Exam 9: Negligence and Strict Liability

[Diving Fiasco] Rogerio, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Rogerio is aware that the area where the divers will be visiting is occasionally visited by sharks. He is also aware that, while sting rays are usually tame, they can become aggressive when fed. Rogerio did not reveal the information about sharks or sting rays to the group of divers going with him because, in his experience, as soon as customers hear of a hint of danger, they refuse to pay and go on the trip. The divers go down into the water, and some have squid with which to feed the sting rays. During the dive, one of the sting rays becomes agitated and lashes diver Tamika's arm. Tamika is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable distress. Another diver, Billy, encounters a shark which snaps at him. Fortunately, the shark does not bite him but does damage his diving equipment. He is also in distress. Rogerio, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing and just returns to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Claudia, another diver on the trip, also returns to the boat without doing anything to help the divers in distress. Sam, on the other hand, goes to rescue the divers who are in distress. He manages to assist them, but in the process, he injures his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Rogerio. -Did Rogerio have a duty to provide assistance to Tamika and Billy during the dive?

Landowners do not have any duty of care to protect individuals on their property.

What is the term for when a plaintiff implicitly assumes a known risk?

Which of the following is sometimes referred to as proximate cause?

Darrick owns a specialty hardware store that specializes in saw blades. Does he have to post any type of warning about the saw blades?

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 hot dog thrown into the stands by a team mascot during the "Hotdog Launch," a customary activity during games?

[Blow Up] Devin has several full gas cans in the bed of her pick-up truck, because she runs a landscaping company and needs the gas for her mowers. On the way home from the gas station, Devin stops at her bank and exits her truck. Teresa pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Devin's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Teresa for negligence claiming that Teresa should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claims that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. -Does actual cause exist in the bank's action against Teresa?

A teenager plays Grand Theft Auto and runs over people in the game. The teen decides to recreate the game in real life, driving his vehicle up onto the sidewalk and running over two people. The victims pursue a claim against the maker of Grand Theft Auto for negligence, arguing the game makers had a duty of care. Are the victims likely to prevail?

[Chewer] Naomie lives in a state that has a statute prohibiting dogs from running at large. The statute's purpose is to protect neighbors of dog owners from potential injury or property damage. All dogs are required to be on a leash whenever they are off the owner's premises. Naomie's dog, while not on a leash, gets out of her backyard and goes next door to Pavel's house. Pavel left his gym bag on his back porch, and the dog chews up the bag and all its contents, including Pavel's gym shoes. Another neighbor sees the whole thing happen and informs Pavel. Pavel knows that this isn't the first time the dog has gotten loose and destroyed property, and Naomie has done nothing to warn anyone or prevent the dog from getting loose. -Punitive damages are most likely to be awarded against Naomie if:

[Diving Fiasco] Rogerio, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Rogerio is aware that the area where the divers will be visiting is occasionally visited by sharks. He is also aware that, while sting rays are usually tame, they can become aggressive when fed. Rogerio did not reveal the information about sharks or sting rays to the group of divers going with him because, in his experience, as soon as customers hear of a hint of danger, they refuse to pay and go on the trip. The divers go down into the water, and some have squid with which to feed the sting rays. During the dive, one of the sting rays becomes agitated and lashes diver Tamika's arm. Tamika is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable distress. Another diver, Billy, encounters a shark which snaps at him. Fortunately, the shark does not bite him but does damage his diving equipment. He is also in distress. Rogerio, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing and just returns to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Claudia, another diver on the trip, also returns to the boat without doing anything to help the divers in distress. Sam, on the other hand, goes to rescue the divers who are in distress. He manages to assist them, but in the process, he injures his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Rogerio. -Is Rogerio liable for the injuries Sam sustained in coming to the rescue of the divers in distress?

[Chewer] Naomie lives in a state that has a statute prohibiting dogs from running at large. The statute's purpose is to protect neighbors of dog owners from potential injury or property damage. All dogs are required to be on a leash whenever they are off the owner's premises. Naomie's dog, while not on a leash, gets out of her backyard and goes next door to Pavel's house. Pavel left his gym bag on his back porch, and the dog chews up the bag and all its contents, including Pavel's gym shoes. Another neighbor sees the whole thing happen and informs Pavel. Pavel knows that this isn't the first time the dog has gotten loose and destroyed property, and Naomie has done nothing to warn anyone or prevent the dog from getting loose. -Pavel should seek which of the following damages against Naomie in order to punish her and deter her from letting the dog run free?

Deb lives in a jurisdiction where all residential swimming pools are required by law to be enclosed by a fence that is at least six feet tall in order to prevent accidental drowning. Deb built a pool in her backyard a couple of months ago, but she hasn't had the extra money with which to build the fence. Unfortunately, one of the neighborhood children goes swimming in the pool and drowns. The parents of the child sue Deb. Discuss how the parents would likely go about proving their case and the elements that would be required.

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

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

[Chewer] Naomie lives in a state that has a statute prohibiting dogs from running at large. The statute's purpose is to protect neighbors of dog owners from potential injury or property damage. All dogs are required to be on a leash whenever they are off the owner's premises. Naomie's dog, while not on a leash, gets out of her backyard and goes next door to Pavel's house. Pavel left his gym bag on his back porch, and the dog chews up the bag and all its contents, including Pavel's gym shoes. Another neighbor sees the whole thing happen and informs Pavel. Pavel knows that this isn't the first time the dog has gotten loose and destroyed property, and Naomie has done nothing to warn anyone or prevent the dog from getting loose. -Which theory will Pavel likely rely on to seek recovery from Naomie for his damaged personal property?

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.

[Blow Up] Devin has several full gas cans in the bed of her pick-up truck, because she runs a landscaping company and needs the gas for her mowers. On the way home from the gas station, Devin stops at her bank and exits her truck. Teresa pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Devin's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Teresa for negligence claiming that Teresa should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claims that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. -Is Teresa the proximate cause of the bank burning?

Keeping animals that have not been domesticated can result in strict liability.

Louisa decides to go on a zip line adventure. She signs a contract before she begins to go on the zip line, which says that she assumes the risks of accident or injury. While walking up the steps to grab the zip line, Louisa falls down due to a broken hand rail on the stairs. Could the property owner be held responsible?

Actual cause is also known as ________.