Deck 9: Negligence and Strict Liability

Question 1

Which of the following was the result on appeal in John Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Team, the case in the text in which the plaintiff sued after being hit in the eye by a hot dog thrown into the stands by a team mascot during the "Hotdog Launch," a customary activity during games?

A) The court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the defense on the basis that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by hot dog because the tossing of the hot dogs was a customary event of which the plaintiff was or should have been aware before attending the game.
B) The court dismissed the case on the basis that injuries at baseball games are an inherent part of the sport whether by baseball or by hot dog.
C) The court dismissed the case on the basis that through a click agreement the plaintiff expressly agreed not to sue for any injuries when ordering the tickets through the Internet.
D) The court affirmed a jury verdict finding for the defense on the basis that the plaintiff did not immediately report his injuries to stadium officials.
E) The court found that the jury was improperly instructed on the assumption of the risk defense and that the plaintiff did not assume the risk of injury by hot dog by attending the game.

Answer 1

E

Question 2

Res ipsa loquitur allows a judge or jury to infer that the defendant's negligence was, more likely than not, the cause of the plaintiff's harm.

Answer 2

True

Question 3

The severity of potential harm is a factor in determining whether a reasonable person would have owed a duty to others.

Answer 3

True

Question 4

When negligence per se applies, the plaintiff is required to show that a reasonable person would exercise a heightened duty of care toward the plaintiff.

Question 5

The standard of care associated with the duty owed in a negligence case is the ________ standard.

A) reasonable person
B) actual harm
C) legal person
D) professional person
E) causal harm

Question 6

A plaintiff in a negligence lawsuit may choose whether the plaintiff wishes pure comparative negligence or modified comparative negligence rules to be applied by the court.

Question 7

To use the assumption of the risk defense successfully, a defendant must prove that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm the defendant caused.

Question 8

If a plaintiff cannot establish all four elements of a negligence claim, what result should the plaintiff expect?

A) The plaintiff can prevail as long as the plaintiff successfully showed causation and damages, even if the plaintiff did not prove breach of duty.
B) The plaintiff can prevail if the court believes the defendant should be punished for his conduct, even though a plaintiff could not establish all four elements of a negligence claim.
C) The plaintiff can prevail at the discretion of the judge if the judge believes it is too difficult for the plaintiff to meet the burden of proof.
D) The plaintiff will be denied recovery due to a failure to establish all four elements of a negligence case.
E) The plaintiff will be denied recovery only if the judge cannot subpoena the necessary witnesses to come and testify in court.

Question 9

Keeping animals that have not been domesticated can result in strict liability.

Question 10

Good Samaritan statutes impose liability upon people for refusing to stop at accident scenes.

Question 11

With a pure comparative negligence defense, the plaintiff cannot sue unless the defendant is more than 25% at fault.

Question 12

Implied assumption of the risk occurs when the plaintiff expressly agrees, usually in a written contract, to assume the risk posed by the defendant's behavior.

Question 13

Assumption of the risk is a doctrine which makes it easier for a plaintiff to prevail in a negligence lawsuit.

Question 14

Claudio, who has never had prior health issues, suddenly has a heart attack while driving. He runs over a student who is crossing the street, breaking her leg. Which of the following is true?

A) The student can recover upon a showing of injury. Nothing else is required.
B) The student may recover only if the student can show that the student was in the marked crosswalk.
C) It is unlikely that the student can recover because the accident could not have been avoided even with reasonable care.
D) The student can recover in an action for negligence only if it can be shown that Bob had insurance.
E) The student can recover only if the student can establish that the student did not have any medical insurance.

Question 15

Which of the following is not one of the elements of negligence?

A) Duty
B) Breach of duty
C) Causation
D) Intent
E) Damages

Question 16

Landowners do not have any duty of care to protect individuals on their property.

Question 17

Negligent torts involve willfully refusing to exercise extraordinary care to protect another's person or property.

Question 18

In some situations, the law specifies the duty of care one individual owes to another.

Question 19

Superseding causes disprove the causation element necessary to sustain a negligence claim.

Question 20

Once a plaintiff proves the elements of res ipsa loquitur, the defendant will automatically lose the case against them.

Question 21

Which of the following is sometimes referred to as proximate cause?

A) Actual cause.
B) Cause in fact.
C) Legal cause.
D) Significant cause.
E) Factual cause.

Question 22

While out for a bike ride, Huifen sees a child playing alone and unsupervised near the road. Which of the following is true?

A) Because the law holds that every U.S. citizen holds the duty to help a stranger in peril, she must come to the child's assistance.
B) She must come to the child's assistance only because a child is involved.
C) She has no duty to render assistance to the child.
D) She must render assistance to the child only if she can do so without peril to herself.
E) She must render assistance to the child only if she is acquainted with the child's parents.

Question 23

Which of the following refers to the extent to which, as a matter of policy, a defendant may be held liable for the consequences of his actions?

A) Proximate cause.
B) Actual cause.
C) Cause in fact.
D) Significant cause.
E) Legal cause.

Question 24

Which type of damages are NOT available when bringing an action for negligence?

A) Compensatory.
B) Punitive damages
C) Nominal damages.
D) Damages intended to reimburse a plaintiff for actual losses.
E) Pain and suffering compensation.

Question 25

Which of the following standards measures the way members of society expect an individual to act in a given situation.

A) Reasonable person
B) Above-average person
C) Without error
D) Perfect accountability
E) Reasonable accountability

Question 26

Darrick owns a specialty hardware store that specializes in saw blades. Does he have to post any type of warning about the saw blades?

A) No, a business owes no duty to its customers other than to sell safe products.
B) Yes, a business owes an absolute duty to keep its customers safe and is strictly liable for any harm.
C) No, a business only owes a minimal duty toward customers.
D) No, a business owes a negligence per se duty toward customers.
E) Yes, a business has a duty of care to protect their customers against foreseeable risks about which the owner knew or reasonably should have known.

Question 27

Proximate cause is determined by ________, in most states.

A) Actual cause
B) Common law
C) Foreseeability
D) But-for causation
E) Strict liability

Question 28

"But for" causation refers to which of the following?

A) Proximate cause.
B) Significant cause.
C) Actual cause.
D) Legal cause.
E) Constructive cause.

Question 29

Oskar feels that his dentist caused nerve damage to his teeth and tongue during a recent visit because Oskar's tongue is still numb ten days after his visit and his tooth fell out. Because Oskar feels he suffered damages as a result of his dentist's breach of her duty of care, Oskar can bring a negligence case against the dentist based on ________.

A) malfeasance
B) mistake
C) malpractice
D) criminal misconduct
E) workplace mishap

Question 30

Which of the following is not a consideration when courts attempt to determine whether a reasonable person would have owed a duty of care to others?

A) The likelihood of harm.
B) The severity of the harm.
C) How socially beneficial the defendant's conduct was which posed the risk of harm.
D) The intent of the defendant to cause the harm experienced by the plaintiff.
E) The costs which would have been necessary to reduce the risk of harm.

Question 31

A fan at a baseball stadium is hit by a baseball. Under what circumstances could the owner of the stadium be held liable for resulting injuries?

A) If the stadium owner failed to fulfill its duty to provide reasonable protection because there were no barriers or other measures taken to protect game attendees from being struck by the ball.
B) In all circumstances where a ball hits game attendees, regardless of any other factors.
C) If the stadium owner took all cost-effective precautions but failed to take part in a multi-million dollar research effort to construct a robot to intercept foul balls.
D) If the baseball team was the home team and not the visiting team.
E) If the owner of the stadium was aware of a chance that a ball would strike a patron and failed to cancel the game, despite the risk.

Question 32

A teenager plays Grand Theft Auto and runs over people in the game. The teen decides to recreate the game in real life, driving his vehicle up onto the sidewalk and running over two people. The victims pursue a claim against the maker of Grand Theft Auto for negligence, arguing the game makers had a duty of care. Are the victims likely to prevail?

A) Yes, because studies have shown a link between violent video games and real-life violence.
B) Yes, because the teen admitted Grand Theft Auto was his inspiration.
C) Yes because teenagers are impressionable and video game makers have a duty not to expose them to violence.
D) No, because the game makers were not personally in the car at the time of the incident.
E) No, because courts have consistently found it is not foreseeable that playing certain video games or viewing certain websites would result in users committing murder.

Question 33

Breach of duty in a negligence case refers to ________.

A) The standard of care a reasonable person owes to another.
B) A failure to live up to the standard of care a reasonable person owes to others.
C) Actual harm, or cause in fact, which results from a failure to live up to a standard of care.
D) Legal cause, or the extent to which the defendant is held responsible for actions that fall short of the standard of care.
E) An obligation to measure compensable losses suffered by the plaintiff.

Question 34

Damages in a negligence case refers to ________.

A) The standard of care a reasonable person owes to another.
B) A failure to live up to the standard of care a reasonable person owes to others.
C) Actual harm or cause in fact which results from a failure to live up to a standard of care.
D) Legal cause or the extent to which the defendant is held responsible for actions which fall short of the standard of care.
E) A compensable loss suffered by the plaintiff.

Question 35

Actual cause is also known as ________.

A) Proximate cause
B) Legal cause
C) Cause in fact
D) Cause for certainty
E) Proximately related cause

Question 36

George is riding his skateboard down the street while listening to music with earbuds in. George does not see Martha, a store owner, who is putting flowers out in front of her store. He looks up just in time and swerves to miss Martha but knocks her flower display down, shattering it to pieces. Is he liable?

A) No, Martha was not injured.
B) No, because property is not a compensable loss.
C) No, Martha had a duty not to be on the sidewalk.
D) Yes, Martha suffered a compensable loss.
E) Yes, because George had the intention of being on the sidewalk which is always a breach of his duty of care.

Question 37

Lourde is jet skiing on the local lake. He is showing off for his girlfriend Becky and negligently hits Lennithia who is lying on a raft sunbathing. Which of the following is true?

A) Lourde has no duty to come to the aid of Lennithia.
B) Lourde has a duty to come to the aid of Lennithia because he negligently hit her.
C) Lourde has a duty to come to the aid of Lennithia only if police are not on the scene within a reasonable amount of time.
D) Lourde has a duty to come to the aid of Lennithia only if there is no one else around to help her.
E) Lourde has a duty to come to the aid of Lennithia only if she cries out for help.

Question 38

It is a generally accepted precaution for dentists to warn patients of risks and exercise extra caution when patients are on anticoagulants (blood thinners) and must undergo dental procedures. A dentist fails to alert a patient (who the dentist knows is on anticoagulants) of the risks of a procedure the patient is about to undergo that is dangerous to someone on blood thinners. The patient experiences near-fatal bleeding due to the procedure. The plaintiff decides to sue for malpractice but the dentist says he was unaware of the need to warn patients on blood thinners of possible risks. Is the dentist going to be successful in his defense?

A) Yes, as long as the dentist can prove he did not know about the risks.
B) Yes, as long as the dentist did not make any specific mistakes during the dental procedure.
C) Yes, as long as the dentist can prove that the risks are overstated.
D) Yes, because malpractice cases require intentional harm for a victim to prevail.
E) No, because a professional cannot defend against a negligence suit by claiming ignorance of generally accepted principles in his or her field of expertise.

Question 39

Causation has which two elements?

A) Actual cause and real cause.
B) Actual cause and significant cause.
C) Actual cause and proximate cause.
D) Premiere cause and significant cause.
E) Proximate cause and real cause.

Question 40

The CEO of a peanut company knows that its products test positive for salmonella but sell the peanuts away. Consequences can include:

A) Only criminal prosecution of the CEO.
B) Only government-mandated bankruptcy and restructuring of the peanut company.
C) Potential criminal charges against the CEO, as well as civil lawsuits brought by injured victims.
D) Only lawsuits brought by victims, and never criminal charges.
E) Neither criminal nor civil prosecution because of assumption of the risk.

Question 41

Which of the following aids plaintiffs in establishing negligence claims?

A) Only res ipsa loquitur
B) Only negligence per se
C) Only assumption of risk
D) Res ipsa loquitur and negligence per se
E) Res ipsa loquitur, negligence per se, and assumption of risk

Question 42

Which of the following is a doctrine available to defendants whereby a defendant may avoid liability by establishing that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm that the defendant caused?

A) Last-clear-chance doctrine.
B) Assumption of the risk doctrine.
C) Contributory negligence doctrine.
D) Res ipsa loquitur.
E) Negligence per se.

Question 43

Courts usually award punitive damages in cases in which the offender has committed ________.

A) Negligence
B) A strict liability offense
C) A res ipsa loquitur offense
D) A tort directly involving negligence per se
E) Gross negligence

Question 44

Dr. Kilroy operates on Melinda's shoulder. In the operating room along with Dr. Kilroy are two nurses, an anesthesiologist, and two interns. All are responsible from start to finish of Melinda's shoulder surgery. Three weeks after surgery, Melinda is still having pain and goes back to Dr. Kilroy. X-rays show that a small sponge was left inside of her shoulder and not removed before she was sewn up. Since Melinda is not sure who is responsible for leaving the sponge in her shoulder she would sue under what theory of negligence?

A) Res Ipsa Loquitur.
B) Negligence per se.
C) Absent proof theory.
D) Scope of authority negligence.
E) Melinda could not sue because it cannot be determined who left the sponge in her shoulder.

Question 45

Which of the following damages are intended to reimburse a plaintiff for his or her losses?

A) Compensatory.
B) Punitive.
C) Nominal.
D) Exemplary.
E) Quantum.

Question 46

Many states have statutes that allow bartenders and bar owners to be held liable for injuries caused by individuals who become intoxicated at the bar. These are known as ________

A) bar owner liability statutes.
B) voluntary intoxicated persons statutes.
C) social host laws.
D) dram shop acts.
E) negligent bar owner acts.

Question 47

What is the final required element of a negligence action?

A) Proving reasonableness.
B) Seeking damages.
C) Arguing assumption of the risk.
D) Receiving punitive damages.
E) A defendant paying a prevailing plaintiff's legal fees.

Question 48

In order to rely upon the defense of contributory negligence, what must a defendant prove?

A) Only that the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm.
B) Only that a failure of the plaintiff was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injury.
C) Only that the plaintiff violated the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D) That the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm and also that the plaintiff's failure was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injuries.
E) That the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm; that the plaintiff's failure was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injuries; and also that the plaintiff failed to abide by the last-clear-chance doctrine.

Question 49

Why has the contributory negligence defense been replaced with a comparative negligence theory in most states?

A) In order to assist a defendant in defending against unfounded claims.
B) In order to assist a plaintiff in avoiding the assumption of the risk doctrine.
C) In order to assist a defendant in avoiding the assumption of the risk doctrine.
D) Because of situations in which a plaintiff is barred from recovery due to minimal contributory negligence.
E) Because of situations in which a defendant is released from liability based on the last clear chance doctrine when equity requires that the defendant bear at least some responsibility.

Question 50

In the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company case in the readings, the case is famous for ________

A) malpractice by a company to a customer.
B) addressing the issue of proximate cause in a negligence case.
C) issuing the standards of care for companies to customers.
D) assessing damages in a negligence case for customers.
E) addressing what a breach of duty is by a company for their customers.

Question 51

Which of the following applies to cases in which the defendant has violated a statute enacted to prevent a certain type of harm from befalling a specific group to which the plaintiff belongs?

A) Res ipsa loquitur.
B) Negligence per se.
C) Statutory shop act.
D) Comparative negligence.
E) Assumption of the risk.

Question 52

What type of negligence is used in Germany when the defendant is unaware that the act constitutes an offense or unaware that the act is occurring at all?

A) Unbiased negligence
B) Unconscious negligence.
C) Unfocused negligence.
D) Conscious negligence.
E) Mental negligence.

Question 53

Under which of the following does the court determine the percentage of fault of the defendant, requiring that the defendant be more than 50% at fault before the plaintiff can recover?

A) Assumption of the risk.
B) Last-clear-chance.
C) Modified comparative negligence.
D) Pure comparative negligence.
E) Both modified comparative negligence and last-clear-chance.

Question 54

Under which of the following does the court determine the percentage of fault of the defendant with the defendant then being liable for that percentage of the plaintiff's damages, with no requirement that the defendant be more than 50% at fault?

A) Assumption of the risk.
B) Last-clear-chance.
C) Modified comparative negligence.
D) Pure comparative negligence.
E) Both modified comparative negligence and last-clear-chance.

Question 55

"Negligence per se" is a negligence doctrine that literally means:

A) Professional negligence.
B) Selective negligence.
C) Negligence determined.
D) Negligence in or of itself.
E) Actionable negligence.

Question 56

Which of the following is true regarding contributory negligence?

A) The defense was once available in a few states but is not available in any state today.
B) It is available in all states today.
C) It was outlawed by a federal statute.
D) It was once available in all states but has been replaced in some states by the defense of comparative negligence.
E) It was once available in all states and has been replaced in some states by the defense of assumption of risk.

Question 57

Darryl is jaywalking in a jurisdiction that applies contributory negligence. Slick sees Darryl in the street, notices that he is not in the crosswalk, and proceeds to hit Darryl with his vehicle because he believes that Darryl should be taught a lesson about how to cross the street. Slick does slow down somewhat and only causes Darryl some significant bruising, but Darryl is angry and sues. Which of the following is most likely to happen in a contributory negligence jurisdiction?

A) Slick will not be held liable because Darryl was contributorily negligent.
B) Darryl will be able to recover despite proof of contributory negligence on his part because Slick had a final clear opportunity to avoid the action that injured Darryl.
C) Darryl will win because of comparative negligence.
D) Slick will win because of the assumption of risk doctrine based upon the fact that Darryl committed an offense by crossing the street which he did in violation of clearly defined law.
E) Darryl will lose because Slick, at least, reduced his speed.

Question 58

When would a defendant use the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?

A) To allow the judge and jury to infer that more likely than not, the defendant's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's harm, even though no direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due care existed.
B) To allow the judge and jury to infer that more likely than not, the defendant's negligence was not the cause of the plaintiff's harm.
C) To allow the judge and jury to presume the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence.
D) To allow the judge and jury to presume the plaintiff destroyed evidence.
E) To allow the judge to hold the defendant liable under a strict liability theory.

Question 59

Assuming res ipsa loquitur is established, what is the effect of that doctrine?

A) It requires a finding of negligence.
B) It prohibits a finding of negligence.
C) The burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff.
D) The burden of proof shifts to the defendant.
E) The burden of proof rises to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Question 60

Which of the following is a doctrine that allows the plaintiff to recover damages despite proof of contributory negligence, as long as the defendant had a final clear opportunity to avoid the action that injured the plaintiff?

A) Assumption of risk.
B) Last-clear-chance doctrine.
C) Modified risk doctrine.
D) Modified comparative doctrine.
E) There is no such doctrine.

Question 61

[Diving Fiasco] Rogerio, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Rogerio is aware that the area where the divers will be visiting is occasionally visited by sharks. He is also aware that, while sting rays are usually tame, they can become aggressive when fed. Rogerio did not reveal the information about sharks or sting rays to the group of divers going with him because, in his experience, as soon as customers hear of a hint of danger, they refuse to pay and go on the trip. The divers go down into the water, and some have squid with which to feed the sting rays. During the dive, one of the sting rays becomes agitated and lashes diver Tamika's arm. Tamika is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable distress. Another diver, Billy, encounters a shark which snaps at him. Fortunately, the shark does not bite him but does damage his diving equipment. He is also in distress. Rogerio, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing and just returns to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Claudia, another diver on the trip, also returns to the boat without doing anything to help the divers in distress. Sam, on the other hand, goes to rescue the divers who are in distress. He manages to assist them, but in the process, he injures his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Rogerio.
Did Rogerio have a duty to provide assistance to Tamika and Billy during the dive?

A) Rogerio had no duty to provide any assistance to them.
B) Rogerio had a duty to come to their aid because he arranged the dive and was charging them.
C) Rogerio had a duty to come to their assistance only if he had specifically agreed to do so prior to the dive.
D) Rogerio had a duty to come to their assistance only if they were minors.
E) Rogerio had a duty to come to their assistance only if no one else did so.

Question 62

[Diving Fiasco] Rogerio, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Rogerio is aware that the area where the divers will be visiting is occasionally visited by sharks. He is also aware that, while sting rays are usually tame, they can become aggressive when fed. Rogerio did not reveal the information about sharks or sting rays to the group of divers going with him because, in his experience, as soon as customers hear of a hint of danger, they refuse to pay and go on the trip. The divers go down into the water, and some have squid with which to feed the sting rays. During the dive, one of the sting rays becomes agitated and lashes diver Tamika's arm. Tamika is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable distress. Another diver, Billy, encounters a shark which snaps at him. Fortunately, the shark does not bite him but does damage his diving equipment. He is also in distress. Rogerio, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing and just returns to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Claudia, another diver on the trip, also returns to the boat without doing anything to help the divers in distress. Sam, on the other hand, goes to rescue the divers who are in distress. He manages to assist them, but in the process, he injures his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Rogerio.
The diver whose equipment was damaged because of the shark incident, Billy, wants to sue Rogerio for damages. Which of the following is the most likely result?

A) Billy will win because Rogerio should have warned him about the occasional appearance of sharks.
B) Billy will lose because Rogerio had no duty to warn him of anything.
C) Billy will lose because he did not sustain physical injury.
D) Billy will win only if he can establish that he had a contract with Rogerio whereby Rogerio agreed to reveal harmful conditions.
E) Billy will win only if he can establish that he did not have insurance to cover the equipment.

Question 63

Which of the following is true regarding negligence under South African law?

A) South Africa's legal system is a combination of selected legal traditions involving Roman, Dutch, and French law, but not German law.
B) Under South African law, individuals can be found negligent in only one way, through failing to exercise reasonable care.
C) South African law models the law of the U.S. and is substantially the same.
D) South African law refuses to recognize sudden emergency as a standard for determining negligence in crisis situations.
E) South African law recognizes that one way to determine negligence is by determining whether the defendant could have prevented the consequent damages.

Question 64

Louisa decides to go on a zip line adventure. She signs a contract before she begins to go on the zip line, which says that she assumes the risks of accident or injury. While walking up the steps to grab the zip line, Louisa falls down due to a broken hand rail on the stairs. Could the property owner be held responsible?

A) No, because of Louisa's express assumption of the risk.
B) No, because of Louisa's implied assumption of the risk.
C) No, because Louisa fell on her own.
D) Yes, because a fall due to a faulty handrail was not the type of risk Louisa had assumed in the contract.
E) Yes, because she had not yet started zip lining but after she actually grabbed the line, the company would no longer be held responsible.

Question 65

Breck and Brynn go to a new skate park in town. Before they are granted entry, they sign a written agreement indicating that they know there is a possibility of harm in using the skate park. If Brynn is injured when she falls off her skateboard, what defense might the skate park use?

A) Implied warranty against injury.
B) Express warranty against injury.
C) Express assumption of the risk
D) Implied assumption of the risk.
E) Danger invites rescue doctrine.

Question 66

Why do superseding causes allow defendants to avoid liability?

A) Superseding causes do not allow defendants to avoid liability.
B) Superseding causes are an example of the res ipsa loquitur defense.
C) Superseding causes are evidence that a defendant's breach of duty was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
D) Superseding causes demonstrate the plaintiff was actually responsible for his own injuries.
E) Superseding causes are evidence that a defendant's duty of care was fulfilled and thus no negligence occurred.

Question 67

[Diving Fiasco] Rogerio, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Rogerio is aware that the area where the divers will be visiting is occasionally visited by sharks. He is also aware that, while sting rays are usually tame, they can become aggressive when fed. Rogerio did not reveal the information about sharks or sting rays to the group of divers going with him because, in his experience, as soon as customers hear of a hint of danger, they refuse to pay and go on the trip. The divers go down into the water, and some have squid with which to feed the sting rays. During the dive, one of the sting rays becomes agitated and lashes diver Tamika's arm. Tamika is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable distress. Another diver, Billy, encounters a shark which snaps at him. Fortunately, the shark does not bite him but does damage his diving equipment. He is also in distress. Rogerio, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing and just returns to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Claudia, another diver on the trip, also returns to the boat without doing anything to help the divers in distress. Sam, on the other hand, goes to rescue the divers who are in distress. He manages to assist them, but in the process, he injures his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Rogerio.
Is Rogerio liable for the injuries Sam sustained in coming to the rescue of the divers in distress?

A) Rogerio is not liable for Sam's injuries because Sam had no legal duty to come to the aid of the other divers.
B) Rogerio is not liable for Sam's injuries because Sam assumed the risk of harm.
C) Rogerio is not liable for Sam's injuries because the shark attack constituted a superseding cause of the injuries.
D) Rogerio is liable for Sam's injuries only if he made them worse by not getting Sam medical attention on a timely basis.
E) Rogerio is liable for Sam's injuries under the danger invites rescue doctrine.

Question 68

Which of the following is an unforeseeable event which interrupts the causal chain between the defendant's breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered?

A) A surprise event
B) A superseding cause
C) A relative cause
D) An unusual cause
E) Assumption of the risk

Question 69

What is the term for when a plaintiff implicitly assumes a known risk?

A) Implied assumption of the risk.
B) Express assumption of the risk.
C) Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D) Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
E) Assumption by incident.

Question 70

Xavier decides to buy a tiger cub off of the Internet. As the tiger cub "Sasha" grows, Xavier works with the tiger cub to ensure that it behaves properly when his friends come over, but occasionally Sasha resorts to her tiger instincts. One Saturday as Xavier is grilling steaks for his friends, Sasha jumps on Xavier's guest Joann and bites her as she tries to eat her steak. If Joann sues Xavier, what theory will she use to recover her damages?

A) Pure negligence.
B) Strict liability.
C) Res ipsa loquitur.
D) Negligence per se.
E) Danger invites rescue doctrine.

Question 71

On a vacation holiday, Anne decides to rent a fishing boat. She is asked to sign a contract stipulating that the defendant will not be held responsible for any boating accidents. If Anne signs, this is an example of:

A) Implied assumption of the risk.
B) Express assumption of the risk.
C) Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D) Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
E) Assumption by incident.

Question 72

[Blow Up] Devin has several full gas cans in the bed of her pick-up truck, because she runs a landscaping company and needs the gas for her mowers. On the way home from the gas station, Devin stops at her bank and exits her truck. Teresa pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Devin's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Teresa for negligence claiming that Teresa should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claims that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
Does actual cause exist in the bank's action against Teresa?

A) Actual causation would exist because the bank would not have been destroyed if Teresa had fulfilled her duty to drive properly.
B) Actual cause is present because as a matter of policy, it is believed that someone who rear-ends a vehicle should be responsible for damages.
C) Actual cause is present because Teresa was the legal cause of the bank burning.
D) Actual cause is not present because Teresa is not the legal cause of the bank burning.
E) Actual cause is not present because Teresa is not the proximate cause of the bank burning.

Question 73

[Blow Up] Devin has several full gas cans in the bed of her pick-up truck, because she runs a landscaping company and needs the gas for her mowers. On the way home from the gas station, Devin stops at her bank and exits her truck. Teresa pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Devin's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Teresa for negligence claiming that Teresa should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claims that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
Is Teresa the proximate cause of the bank burning?

A) Teresa is not the proximate cause of the bank burning because it was not foreseeable that Devin would have gas in the back of her pick-up truck that would result in such a fire.
B) Teresa is not the proximate case of the accident because her actions were not the cause in fact of the accident.
C) Teresa's actions were not the proximate cause of the accident because actual causation cannot be established since it was foreseeable that gas can result in a fire.
D) Teresa's actions were the proximate cause of the bank's burning because actual cause is present.
E) Teresa's actions were the proximate cause of the bank's burning because cause in fact can be established.

Question 74

Which of the following is not true in regards to strict liability?

A) It is liability without fault.
B) It involves a risk of serious harm to people or property.
C) It is so inherently dangerous that it cannot be safely undertaken.
D) Plaintiffs always receive punitive damages.
E) It is not usually performed in the immediate community.

Question 75

When a defendant in a negligence suit avoids liability due to an unforeseen event that interrupts the causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered, this is known as a(n) ________.

A) assumption of the risk
B) contributory negligence
C) comparative negligence
D) superseding cause
E) good Samaritan cause

Question 76

In reference to the case in the text, Swigart v. Bruno, what was the court's assessment with regards to the risk associated with riding horses in the American Endurance Ride Conference which was described as an "equestrian athletic event?"

A) The court ruled that under contributive negligence principles, Swigart was entitled to recover.
B) The court ruled that under pure comparative negligence principles, Swigart was entitled to recover.
C) The court ruled that under modified comparative negligence principles, Swigart was entitled to recover.
D) The court ruled that Swigart was entitled to recover damages, however, remanded the case to determine whether or not Swigart was really injured.
E) The court ruled that the assumption of risk doctrine applies to Swigart's claims and he could therefore not recover.

Question 77

Luann voluntarily stops to render aid to a biker on the side of the road who had been hit by a car. As Luann pulls over she partially blocks the view of oncoming cars. A car driven by Kellip hits Luann's car, further injuring the biker. If the biker sues Luann for their additional injuries, what statute might be a defense for Luann?

A) Motorist Safety to Yield statute.
B) Aid to Others statute.
C) Good Samaritan statute.
D) Assumption of the Risk statute.
E) Clear the Danger statute.

Question 78

Which of the following is a condition required for the imposition of strict liability?

A) The activity involves negligence pertaining to the preparation of food products.
B) The activity involves trespassing in a way that reasonably leads to fright on the part of home owners.
C) The activity is undertaken by a minor.
D) The activity is so inherently dangerous that it cannot ever be safely undertaken.
E) The activity is heavily regulated.

Question 79

[Diving Fiasco] Rogerio, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Rogerio is aware that the area where the divers will be visiting is occasionally visited by sharks. He is also aware that, while sting rays are usually tame, they can become aggressive when fed. Rogerio did not reveal the information about sharks or sting rays to the group of divers going with him because, in his experience, as soon as customers hear of a hint of danger, they refuse to pay and go on the trip. The divers go down into the water, and some have squid with which to feed the sting rays. During the dive, one of the sting rays becomes agitated and lashes diver Tamika's arm. Tamika is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable distress. Another diver, Billy, encounters a shark which snaps at him. Fortunately, the shark does not bite him but does damage his diving equipment. He is also in distress. Rogerio, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing and just returns to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Claudia, another diver on the trip, also returns to the boat without doing anything to help the divers in distress. Sam, on the other hand, goes to rescue the divers who are in distress. He manages to assist them, but in the process, he injures his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Rogerio.
Did Claudia and Sam have a duty to aid the divers in peril?

A) Neither Claudia nor Sam had a duty to go to the aid of the divers who were in peril.
B) Claudia and Sam had a duty to go to the aid of the divers in peril only if Rogerio refused to do so.
C) Claudia and Sam did not have a duty to go to the aid of the divers in peril unless they were the first to see the problem.
D) Claudia and Sam had a duty to assist the divers in peril only if they were acquainted prior to the dive with the divers who were in peril. They had no duty to help strangers.
E) Sam and Claudia had a duty to help the divers who were in peril if personal safety was involved but not if the only issue was damage to property.

Question 80

What was the final result on appeal in the Case Opener involving whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to the lawsuit brought against landowners after the plaintiff fell through a wooden dock located on the defendants' property?

A) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied.
B) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because there was insufficient proof that the type of accident at issue would not normally happen in the absence of negligence.
C) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because there was insufficient proof that the dock at issue was in the exclusive control of the defendants.
D) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because it only applies in contract cases.
E) That whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied should be decided by the jury.