink) was not the type of harm that the statute was intended to protect against. Therefore, negligence per se does not apply and Judy cannot recover based on a violation of the Sunday Closing Law.

Question 18

Negligence "per se" is a legal rule that established a defendant's negligence when:

Accepted Answer

Negligence "per se" applies when a defendant violates a statute that was intended to protect persons like the plaintiff. This violation is considered evidence of negligence without the need for further proof of a duty of care, breach of duty, or causation.

Question 19

Trioka Corp. owns an apartment complex at which break-ins and prior instances of criminal activity had occurred. However, no security-related measures have been adopted. As a result, a criminal intruder easily enters the complex and physically attacks a tenant. Which of the following is true regarding the case?

Accepted Answer

Trioka Corp. had a duty to adopt security measures given the history of criminal activities in its apartment complex, and their failure to do so breached this duty. This breach was the actual cause of the tenant's injuries as the criminal intruder was able to easily enter the complex. Additionally, the injuries suffered by the tenant were foreseeable as they were the type of harms that could result from the lack of security measures. Therefore, Trioka Corp. is liable for both proximate cause and actual cause of the tenant's injuries.

Question 20

Homer's negligence caused an automobile accident with Bart. As a result of the collision, Bart's car collides with a telephone pole, causing it to fall. The falling pole then takes out some electrical power lines. The resulting power outage leaves Patty without any light in her apartment. As she fumbles in the darkness, she trips over her cat, falls, and is injured. Patty sues Homer. In order to avoid liability, Homer's best defense is that:

Accepted Answer

Proximate cause refers to the legal concept that the injury must be a foreseeable result of the defendant's actions. In this case, while Homer's negligence in causing the automobile accident may have been the initial cause, the subsequent chain of events leading to Patty's injury may not be a direct or foreseeable result of his actions. Therefore, arguing that there is no proximate cause between his breach of duty and Patty's injury may be his strongest defense.

Quiz 7: Negligence and Strict Liability