Exam 6: Negligence
Jinyan wants to start a new internet service provider business.Before she does so,however,she wants to ensure that she will be able to afford liability insurance premiums.In that regard,she wants to know how the test of reasonable foreseeability affects the issue of risk management.She has heard conflicting statements.Some suggest that the concept of reasonable foreseeability protects business people from liability.Others suggest that the same concept can unexpectedly lead to the imposition of liability.Which statement is true? Explain your answer.
Both statements are True.The concept of reasonable foreseeability pertains to the issues of duty of care,standard of care,and remoteness of damage.It can both help and hurt a business.
On the positive side,the concept of reasonable foreseeability means that Jinyan will not be liable for every loss that she inflicts,even if she acts carelessly.For instance,she is not liable in negligence,as long as she does not owe a duty of care to an injured person.Likewise,even if she owed a duty of care,breached the standard of care,and in fact caused a plaintiff to suffer a loss,she will be relieved of liability if the plaintiff's type of harm was too remote.She is responsible only to the extent that the plaintiff's loss was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of her conduct.
On the negative side,the concept of reasonable foreseeability can be unforgiving.As long as the notion of reasonable foreseeability is satisfied,Jinyan may be held liable even if she honestly did her best.For instance,as a novice Internet service provider,she may not be aware of the various ways in which her business can harm others.She nevertheless may be held liable if a reasonable internet service provider would have recognized the danger.The notion of reasonable foreseeability is objective,and therefore does not generally make allowances for the defendant's subjective inadequacies.
Finally,it should be noted,from a risk management perspective,that the reasonable foreseeability test is open-ended and consequently somewhat unpredictable.The prudent approach therefore is either to act with all reasonable caution,and acquire adequate liability insurance coverage.
Maritza suffered a heart attack after consuming cold medicine manufactured by Omega Inc.The evidence indicates that there is a 75 percent chance that Maritza's heart attack was caused by the medicine and a 25 percent chance that it was caused by Maritza's poor diet.The court held that Omega negligently failed to warn Maritza of the risk that its medicine could cause a heart attack.If the total value of Maritza's losses is $100 000,she will be entitled to receive $75 000 in damages from Omega.
False
The concept of reasonable foreseeability is directly relevant to
D
The Town of Sussex Corner owned a bridge.Ruby negligently damaged the bridge by ramming it with a boat.At that point,it would have cost $30 000 to repair the bridge.Before the town could do so,however,Oswald negligently rammed the bridge in a different spot with his own boat.The town had the damage from both incidents repaired at the same time for a total cost of $50 000.Which of the following statements is TRUE?
Sarah sued Jerry and Tom in negligence.A court held that Jerry and Tom were jointly and severally liable.This means that
Diana and Naomi both carelessly shot in Randall's direction at the same time.He was struck by one bullet.He can prove that the bullet came from either Diana's gun or from Naomi's gun,but he has no way of determining which woman shot him.Which of the following statements is TRUE?
Chyna acted as Evan's accountant.In the course of her professional duties,she made a mistake that caused Evan to lose $100 000.Evan has sued Chyna for negligence.She claims,however,that she did not breach the standard of care.Chyna can avoid liability by proving that
Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the issue of factual causation in negligence?
You work as a risk management advisor for Sigma Ltd.Sigma Ltd intends to place a new type of widget on the market.It wants to know what steps it should take with respect to warning people about the dangers associated with that type of widget.Which of the following statements is TRUE?
The courts use the test of reasonable foreseeability to determine whether or not the defendant is legally responsible for the effects of an intervening act.
Tyrek has sued Cassandra for negligence.The only issue at trial is whether or not Cassandra breached the standard of care.The parties agree that the court must use the reasonable person test,but they cannot agree on the identification of the reasonable person.Is it Tyrek? Cassandra? The judge? Explain your answer and indicate why the law provides that answer.
Xander believes that the CEO of his company,Trish,has been negligent,breaching her duty of care to the shareholders.As the company's accountant,he has noticed that Trish gives him records that seem incomplete.After confronting her,Xander finds out that she didn't know about any incomplete records,but that it might be because she just throws out transactions that are less than $200 because she thinks it doesn't really affect anything.Which of the following statements is true?
Psi Corp owned a ship called The Greek.It intended to use that ship to fulfill a contract with Omega Inc under which it promised to deliver widgets from Vancouver to Los Angeles.If it failed to perform that contract,it would be required to pay $5 million to Omega Inc.Wilson negligently created a fire that destroyed The Greek.Psi Corp wanted to buy a replacement ship for the purpose of performing its contract with Omega Inc,but could not immediately afford the purchase price of $20 million.It therefore rented a ship,The Canadian,for $2 million and used it to fulfill its contractual obligation.Psi Corp has successfully sued Wilson for negligence.The court agrees that Psi Corp is entitled to $20 million,which was the value The Greek.Psi Corp,however,claims that it is also entitled to $2 million,representing the money that it was required to pay in order to rent The Canadian.Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to Psi Corp's claim for $20 million?
Demarcus sued Marguerite for negligence.She has relied on the defence of illegality.Which of the following statements is TRUE?
Ocala Corp operated a factory that caused corrosive particles to drift in the air and land on a building that was owned by Broderick Inc.Those particles damaged the roof of the building.The damage could have been repaired immediately at a cost of $250 000,but Broderick did not have the money necessary to do so.It therefore sued Ocala in negligence.By the time the trial ended several years later,inflation had run rampant and the cost of repairing Broderick's roof has increased to $900 000.Because of the modern approach to the "thin wallet" rule,Ocala cannot possibly be held liable for more than $250 000.
Peter has sued Calista and Lailani for negligence.The evidence indicates that Peter's injury was caused by the combined effect of negligent acts by himself,Calista,and Lailani.That injury would not have occurred at all if any one of the three parties had acted carefully.The judge held that Calista and Lailani are jointly and severally liable.The judge also apportioned responsibility for the injury on the following basis: Peter 60 percent,Calista 30 percent,and Lailani 10 percent.The value of the loss that Peter suffered as a result of his injury is $100 000.Which of the following statements is TRUE?
"Liability in negligence is an all-or-nothing proposition." Is that statement true? How is that statement related to the concept of a "balance of probabilities"? Explain your answers.
Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the standard of care in negligence?
The Iota Corp sued Araceli for negligence.It claims that it suffered a loss as a result of her careless performance of a professional service.Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the issue of breach?
Shakira was injured by the explosion of a widget that was manufactured by Delta Corp.The evidence indicates that Delta was not careless with respect to the manufacture or design of the widget.Nevertheless,Delta may be held liable to Shakira on the basis of the tort of negligence if the company negligently failed to warn Shakira of the danger of explosion where that danger was a reasonable foreseeable risk of the intended use of the widget.
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)