Question 1

Intervening forces are always superseding causes.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 2

The manner in which the injury occurs does not have to be foreseeable if the general nature or type of harm was a foreseeable consequence of the original risk.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 3

The two tests for actual cause are

Accepted Answer

A) but-for and substantial factor 
B) cause in fact and legal cause 
C) general cause and special cause 
D) but-for and proximate cause 
A) but-for and substantial factor 
B) cause in fact and legal cause 
C) general cause and special cause 
D) but-for and proximate cause

Question 4

MATCHING
-a cause beyond the foreseeable risk originally created

Accepted Answer

A) proximate cause 
B) actual cause 
C) standard of proof 
D) preexisting condition 
E) duty to mitigate damages
F)thin-skull rule
G)highly extraordinary
H)judgment proof
I)intervening cause
J)superseding cause 
A) proximate cause 
B) actual cause 
C) standard of proof 
D) preexisting condition 
E) duty to mitigate damages
F)thin-skull rule
G)highly extraordinary
H)judgment proof
I)intervening cause
J)superseding cause

Question 5

MATCHING
-few or no assets

Accepted Answer

A) proximate cause 
B) actual cause 
C) standard of proof 
D) preexisting condition 
E) duty to mitigate damages
F)thin-skull rule
G)highly extraordinary
H)judgment proof
I)intervening cause
J)superseding cause 
A) proximate cause 
B) actual cause 
C) standard of proof 
D) preexisting condition 
E) duty to mitigate damages
F)thin-skull rule
G)highly extraordinary
H)judgment proof
I)intervening cause
J)superseding cause

Question 6

MATCHING
-a new or independent force that produces harm after the defendant's act or omission

Accepted Answer

A) proximate cause 
B) actual cause 
C) standard of proof 
D) preexisting condition 
E) duty to mitigate damages
F)thin-skull rule
G)highly extraordinary
H)judgment proof
I)intervening cause
J)superseding cause 
A) proximate cause 
B) actual cause 
C) standard of proof 
D) preexisting condition 
E) duty to mitigate damages
F)thin-skull rule
G)highly extraordinary
H)judgment proof
I)intervening cause
J)superseding cause

Question 7

Under the mitigation-of-damages rule, the defendant will not be liable for any ________ of the plaintiff's injury that could have been prevented by the plaintiff.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Under the mitigation-of-damages rule, the defendant will...

Question 8

MATCHING
-how convincing something must be

Accepted Answer

A) proximate cause 
B) actual cause 
C) standard of proof 
D) preexisting condition 
E) duty to mitigate damages
F)thin-skull rule
G)highly extraordinary
H)judgment proof
I)intervening cause
J)superseding cause 
A) proximate cause 
B) actual cause 
C) standard of proof 
D) preexisting condition 
E) duty to mitigate damages
F)thin-skull rule
G)highly extraordinary
H)judgment proof
I)intervening cause
J)superseding cause

Question 9

Legal cause is established

Accepted Answer

A) if the intervening cause is a superseding cause 
B) if the injury was not the foreseeable consequence of the original risk 
C) if the injury was the foreseeable consequence of the original risk 
D) if actual cause exists by the but-for or substantial-factor tests 
A) if the intervening cause is a superseding cause 
B) if the injury was not the foreseeable consequence of the original risk 
C) if the injury was the foreseeable consequence of the original risk 
D) if actual cause exists by the but-for or substantial-factor tests

Question 10

The two components of proximate cause are actual cause and legal cause.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 11

When is an intervening criminal human force a superseding cause?

Accepted Answer

when the criminal act was not

Question 12

The two components of proximate cause are

Accepted Answer

A) actual cause and cause in fact 
B) actual cause and superseding cause 
C) actual cause and legal cause 
D) actual cause and intervening cause 
A) actual cause and cause in fact 
B) actual cause and superseding cause 
C) actual cause and legal cause 
D) actual cause and intervening cause

Question 13

MATCHING
-but-for or substantial factor

Accepted Answer

A) proximate cause 
B) actual cause 
C) standard of proof 
D) preexisting condition 
E) duty to mitigate damages
F)thin-skull rule
G)highly extraordinary
H)judgment proof
I)intervening cause
J)superseding cause 
A) proximate cause 
B) actual cause 
C) standard of proof 
D) preexisting condition 
E) duty to mitigate damages
F)thin-skull rule
G)highly extraordinary
H)judgment proof
I)intervening cause
J)superseding cause

Intervening forces are always superseding causes.

The manner in which the injury occurs does not have to be foreseeable if the general nature or type of harm was a foreseeable consequence of the original risk.

The two tests for actual cause are

MATCHING -a cause beyond the foreseeable risk originally created

MATCHING -few or no assets

MATCHING -a new or independent force that produces harm after the defendant's act or omission

Under the mitigation-of-damages rule, the defendant will not be liable for any ________ of the plaintiff's injury that could have been prevented by the plaintiff.

MATCHING -how convincing something must be

Legal cause is established

The two components of proximate cause are actual cause and legal cause.

When is an intervening criminal human force a superseding cause?

The two components of proximate cause are

MATCHING -but-for or substantial factor

Introduction to Tort Law and Practice

Foreseeability in Tort Law

Battery

Assault

False Imprisonment and False Arrest

Misuse of Legal Process

Infliction of Emotional Distress

Conversion and Trespass to Chattels

Strict Liability

Negligence: a Summary

Negligence: Duty

Negligence: Breach of Duty

Negligence: Damages

Negligence: Defenses

Products Liability

Survival and Wrongful Death

Torts Against and Within the Family

Torts Connected With Land

Defamation:

Invasion of Privacy

Misrepresentation, Tortious Interference, and Other Torts

Additional Tort Defenses

Workers Compensation

Filters

Exam 13: Negligence: Proximate Cause

Intervening forces are always superseding causes.

The manner in which the injury occurs does not have to be foreseeable if the general nature or type of harm was a foreseeable consequence of the original risk.

The two tests for actual cause are

MATCHING -a cause beyond the foreseeable risk originally created

MATCHING -few or no assets

MATCHING -a new or independent force that produces harm after the defendant's act or omission

Under the mitigation-of-damages rule, the defendant will not be liable for any ________ of the plaintiff's injury that could have been prevented by the plaintiff.

MATCHING -how convincing something must be

Legal cause is established

The two components of proximate cause are actual cause and legal cause.

When is an intervening criminal human force a superseding cause?

The two components of proximate cause are

MATCHING -but-for or substantial factor

Introduction to Tort Law and Practice

Foreseeability in Tort Law

Battery

Assault

False Imprisonment and False Arrest

Misuse of Legal Process

Infliction of Emotional Distress

Conversion and Trespass to Chattels

Strict Liability

Negligence: a Summary

Negligence: Duty

Negligence: Breach of Duty

Negligence: Damages

Negligence: Defenses

Products Liability

Survival and Wrongful Death

Torts Against and Within the Family

Torts Connected With Land

Defamation:

Invasion of Privacy

Misrepresentation, Tortious Interference, and Other Torts

Additional Tort Defenses

Workers Compensation

Filters