Exam 7: B: Negligence and Strict Liability

A superseding cause is an intervening event that imposes liability on a defendant for injuries caused by the intervening event.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies if an event causing harm does not normally occur in the absence of negligence.

If no harm results from an allegedly negligent act,there is no liability.

The extreme risk of an activity is a primary basis for imposing strict liability.

In an emergency situation,Milena,an emergency medical technician,renders aid to Lothar,who needs help.Lothar would most likely be prohibited from suing Milena for negligence under

An Illinois state statute requires commercial vehicle drivers to "fully attend to the operation of the vehicle." Jerry,a driver for Crosstown Taxi Company,is driving and talking on his cell phone when his cab collides with Kayla's car,injuring her.Kayla's best theory for recovery against Jerry and Crosstown is

Ralph,a van driver for Standard Delivery Company,causes a multi-vehicle accident on a city street.Ralph and Standard are liable to

John sees that Kris is about to step into the path of an oncoming bus.If John does not warn Kris of the danger,John is liable

Fact Pattern 7-A1 Roy owns an apartment building that contains units of different sizes.The sidewalks around the building are in poor repair.Many sections have buckled from the growth of tree roots over the years. -Refer to Fact Pattern 7-A1.As the owner of the building,Roy has a duty to

Caleb is driving a car in which Dona is a passenger when an accident occurs.Caleb and Dona are emotionally rattled,but neither is physically hurt.Caleb is not liable to Dona on a negligence theory because

One of the requirements for a suit based on strict liability is a failure to exercise due care.

Under the theory of negligence,the duty of care requires an intentional act.

Under the doctrine of strict liability,liability is imposed strictly according to fault.

Biff went to Carraba's Market to pick up a few items for dinner.It was a rainy,windy day,and the wind had blown water through the entrance to Carraba's each time the door opened.As Biff entered,he slipped and fell in the rainwater that had accumulated on the floor.Dorothea,the manager,knew of the weather conditions but had not posted any sign to warn customers of the water hazard.Biff injured his back as a result of the fall and sued Carraba's for damages,alleging negligence.Is Carraba's liable? Why or why not?

Under the "danger invites rescue" doctrine,a person who tries to rescue another individual from harm is liable for any injuries to the individual.

A person assumes all risks associated with any activity in which he or she participates.

Amber shops in a Breezy Bargains store,whose employee Connor recently mopped the floor.Amber slips,falls,and suffers an injury.Breezy is liable to Amber on a negligence theory if there was a "Wet Floor" warning sign and

The degree of care to be exercised in a situation can vary with a person's profession or occupation.

A business owner has a duty to use reasonable care to protect its customers against foreseeable risks about which the owner should have known.

An ordinary person standard determines whether allegedly negligent conduct resulted in a breach of a duty of care.