Deck 6: Elements of Torts

Question 1

Negligence involves a breach of a duty of care owed to another person by either an act or a failure to act.

Answer 1

True

Question 2

Torts are common law crimes.

Answer 2

False

Question 3

The primary purpose of tort law is to inflict punishment on the wrongdoer.

Answer 3

False

Question 4

An individual liable for negligence might not have intended to injure another person.

Question 5

A business is liable for the tort actions of its employees if carried out within the scope of their jobs.

Question 6

A tort is broadly defined as a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the law provides a remedy.

Question 7

A tort is broadly defined as a criminal wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the law provides a remedy.

Question 8

Negligence in tort may be imposed only if a party acted improperly. A failure to act cannot itself lead to a tort.

Question 9

Businesses, because they are not legal persons, may not cause a tort, only humans.

Question 10

In New Zealand if a careless driver runs into someone and causes injury, the injured party cannot sue, but will be compensated under a government insurance program.

Question 11

Tort law is intended to try to put an injured party in the position he would have been in if the tort had not occurred.

Question 12

All torts, which are civil matters, are also potentially criminal acts.

Question 13

A business can be involved in a tort action if a person is harmed or injured by an employee.

Question 14

For there to be a tort of negligence, there must be a causal connection between the alleged negligent conduct and the harm suffered.

Question 15

In determining if a person's conduct is negligent, the law applies the "subjective person" standard of what is reasonable for that person.

Question 16

New Zealand, which has an English law heritage, does not allow tort litigation.

Question 17

The rules of tort law have changed little over the past two centuries.

Question 18

Tort law evolves through time by court decisions that reflect social values and community standards.

Question 19

In determining negligence, the law applies a reasonable-person standard, which requires a person to use extra-ordinary care in their actions.

Question 20

To be liable of a tort in negligence, one must have owed a duty of care to the party who suffered an injury.

Question 21

In Squish La Fish v. Thomco Specialty Products, where a company bought an adhesive to use in production based on seller's recommendation, and it did not work, the appeals court held that the seller may be liable for negligence.

Question 22

The notion of cause in fact in a tort is also called the "but for" or sine qua non rule.

Question 23

You stupidly leave a stove burner on in your apartment. It starts a fire that burns down the apartment. A person driving by sees the fire and, looking at it, runs into another car. Your negligence in starting the fire makes you responsible to the people involved in the car accident.

Question 24

Under proximate cause, liability is limited to consequences that bear a reasonable relationship to negligent conduct.

Question 25

If a person is found liable in tort for negligence, that person is responsible for all consequences, foreseeable or not.

Question 26

In Squish La Fish v. Thomco Specialty Products, where a company bought an adhesive that did not work as expected, the appeals court held that there may be a case of negligent misrepresentation by the seller.

Question 27

If a doctor is accused of negligence in treating a patient. The standard of care is that which any person would have given in the same situation.

Question 28

Evidence that shows a person's conduct is the reason why an event happened may establish the cause-in-fact of negligent tort.

Question 29

In Squish La Fish v. Thomco Specialty Products, where a company bought an adhesive to use in production based on seller's recommendation, and it did not work, the appeals court held that there was no evidence of negligence.

Question 30

Power company employees turned off a traffic signal while working on a power line and a fatal accident resulted. The employees, not the power company, could be liable for negligence that contributed to the accident.

Question 31

In Squish La Fish v. Thomco Specialty Products, where a company bought an adhesive that did not work as expected, the appeals court held that the seller of the adhesive could not be liable for negligent misrepresentation, but the manufacturer could be.

Question 32

A nightclub failed to install the proper number fire escape ladders. A fire in the men's bathroom kills a man trapped in there. The failure to have the legally required number of fire escapes is legally the cause in fact of the legal injury suffered.

Question 33

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, Palsgraf was hurt at a train station by equipment that fell on her during an explosion. The New York high court held that there was no proximate cause to make the railroad liable.

Question 34

If you are driving and, because you are talking on your cell phone and not paying attention, you accidentally run into another car, you have been negligent.

Question 35

If you are driving negligently and run off the road and hit a person on the sidewalk, the rule of res ipsa loquitur is likely to apply.

Question 36

If you are driving negligently and run off the road and hit a person on the sidewalk, the rule of res ipsa loquitur is likely not to apply.

Question 37

A storm damaged a power line. Power company employees turned off a traffic signal while working on the line. A fatal accident resulted from the light being out. The power company could be liable due to proximate cause.

Question 38

Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself."

Question 39

One need only exhibit the ordinary care of a reasonable person when a determination is made if certain actions were negligent.

Question 40

Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing has imposed harm."

Question 41

The substantial factor test and the proximate cause rule produce significantly different results in negligence cases.

Question 42

Liability waivers are generally against public policy in tort cases and are not allowed as a defense.

Question 43

In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, Palsgraf was hurt at a train station by equipment that fell on her during an explosion. The New York high court held that the railroad was liable for negligence in protecting its patrons.

Question 44

A young woman let a strange man into her motel room and was assaulted by him. She sued the motel. Because she was found 97% responsible, the motel did not have to pay her anything.

Question 45

A man was injured when riding a mechanical bull at a state fair. The ride was working properly, but riders usually get bucked off. The man signed a waiver that he accepted the possibility of injury from a fall. When he sued for his injuries, you would expect the court to throw out the suit if the waiver clearly stated the dangers.

Question 46

Because danger invites rescue, those people who attempt to rescue others and get hurt in the process must bear the costs of their harms themselves.

Question 47

California and other states use the "substantial factor" test instead of the proximate cause rule.

Question 48

In some states, if a plaintiff is found to have contributed fifty percent or more of the negligence to a situation, then there may be no recovery from the defendant.

Question 49

In Geczi v. Lifetime Fitness, where Geczi was injured by a defective treadmill machine at Lifetime, the court held that Geczi lost her right to sue because she assumed the risks of playing and signed a liability waiver.

Question 50

If a plaintiff is found to be comparatively negligent in a tort suit, the plaintiff will recover no money from the defendant.

Question 51

In Geczi v. Lifetime Fitness, where Geczi was injured by a defective treadmill machine at Lifetime, the court held that the liability waiver signed by McCune violated public policy, so her suit should be tried.

Question 52

Damages in a negligence suit are found to be $100,000. If the jury finds the plaintiff was 40 percent responsible, the defendant would pay for 60 percent of the damages ($60,000) under the rule of comparative negligence.

Question 53

The only defense in case of negligence is that of assumption of risk.

Question 54

In Geczi v. Lifetime Fitness, where Geczi was injured by a defective treadmill machine at Lifetime, the court held that the state legislature had exempted such places of business from tort liability.

Question 55

Intervening conduct is similar to superseding cause in negligence cases.

Question 56

You see a house on fire and rush in to save a person trapped in the house. You suffer burns from the fire. The person who negligently started the fire has no legal obligation to you because there was no knowledge you would become involved.

Question 57

If the causal relationship between the defendant's act and the resulting harm is broken by an intervening act, there is an approximate cause.

Question 58

Liability waivers are also called exculpatory clauses.

Question 59

Damages in a negligence suit are found to be $100,000. If the jury finds the defendant was 60 percent responsible, the defendant would pay for 60 percent of the damages ($60,000) under the rule of comparative negligence.

Question 60

As a general rule, any defense to an intentional tort is also available in a negligence action.

Question 61

To commit an intentional tort, the person who committed the act must have known or should have known that bad results could happen.

Question 62

If someone comes up behind you and hits you on the head with a brick, you would sue them for the intentional tort of assault.

Question 63

A battery is an unlawful physical contact without consent.

Question 64

If a person was playing a trick that went very wrong, there could not be an intentional tort, because no injury was anticipated.

Question 65

Assault and battery are examples of intentional interference with protected personal rights.

Question 66

For there to be an intentional tort, the person who commits the tort must be shown to have the motive of malice.

Question 67

In an intentional tort, the person who committed the tort must have wanted the result to occur that did, in fact, happen.

Question 68

If someone calls you from a city in another part of the country and tells you they want to strangle you, there has probably been an assault.

Question 69

To prove intent for an intentional tort, the plaintiff must show willful misconduct by the defendant.

Question 70

For a person to be found liable for an intentional tort the jury must find that there was a careless act that led to the harm.

Question 71

Assault is intentional conduct that places a person in fear of immediate harm, but it need not actually involve personal harm.

Question 72

In Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines, where Fuerschbach was "arrested" at work as part of a prank, the appeals court held that the police may be liable for a battery for pretending to arrest her.

Question 73

Assault is a direct, intentional, uninvited physical contact without consent.

Question 74

If a friend is showing you a gun and you are afraid it is loaded and may go off, then there has probably been an assault.

Question 75

In Fuerschbach v. Southwest Airlines, where Fuerschbach was "arrested" at work as part of a prank, the appeals court held that there was no tort because there was no malice or physical injury despite the fact that Fuerschbach did not like it.

Question 76

The person who suffers a tort is called a tortfeasor.

Question 77

Intentional torts arise in situations where the person who committed the tort intended to inflict the injury suffered.

Question 78

A battery is intentional conduct that places a person in fear of immediate bodily harm.

Question 79

If you are walking to your car at night in a dark parking lot and a stranger steps from behind a car and points a gun at you, there has probably been an assault.

Question 80

Intentional torts concern willful interference of a protected personal or property right.