Exam 9: Torts and Product Liability

Res ipsa loquiter does not require that the plaintiff prove the exact cause of negligence.

Negligence may result from either an intentional or unintentional act.

Regarding defamation,a qualified privilege exists in courtrooms and legislative hearings.

Professor Smith announces to his dean that the students in his noon class are the worst students that he has ever had and that they should never have been admitted to the school.The students are actually as qualified as any other students admitted to the school.The students may sue Professor Smith for slander.

Ms.Bobbin,your ethics teacher,is a first year professor,just out of school and she is very tough and demanding.You've done poorly on the first two tests and you think it's her fault.Someone tells you that she has a criminal past and without verification,you spread this allegation.In fact,Ms.Bobbin has been a model citizen and never broken the law.As a result of your actions,she is put on probation pending an investigation.She cannot sue for defamation because as a professor,she is a public figure and your conduct was intentional but not a careless disregard of the truth or with malice.

In Belanger v.Swift Transportation,Inc.,after Belanger had an accident driving a company vehicle,the accident was reported to a government website.Belanger claimed that Swift acted with malice and lost any reference related privilege by reporting information to a third party website.

Assumption of risk is a defense to:

Mike has admired Monica for a long time and has wanted to date her but is too shy around girls to ask.He is a football player with a reputation of being the toughest player on the team.Monica is scared of Mike because of his size and reputation.One day Mike summons the courage and approaches Monica who has her back to him and doesn't know he's there.He puts his arms around her and gives her a gentile kiss before letting go.He can't believe what he did,apologizes and runs away.Monica is slightly shaken but physically unharmed.Mike has committed:

Your professor is in the middle of her lecture when the dean from a competing school walks into class and offers her a position at his school at double her present salary.When she asks when the position will start,he says tomorrow.Your professor looks at the class,says goodbye and walks out to start cleaning out her office.Your school can sue your professor for tortious interference with an existing contractual relationship.

Mike is having coffee in a coffee house when he sees Jordan who is the dean of a Midwest business school.Mike used to teach at Jordan's prior school and was considered a very valuable faculty member.They haven't seen each other for years and Jordan has no idea what Mike has been doing or where he's currently working.She tells him that she has a position for him if he's interested.The next day Mike quits the university he's under contract with and signs a contract with Jordan's school.Jordan's school can be sued for tortious interference with existing contractual relationship.

A party injured by another's negligence but who is found to have committed comparative negligence,will recover nothing.

Generally,torts law is governed by:

To which of the following would a dram shop law apply?

In which of the following situations would res ipsa loquiter likely apply?

Under concepts articulated in McPherson v.Buick,a manufacturer of a defective product is only liable to the purchaser of the product and not to every user.

Lost revenue or profits,whether actual or potential is called ________ harm.

Brad is drunk and driving his car 20 miles over the speed limit.He hits Angelina who is crossing the street against a red light.Angelina has over $95,000 in medical bills and has significant pain and suffering.If Angelina sues in a state that still follows the theory of contributory negligence,she will get nothing.

The fact that the actual negligent act must directly cause the injury is called the:

Which of the following scenarios would most likely result in strict liability?

Courts enforce fraudulent misrepresentation for intentional lies but will not enforce fraudulent misrepresentation for negligent ones.