In some situations, the law specifies the duty of care one individual owes to another.
TRUE
TRUE
The plaintiff must first establish that the defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff. In some particular situations, the law specifies the duty of care one individual owes to another.
The courts generally hold that landowners have a duty to protect individuals on their property.
TRUE
TRUE
The courts generally hold that landowners have a duty of care to protect individuals on their property.
When negligence per se applies, the plaintiff is required to show that a reasonable person would exercise a certain duty of care toward the plaintiff.
FALSE
FALSE
Res ipsa loquitur literally means "the thing speaks for itself." The plaintiff uses this doctrine to allow the judge or jury to infer that more likely than not, the defendant's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's harm, even though there is no direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due care.
A plaintiff in a negligence suit may choose whether the plaintiff wishes pure comparative negligence or modified comparative negligence to be applied by the court.
FALSE
FALSE
Choice is not involved. Most states have replaced the contributory negligence defense with either pure or modified comparative negligence.
According to the pure comparative negligence defense, a defendant must be more than 50% at fault before the plaintiff can recover.
FALSE
FALSE
According to a pure comparative negligence defense, the court determines the percentage of fault of the defendant. The defendant is then liable for that percentage of the plaintiff's damages. In modified comparative negligence, the defendant must be more than 50 percent at fault before the plaintiff can recover.
Assumption of the risk is a doctrine which makes it easier for a plaintiff to prevail in a lawsuit.
FALSE
FALSE
Another defense available to defendants facing negligence claims is called assumption of the risk. To use this defense successfully, a defendant must prove that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm the defendant caused.
More than half the states remain contributory negligence states.
FALSE
FALSE
Twenty-eight states have adopted modified comparative negligence, thirteen have adopted pure comparative negligence, and nine have adopted contributory negligence.
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.
TRUE
TRUE
Another defense available to defendants facing negligence claims is called assumption of the risk. To use this defense successfully, a defendant must prove that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm the defendant caused.
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.
FALSE
FALSE
Express 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. In contrast, implied assumption of the risk means that the plaintiff implicitly assumed a known risk.
Good Samaritan statutes impose liability upon people for refusing to stop at accident scenes.
FALSE
FALSE
Laws in some states hold that people in peril who receive voluntary aid from others cannot hold those offering aid liable for negligence. These laws, commonly called Good Samaritan statutes, attempt to encourage selfless and courageous behavior by removing the threat of liability.
Strict liability is liability without fault.
TRUE
TRUE
Strict liability is liability without fault.
Which of the following is behavior that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others and involves the failure to exercise reasonable care to protect another's personal property?
A. Negligence.
B. Strict Liability.
C. Compensatory conduct.
D. Intentional wrongdoing.
E. Both negligence and intentional wrongdoing.
A. Negligence.
B. Strict Liability.
C. Compensatory conduct.
D. Intentional wrongdoing.
E. Both negligence and intentional wrongdoing.
Negligence is behavior that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others. In contrast to intentional torts, which result from a person's willfully taking actions that are likely to cause injury, negligent torts involve the failure to exercise reasonable care to protect another's person or property.
Assume Bob is driving and suddenly has an unexpected heart attack causing him to run over a student crossing the street breaking the student's leg in the process. Which of the following is true?
A. The student can recover upon a showing of injury. Nothing else is required.
B. The student may recover only if the student can show that the student was in the marked crosswalk.
C. It is unlikely that the student can recover because the accident could not have been avoided even with reasonable care.
D. The student can recover only if it can be shown that Bob had insurance.
E. The student can recover only if the student can establish that the student did not have any medical insurance.
A. The student can recover upon a showing of injury. Nothing else is required.
B. The student may recover only if the student can show that the student was in the marked crosswalk.
C. It is unlikely that the student can recover because the accident could not have been avoided even with reasonable care.
D. The student can recover only if it can be shown that Bob had insurance.
E. The student can recover only if the student can establish that the student did not have any medical insurance.
Sometimes, however, harm occurs because an individual suffers an unfortunate accident, an incident that simply could not be avoided, even with reasonable care.
Which of the following must a plaintiff prove to win a negligence case?
A. Duty, breach of duty and causation.
B. Breach of duty only.
C. Duty and causation only.
D. Causation and damages.
E. Duty, breach of duty, causation and damages.
A. Duty, breach of duty and causation.
B. Breach of duty only.
C. Duty and causation only.
D. Causation and damages.
E. Duty, breach of duty, causation and damages.
To win a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages.
The ________ standard is a measurement of the way members of society expect an individual to act in a given situation.
A. Reasonable person
B. Above-average person
C. Without error
D. Perfect accountability
E. Reasonable accountability
A. Reasonable person
B. Above-average person
C. Without error
D. Perfect accountability
E. Reasonable accountability
The reasonable person standard is a measurement of the way members of society expect an individual to act in a given situation. To determine the defendant's duty of care, the judge or jury must determine the degree of care and skill that a reasonable person would exercise under similar circumstances.
While driving her car down the street, Susan sees a child playing near the road with no adult around. Which of the following is true?
A. Because the law holds that every U.S. citizen holds the duty to help a stranger in peril, she must come to the child's assistance.
B. She must come to the child's assistance only because a child is involved.
C. She has no duty to render assistance to the child.
D. She must render assistance to the child only if she can do so without peril to herself.
E. She must render assistance to the child only if she is acquainted with the child's parents.
A. Because the law holds that every U.S. citizen holds the duty to help a stranger in peril, she must come to the child's assistance.
B. She must come to the child's assistance only because a child is involved.
C. She has no duty to render assistance to the child.
D. She must render assistance to the child only if she can do so without peril to herself.
E. She must render assistance to the child only if she is acquainted with the child's parents.
In most situations like this one, the law holds that individuals have no duty to rescue strangers from perilous situations.
Tina negligently hits student Susie with her car. Which of the following is true?
A. Tina has no duty to come to the aid of Susie.
B. Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie because she negligently hit her.
C. Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie only if police are not on the scene within a reasonable amount of time.
D. Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie only if Susie has no insurance.
E. Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie only if no one else is willing to do so.
A. Tina has no duty to come to the aid of Susie.
B. Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie because she negligently hit her.
C. Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie only if police are not on the scene within a reasonable amount of time.
D. Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie only if Susie has no insurance.
E. Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie only if no one else is willing to do so.
In some cases, however, the courts hold that individuals have a duty to aid strangers in certain types of peril. For example, if Sam negligently hits Janice with his car and, as a result, Janice is lying in the street, Sam has a duty to remove her from that dangerous position.
Clients who feel that they have suffered damages as a result of a professional's breach of his or her duty of care can bring a negligence case against the professional referred to as a _____________ case.
A. Malfeasance
B. Malpractice
C. Mistake
D. Physician liability
E. Physician guilty
A. Malfeasance
B. Malpractice
C. Mistake
D. Physician liability
E. Physician guilty
Clients who feel that they have suffered damages as a result of a professional's breach of her duty of care can bring a negligence case against her. These actions are referred to as malpractice cases.
The violation of a duty of care is called _______.
A. Breach of responsibility
B. Breach of statute
C. Breach of duty
D. Objectionable breaching
E. Negligent breaching
A. Breach of responsibility
B. Breach of statute
C. Breach of duty
D. Objectionable breaching
E. Negligent breaching
Once the plaintiff has established that the defendant owes her a duty of care, she must prove that the defendant's conduct violated that duty. This violation is called a breach of duty.
Which of the following is true regarding the duty that a business owes to customers?
A. A business owes no duty to its customers other than to sell safe products.
B. A business owes an absolute duty to keep its customers safe and is strictly liable for any harm.
C. A business only owes a minimal duty toward customers.
D. A business owes a negligence per se duty toward customers.
E. A business has a duty of care to protect their customers against foreseeable risks about which the owner knew or reasonably should have known.
A. A business owes no duty to its customers other than to sell safe products.
B. A business owes an absolute duty to keep its customers safe and is strictly liable for any harm.
C. A business only owes a minimal duty toward customers.
D. A business owes a negligence per se duty toward customers.
E. A business has a duty of care to protect their customers against foreseeable risks about which the owner knew or reasonably should have known.
The courts generally hold that businesses have a duty of care to protect their customers against foreseeable risks about which the owner knew or reasonably should have known.
Which of the following are elements of causation?
A. Actual cause and proximate cause.
B. Actual cause and significant cause.
C. Actual cause and clear cause.
D. Proximate cause and significant cause.
E. Proximate cause and real cause.
A. Actual cause and proximate cause.
B. Actual cause and significant cause.
C. Actual cause and clear cause.
D. Proximate cause and significant cause.
E. Proximate cause and real cause.
Causation has two separate elements: actual cause and proximate cause.
Actual cause is also known as ______.
A. Proximate cause
B. Legal cause
C. Cause in fact
D. Cause for certainty
E. Proximately related cause
A. Proximate cause
B. Legal cause
C. Cause in fact
D. Cause for certainty
E. Proximately related cause
Actual cause is also known as cause in fact.
Which of the following is the determination that the defendant's breach of duty resulted directly in the plaintiff's injury?
A. Proximate cause.
B. Legal cause.
C. Apparent cause.
D. Actual cause.
E. Significant cause.
A. Proximate cause.
B. Legal cause.
C. Apparent cause.
D. Actual cause.
E. Significant cause.
Actual cause is the determination that the defendant's breach of duty resulted directly in the plaintiff's injury.
Which of the following is sometimes referred to as "but for" causation?
A. Proximate cause.
B. Significant cause.
C. Actual cause.
D. Legal cause.
E. Constructive cause.
A. Proximate cause.
B. Significant cause.
C. Actual cause.
D. Legal cause.
E. Constructive cause.
Actual cause is sometimes referred to as "but-for" causation because the plaintiff argues that the damages he or she suffered would not have occurred but for (except because of) the actions of the defendant.
Proximate cause is also sometimes referred to as which of the following?
A. Actual cause.
B. Cause in fact.
C. Legal cause.
D. Significant cause.
E. Factual Cause.
A. Actual cause.
B. Cause in fact.
C. Legal cause.
D. Significant cause.
E. Factual Cause.
Proximate cause is sometimes referred to as legal cause.
Which of the following refers to the extent to which, as a matter of policy, a defendant may be held liable for the consequences of his actions?
A. Proximate cause.
B. Actual cause.
C. Cause in fact.
D. Significant cause.
E. Legal cause.
A. Proximate cause.
B. Actual cause.
C. Cause in fact.
D. Significant cause.
E. Legal cause.
Proximate cause refers to the extent to which, as a matter of policy, a defendant may be held liable for the consequences of his actions.
In most states, proximate cause is determined by _______.
A. Statute
B. Common law
C. Forseeability
D. But-for causation
E. Strict liability
A. Statute
B. Common law
C. Forseeability
D. But-for causation
E. Strict liability
In most states, proximate cause is determined by foreseeability.
Which of the following damages are intended to reimburse a plaintiff for his or her losses?
A. Compensatory.
B. Punitives.
C. Nominal.
D. Exemplary.
E. Quantum.
A. Compensatory.
B. Punitives.
C. Nominal.
D. Exemplary.
E. Quantum.
Compensatory damages are damages intended to reimburse a plaintiff for her or his losses.
Why are punitive damages awarded?
A. To punish the offender only.
B. To deter others from committing similar offenses only.
C. To reimburse a plaintiff for his or her losses only.
D. To punish the offender and to deter others from committing similar offenses.
E. To punish the offender, to deter others from committing similar offenses and to reimburse a plaintiff for his or her losses.
A. To punish the offender only.
B. To deter others from committing similar offenses only.
C. To reimburse a plaintiff for his or her losses only.
D. To punish the offender and to deter others from committing similar offenses.
E. To punish the offender, to deter others from committing similar offenses and to reimburse a plaintiff for his or her losses.
Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are imposed to punish the offender and deter others from committing similar offenses.
Courts usually award punitive damages in cases in which the offender has committed ______.
A. Negligence
B. Strict liability offense
C. A res ipsa loquitur offense
D. Compensatory negligence
E. Gross negligence
A. Negligence
B. Strict liability offense
C. A res ipsa loquitur offense
D. Compensatory negligence
E. Gross negligence
Courts usually award punitive damages in cases in which the offender has committed gross negligence, an action committed with extreme reckless disregard for the property or life of another person.
Which of the following is a doctrine that has been adopted by courts to aid plaintiffs in establishing negligence claims?
A. Res ipsa loquitur only.
B. Negligence per se only.
C. Assumption of risk only.
D. Res ipsa loquitur and negligence per se.
E. Res ipsa loquitur, negligence per se and assumption of risk.
A. Res ipsa loquitur only.
B. Negligence per se only.
C. Assumption of risk only.
D. Res ipsa loquitur and negligence per se.
E. Res ipsa loquitur, negligence per se and assumption of risk.
Res ipsa loquitur literally means "the thing speaks for itself." The plaintiff uses this doctrine to allow the judge or jury to infer that more likely than not, the defendant's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's harm, even though there is no direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due care. Negligence per se applies to cases in which the defendant has violated a statute enacted to prevent a certain type of harm from befalling a specific group to which the plaintiff belongs. If the defendant's violation causes the plaintiff to suffer from the type of harm that the statute intends to prevent, the violation is deemed negligence per se.
When would a defendant use the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?
A. To allow the judge and jury to infer that more likely than not, the defendant's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's harm, even though there is no direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due care.
B. To allow the judge and jury to infer that more likely than not, the defendant's negligence was not the cause of the plaintiff's harm.
C. To allow the judge and jury to presume the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence.
D. To allow the judge and jury to presume the plaintiff destroyed evidence.
E. None of the above.
A. To allow the judge and jury to infer that more likely than not, the defendant's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's harm, even though there is no direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due care.
B. To allow the judge and jury to infer that more likely than not, the defendant's negligence was not the cause of the plaintiff's harm.
C. To allow the judge and jury to presume the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence.
D. To allow the judge and jury to presume the plaintiff destroyed evidence.
E. None of the above.
Res ipsa loquitur literally means "the thing speaks for itself." The plaintiff uses this doctrine to allow the judge or jury to infer that more likely than not, the defendant's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's harm, even though there is no direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due care.
Assuming res ipsa loquitur is established, what is the effect of that doctrine?
A. It requires a finding of negligence.
B. It prohibits a finding of negligence.
C. The burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff.
D. The burden of proof shifts to the defendant.
E. The burden of proof rises to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
A. It requires a finding of negligence.
B. It prohibits a finding of negligence.
C. The burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff.
D. The burden of proof shifts to the defendant.
E. The burden of proof rises to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Once the plaintiff has demonstrated the elements required for a finding of res ipsa loquitur, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant, who must prove that he was not negligent to avoid liability.
Which of the following is true regarding the law of negligence in Germany?
A. It is the same as the law of negligence in the United States.
B. It focuses only on conscious negligence.
C. It focuses only on unconscious negligence.
D. Courts distinguish between conscious and unconscious negligence with defendants who have engaged in only conscious negligence being found not guilty.
E. Courts distinguish between conscious and unconscious negligence with defendants who have engaged in only unconscious negligence being found not guilty.
A. It is the same as the law of negligence in the United States.
B. It focuses only on conscious negligence.
C. It focuses only on unconscious negligence.
D. Courts distinguish between conscious and unconscious negligence with defendants who have engaged in only conscious negligence being found not guilty.
E. Courts distinguish between conscious and unconscious negligence with defendants who have engaged in only unconscious negligence being found not guilty.
German courts distinguish between conscious and unconscious negligence. Conscious negligence requires knowledge that the offense is about to occur and that it is an actual offense. Unconscious negligence occurs when the defendant is either unaware that the act constitutes an offense or unaware that the act is occurring at all. In such cases, the defendant is found not guilty by reason of unconscious negligence.
Which of the following represents the court's ruling in the case in the text Barbara Debusscher v. Sam's East, Inc., the case in which the plaintiff was injured after a portable basketball goal fell on her?
A. That the lower court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant based on a lack of proof of negligence.
B. That to rely upon res ipsa loquitur, plaintiff must conclusively eliminate the possibility of all other causes of the injury, and that the plaintiff had done so.
C. That the plaintiff was entitled to proceed under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur but that the jury might not find for the plaintiff.
D. That only the court, not a jury, can determine liability when res ipsa loquitur is involved.
E. Both that to rely upon the concept of res ipsa loquitur, a defendant need not conclusively eliminate the possibility of all other causes of the injury and that only the court, not a jury, can determine liability when res ipsa loquitur is involved.
A. That the lower court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant based on a lack of proof of negligence.
B. That to rely upon res ipsa loquitur, plaintiff must conclusively eliminate the possibility of all other causes of the injury, and that the plaintiff had done so.
C. That the plaintiff was entitled to proceed under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur but that the jury might not find for the plaintiff.
D. That only the court, not a jury, can determine liability when res ipsa loquitur is involved.
E. Both that to rely upon the concept of res ipsa loquitur, a defendant need not conclusively eliminate the possibility of all other causes of the injury and that only the court, not a jury, can determine liability when res ipsa loquitur is involved.
The court ruled that the plaintiff DeBusscher had made the required showing for a claim of res ipsa loquitur but stated that in reaching its conclusion, the court did not mean to imply that a jury would necessarily find for DeBusscher [the plaintiff].
What does the term "negligence per se" mean literally?
A. Pure negligence.
B. Select negligence.
C. Negligence in or of itself.
D. Absolute wrongdoing.
E. Allowable negligence.
A. Pure negligence.
B. Select negligence.
C. Negligence in or of itself.
D. Absolute wrongdoing.
E. Allowable negligence.
Negligence per se means literally, "negligence in or of itself."
Which of the following applies to cases in which the defendant has violated a statute enacted to prevent a certain type of harm from befalling a specific group to which the plaintiff belongs?
A. Res ipsa loquitur.
B. Negligence per se.
C. Statutory shop act.
D. Comparative negligence.
E. Assumption of the risk.
A. Res ipsa loquitur.
B. Negligence per se.
C. Statutory shop act.
D. Comparative negligence.
E. Assumption of the risk.
Negligence per se applies to cases in which the defendant has violated a statute enacted to prevent a certain type of harm from befalling a specific group to which the plaintiff belongs. If the defendant's violation causes the plaintiff to suffer from the type of harm that the statute intends to prevent, the violation is deemed negligence per se.
Which of the following is an example of a dram shop act?
A. A statute which requires bar owners to have a license before operating a bar.
B. A statute which allows bartenders and bar owners to be held liable for injuries caused by individuals which become intoxicated at the bar.
C. A statute that prohibits any bars on certain streets in the jurisdiction.
D. A statute which allows the selling of beer but not hard liquor.
E. A statute which requires bar owners to post a bond before opening for business in a jurisdiction.
A. A statute which requires bar owners to have a license before operating a bar.
B. A statute which allows bartenders and bar owners to be held liable for injuries caused by individuals which become intoxicated at the bar.
C. A statute that prohibits any bars on certain streets in the jurisdiction.
D. A statute which allows the selling of beer but not hard liquor.
E. A statute which requires bar owners to post a bond before opening for business in a jurisdiction.
Many states have dram shop acts, which allow bartenders and bar owners to be held liable for injuries caused by individuals who become intoxicated at the bar.
Which of the following is true regarding contributory negligence?
A. The defense was once available in a few states but is not available in any state today.
B. It is available in all states today.
C. It was outlawed by a federal statute.
D. It was once available in all states but has been replaced in some states by the defense of comparative negligence.
E. It was once available in all states and has been replaced in some states by the defense of assumption of risk.
A. The defense was once available in a few states but is not available in any state today.
B. It is available in all states today.
C. It was outlawed by a federal statute.
D. It was once available in all states but has been replaced in some states by the defense of comparative negligence.
E. It was once available in all states and has been replaced in some states by the defense of assumption of risk.
Contributory negligence, a defense once available in all states but replaced today in some states by the defense of comparative negligence applies in cases in which the defendant and the plaintiff were both negligent.
Which of the following must the defendant prove in order to rely upon the defense of contributory negligence?
A. Only that the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm.
B. Only that a failure of the plaintiff was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injury.
C. Only that the plaintiff violated the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D. That the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm and also that the plaintiff's failure was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injuries.
E. That the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm; that the plaintiff's failure was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injuries; and also that the plaintiff failed to abide by the last-clear-chance doctrine.
A. Only that the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm.
B. Only that a failure of the plaintiff was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injury.
C. Only that the plaintiff violated the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D. That the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm and also that the plaintiff's failure was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injuries.
E. That the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm; that the plaintiff's failure was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injuries; and also that the plaintiff failed to abide by the last-clear-chance doctrine.
In order to rely on the defense of contributory negligence, the defendant must prove that (1) the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm and (2) the plaintiff's failure was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injury.
Which of the following is a doctrine that allows the plaintiff to recover damages despite proof of contributory negligence as long as the defendant had a final clear opportunity to avoid the action that injured the plaintiff?
A. Assumption of risk.
B. Last-clear-chance doctrine.
C. Modified risk doctrine.
D. Modified comparative doctrine.
E. There is no such doctrine.
A. Assumption of risk.
B. Last-clear-chance doctrine.
C. Modified risk doctrine.
D. Modified comparative doctrine.
E. There is no such doctrine.
The last-clear-chance doctrine allows the plaintiff to recover damages despite proof of contributory negligence as long as the defendant had a final clear opportunity to avoid the action that injured the plaintiff.
Assume Bobby begins to cross the street in a jurisdiction that applies contributory negligence. He does not go to a crosswalk but proceeds to illegally cross the street without even checking to see if any vehicles are coming. Slick sees Bobby in the street, notices that he is not in the crosswalk, and proceeds to hit Bobby with his vehicle because he believes that Bobby should be taught a lesson about how to cross the street. Slick does slow down somewhat and only causes Bobby some significant bruising, but Bobby is angry and sues. Which of the following is most likely to happen in a contributory negligence jurisdiction?
A. Slick will not be held liable because Bobby was contributorily negligent.
B. Bobby will be able to recover despite proof of contributory negligence on his part because Slick had a final clear opportunity to avoid the action that injured Bobby.
C. Bobby will win because of comparative negligence.
D. Slick will win because of the assumption of risk doctrine.
E. Bobby will lose because Slick, at least, reduced his speed.
A. Slick will not be held liable because Bobby was contributorily negligent.
B. Bobby will be able to recover despite proof of contributory negligence on his part because Slick had a final clear opportunity to avoid the action that injured Bobby.
C. Bobby will win because of comparative negligence.
D. Slick will win because of the assumption of risk doctrine.
E. Bobby will lose because Slick, at least, reduced his speed.
Under contributory negligence, if the court finds that (1) the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm and (2) the plaintiff's failure was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injury, the defendant will not be liable for the plaintiff's injuries unless the plaintiff can prove that the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident.
Why have most states replaced the contributory negligence defense with a comparative negligence theory?
A. In order to assist a defendant in defending against unfounded claims.
B. In order to assist a plaintiff in avoiding the assumption of the risk doctrine.
C. In order to assist a defendant in avoiding the assumption of the risk doctrine.
D. Because of situations in which a plaintiff is barred from recovery due to minimal contributory negligence.
E. None of the above. Most states have not replaced the contributory negligence defense with a form of comparative negligence.
A. In order to assist a defendant in defending against unfounded claims.
B. In order to assist a plaintiff in avoiding the assumption of the risk doctrine.
C. In order to assist a defendant in avoiding the assumption of the risk doctrine.
D. Because of situations in which a plaintiff is barred from recovery due to minimal contributory negligence.
E. None of the above. Most states have not replaced the contributory negligence defense with a form of comparative negligence.
The adoption of the last-clear-chance doctrine leaves many situations in which an extremely careless defendant can cause a great deal of harm to a plaintiff who is barred from recovery due to minimal contributory negligence. Thus, most states have replaced the contributory negligence defense with either pure or modified comparative negligence.
Under which of the following does the court determine the percentage of the fault of the defendant with the defendant then being liable for that percentage of the plaintiff's damages, with no requirement that the defendant be more than 50% at fault?
A. Assumption of the risk.
B. Last-clear-chance.
C. Modified comparative negligence.
D. Pure comparative negligence.
E. Both modified comparative negligence and last-clear-chance.
A. Assumption of the risk.
B. Last-clear-chance.
C. Modified comparative negligence.
D. Pure comparative negligence.
E. Both modified comparative negligence and last-clear-chance.
According to a pure comparative negligence defense, the court determines the percentage of fault of the defendant. The defendant is then liable for that percentage of the plaintiff's damages.
Under which of the following does the court determine the percentage of fault of the defendant requiring that the defendant be more than 50% at fault before the plaintiff can recover?
A. Assumption of the risk.
B. Last-clear-chance.
C. Modified comparative negligence.
D. Pure comparative negligence.
E. Both modified comparative negligence and last-clear-chance.
A. Assumption of the risk.
B. Last-clear-chance.
C. Modified comparative negligence.
D. Pure comparative negligence.
E. Both modified comparative negligence and last-clear-chance.
In modified comparative negligence the defendant must be more than 50 percent at fault before the plaintiff can recover.
Which of the following is true regarding the adoption of defenses to negligence?
A. Twenty-eight states have adopted modified comparative negligence, thirteen have adopted pure comparative negligence, and nine have adopted contributory negligence.
B. Twenty-five states have adopted modified comparative negligence, twenty-five have adopted pure comparative negligence, and none have retained contributory negligence.
C. Twenty-eight have adopted pure comparative negligence, thirteen states have adopted modified comparative negligence and nine have adopted contributory negligence.
D. Thirty states have adopted contributory negligence, fourteen have adopted pure comparative negligence, and six states have adopted modified comparative negligence.
E. Fifteen states have adopted modified comparative negligence, ten states have adopted pure comparative negligence and twenty-five have adopted contributory negligence.
A. Twenty-eight states have adopted modified comparative negligence, thirteen have adopted pure comparative negligence, and nine have adopted contributory negligence.
B. Twenty-five states have adopted modified comparative negligence, twenty-five have adopted pure comparative negligence, and none have retained contributory negligence.
C. Twenty-eight have adopted pure comparative negligence, thirteen states have adopted modified comparative negligence and nine have adopted contributory negligence.
D. Thirty states have adopted contributory negligence, fourteen have adopted pure comparative negligence, and six states have adopted modified comparative negligence.
E. Fifteen states have adopted modified comparative negligence, ten states have adopted pure comparative negligence and twenty-five have adopted contributory negligence.
Twenty-eight states have adopted modified comparative negligence, thirteen have adopted pure comparative negligence, and nine have adopted contributory negligence.
Which of the following is a doctrine available to defendants whereby a defendant may avoid liability by establishing that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm that the defendant caused?
A. Last-clear-chance doctrine.
B. Assumption of the risk doctrine.
C. Contributory negligence doctrine.
D. Res ipsa loquitur.
E. Negligence per se.
A. Last-clear-chance doctrine.
B. Assumption of the risk doctrine.
C. Contributory negligence doctrine.
D. Res ipsa loquitur.
E. Negligence per se.
A defense available to defendants facing negligence claims is called assumption of the risk. To use this defense successfully, a defendant must prove that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm the defendant caused.
Which of the following occurs when a plaintiff expressly agrees, usually in a written contract, to assume the risk posed by the defendant's behavior?
A. Implied assumption of the risk.
B. Express assumption of the risk.
C. Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D. Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
E. Assumption by contract.
A. Implied assumption of the risk.
B. Express assumption of the risk.
C. Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D. Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
E. Assumption by contract.
Express 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.
Which of the following occurs when a plaintiff implicitly assumes a known risk?
A. Implied assumption of the risk.
B. Express assumption of the risk.
C. Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D. Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
E. Assumption by contract.
A. Implied assumption of the risk.
B. Express assumption of the risk.
C. Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D. Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
E. Assumption by contract.
Implied assumption of the risk means that the plaintiff implicitly assumed a known risk.
Which is the most difficult part of establishing the defense of assumption of the risk?
A. Showing that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the actual harm suffered.
B. Showing that the defendant was aware that the plaintiff assumed the risk.
C. Showing that the plaintiff was aware of applicable law.
D. Showing that the plaintiff signed the contract assuming the risk without duress.
E. None of the above because assumption of the risk is not a defense.
A. Showing that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the actual harm suffered.
B. Showing that the defendant was aware that the plaintiff assumed the risk.
C. Showing that the plaintiff was aware of applicable law.
D. Showing that the plaintiff signed the contract assuming the risk without duress.
E. None of the above because assumption of the risk is not a defense.
The most difficult part of establishing assumption of the risk is showing that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the actual harm suffered.
In reference to the case in the text, Ex Parte Emmette L. Barram, III, what was the result after the plaintiff sued the national and local Kappa Alpha organization following hazing activities?
A. The court ruled that under pure contributive negligence principles, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
B. The court ruled that under pure comparative negligence principles, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
C. The court ruled that under modified comparative negligence principles, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
D. The court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover based on negligence per se.
E. His lawsuit was dismissed because he assumed the risk of harm.
A. The court ruled that under pure contributive negligence principles, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
B. The court ruled that under pure comparative negligence principles, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
C. The court ruled that under modified comparative negligence principles, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
D. The court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover based on negligence per se.
E. His lawsuit was dismissed because he assumed the risk of harm.
The appellate court stated that "the trial court correctly determined that reasonable people could reach no conclusion other than that Jones voluntarily exposed himself to the hazing."
Which of the following are laws holding that people in peril who receive voluntary aid from others cannot hold those offering aid liable for negligence?
A. Good Samaritan statutes.
B. Aid to others statutes.
C. Rescue statutes.
D. Freedom statutes.
E. All clear statutes.
A. Good Samaritan statutes.
B. Aid to others statutes.
C. Rescue statutes.
D. Freedom statutes.
E. All clear statutes.
Good Samaritan statutes, attempt to encourage selfless and courageous behavior by removing the threat of liability.
Which of the following is an unforeseeable event which interrupts the causal chain between the defendant's breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered?
A. A surprise event.
B. A superseding cause.
C. A relative cause.
D. An unusual cause.
E. None of the above because an unforeseeable event may not interrupt a chain of causation.
A. A surprise event.
B. A superseding cause.
C. A relative cause.
D. An unusual cause.
E. None of the above because an unforeseeable event may not interrupt a chain of causation.
The defendant in a negligence suit can also avoid liability by establishing a superseding cause. A superseding cause is an unforeseeable event that interrupts the causal chain between the defendant's breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered.
Which of the following is liability without fault?
A. Negligence.
B. Assumption of the risk.
C. Strict liability.
D. Storekeeper liability.
E. Homeowner liability.
A. Negligence.
B. Assumption of the risk.
C. Strict liability.
D. Storekeeper liability.
E. Homeowner liability.
Strict liability is liability without fault.
Which of the following is a condition required for the imposition of strict liability?
A. The activity involves negligence.
B. The activity involves trespassing.
C. The activity is undertaken by a minor.
D. The activity is so inherently dangerous that it cannot ever be safely undertaken.
E. The activity is heavily regulated.
A. The activity involves negligence.
B. The activity involves trespassing.
C. The activity is undertaken by a minor.
D. The activity is so inherently dangerous that it cannot ever be safely undertaken.
E. The activity is heavily regulated.
The law holds an individual liable without fault when the activity in which he or she engages satisfies three conditions: (1) It involves a risk of serious harm to people or property; (2) it is so inherently dangerous that it cannot ever be safely undertaken; and (3) it is not usually performed in the immediate community.
Which of the following is an example of an inherently dangerous activity?
A. Driving a vehicle.
B. Operating an airplane.
C. Dynamite blasting in a populated area.
D. Burning trash.
E. Babysitting.
A. Driving a vehicle.
B. Operating an airplane.
C. Dynamite blasting in a populated area.
D. Burning trash.
E. Babysitting.
Inherently dangerous activities include dynamite blasting in a populated area.
Which of the following is true regarding negligence under South African Law?
A. South Africa's legal system is a combination of selected legal traditions including Roman, Dutch, and German.
B. Under South African law, individuals can be found negligent in three different ways.
C. Individuals who fail to prevent consequent damages can be found negligent under South African law.
D. South African law cites the American doctrine of sudden emergency as a standard for determining negligence in crisis situations.
E. All the above are true.
A. South Africa's legal system is a combination of selected legal traditions including Roman, Dutch, and German.
B. Under South African law, individuals can be found negligent in three different ways.
C. Individuals who fail to prevent consequent damages can be found negligent under South African law.
D. South African law cites the American doctrine of sudden emergency as a standard for determining negligence in crisis situations.
E. All the above are true.
South Africa's legal system is a combination of selected legal traditions—from Roman to Dutch to German. South African law dictates that individuals can be found negligent in three different ways. One way of finding negligence is determined by whether the defendant could have prevented the consequent damages. South African law cites the American "doctrine of sudden emergency" as a standard for determining negligence in crisis situations.
What was the result in the "case opener" involving the victim who died after being set on fire with gasoline?
A. On appeal the court upheld the verdict against the gas station but reduced it by 25% based on the victim's negligence.
B. On appeal the court upheld the verdict against the gas station and refused to find any negligence on the part of the victim.
C. On appeal the court found that there was no basis on which to find the gas station liable and ordered dismissal of the case.
D. On appeal the court found that the gas station acted wrongfully but that there was no basis for an award of damages because the plaintiff was over 50% at fault.
E. On appeal the court found that the gas station acted wrongfully but that there was no basis for an award of damages because the person who started the fire was over 50% at fault.
A. On appeal the court upheld the verdict against the gas station but reduced it by 25% based on the victim's negligence.
B. On appeal the court upheld the verdict against the gas station and refused to find any negligence on the part of the victim.
C. On appeal the court found that there was no basis on which to find the gas station liable and ordered dismissal of the case.
D. On appeal the court found that the gas station acted wrongfully but that there was no basis for an award of damages because the plaintiff was over 50% at fault.
E. On appeal the court found that the gas station acted wrongfully but that there was no basis for an award of damages because the person who started the fire was over 50% at fault.
The appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence to find that the gas station cashier could have reasonably foreseen negative consequences prior to activating the pump. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court was correct in reducing the damage award by only 25 percent on the basis of Antoine's [the victim's] liability.
No comments:
Post a Comment