Exam 8: Negligence and Strict Liability

Henry was burning leaves in his backyard. One of the burning leaves was lifted by the wind into Bob's yard next door. It landed on the lawnmower which exploded, setting fire to the wooden lawn furniture. Henry's best argument against liability to Bob would be:

A principal factor that the courts consider in determining limitations on the causal connection between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injury is:

If a raccoon gets loose from a cage and harms someone, the owner can escape liability by showing that he took great care to keep the animal confined.

While comparative negligence is generally not a defense in a strict liability case, contributory negligence generally is a successful defense.

Stan doesn't like having neighborhood teenagers walk across his yard at night. He rigs an animal trap on the path the teenagers usually use to cross his land. One night, Tim and his friends are walking across the yard when Tim gets caught in the trap. He is taken to the hospital for his injuries. Stan:

The Love v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc. case dealt with the responsibility of the owner or possessor of property to an invitee to warn of, remove, or barricade a dangerous condition of the premises.

Which of the following are activities that give rise to strict liability?

Which of the following would not be considered an abnormally dangerous activity, subjecting the person who carries it out to strict liability?

In responding to the previous question (Question 5), think about and then discuss why in your analysis the reasonable standard of care differs for the above listed categories of individuals. Is there any logic on which to base these differences because of societal need and expectations? Does justice demand a different result? Why would the courts make these distinctions?

A "reasonable person standard" does not apply to children since they do not have the judgment, intelligence, knowledge, or experience of adults.

In determining the duty of care owed by a defendant using the reasonable person standard, the court will consider which of the following factors?

A duty to act is imposed on those whose innocent conduct has injured another and left him helpless and in danger of further harm.

Express voluntary assumption of the risk is a defense to an action based upon strict liability.

A blind person will be held to the standard of care of the reasonable blind person rather than that of the reasonable sighted person for purposes of determining negligence.

Defenses to an action in strict liability include:

There is an established rule in the law of torts that even one who has not created a peril has a duty to take affirmative action to assist an imperiled person, no matter what the relationship with that person, when the imperiled person can be saved from harm at little or no personal risk to the rescuer.

Identify the elements a plaintiff must prove in an action for negligence.

Assume you are the judge in the Palsgraf case. a. Analyze the fact situation in terms of the elements that need to be proved in a negligence case. b. Why did Mrs. Palsgraf lose the case? What in the fact situation makes it difficult to establish a prima facie case of negligence?

While driving his car five miles over the speed limit, Carl struck Darla, who was jaywalking across the street. When the case came to trial, the jury determined that Carl was 40% negligent and that Darla was 60% negligent. Darla's injuries are $10,000. If this accident occurred in a state following the modified comparative negligence theory of recovery, Darla will:

In some instances, people may be held liable for injuries they have caused even though they have not acted intentionally or negligently.