Deck 6: Negligence

Question 1

Jane carelessly caused an accident that resulted in Perry's leg being broken.Perry subsequently suffered a broken arm when he fell down a flight of stairs.Perry satisfied the judge, on the basis of expert evidence, that it is common for people who are wearing leg casts to fall more often than usual.That is true even for people who reasonably take extra precautions while wearing leg casts.Jane consequently may be held liable for Perry's broken leg and his broken arm.

Answer 1

True

Question 2

The case of Donoghue v Stevenson established the concept of

A)a general duty of care based on the "neighbour principle."
B)the learned intermediary rule.
C)market share liability.
D)contributory negligence.
E)professional negligence.

Answer 2

a general duty of care based on the "neighbour principle."

Question 3

Luke sued Michelle for negligence.In formulating the standard of care, the court will properly consider whether or not

A)Michelle has liability insurance.
B)Luke has personal injury insurance.
C)there was great social utility to the act that Luke was performing when he was injured.
D)Michelle took precautions against reasonable foreseeable risks.
E)a reasonable person in Luke's position would have realized that Michelle's actions might cause damage.

Answer 3

Michelle took precautions against reasonable foreseeable risks.

Question 4

As a general rule, liability cannot be imposed under the tort of negligence if the defendant carelessly made a statement that caused the plaintiff to suffer a physical injury.

Question 5

Danica was injured as a result of an accident that also involved Elmer and Lloyd.The judge found that all three parties had acted carelessly, and that Elmer and Lloyd were jointly and severally liable.The judge also found that Danica was 50 percent to blame for her injuries, while Elmer was 30 percent to blame and Lloyd was 20 percent to blame.Compensation for Danica's injuries is valued at a total of $100 000.Danica may be able to recover more than $30 000 from Elmer if Lloyd is unable to pay anything because of his extreme poverty.

Question 6

The defence of contributory negligence may apply even if the plaintiff carelessly contributed to the severity of the injuries that were suffered, but not to the actual occurrence of the accident that caused those injuries.

Question 7

Chantal has sued Phi Corp for negligence.Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the duty of care?

A)Since it is based on the reasonable person test, a duty of care can be owed by a person to a corporation but not by a corporation to a person.
B)A duty of care will be imposed on Phi Corp unless it proves that Chantal was not a reasonably foreseeable victim of its carelessness.
C)A duty of care will not be recognized unless Chantal suffered a physical injury.
D)A duty of care will be recognized only if Phi Corp and Chantal had a pre-existing relationship.
E)The court will conduct a full inquiry into the existence of a duty of care only if the facts of the case do not fall within a recognized category.

Question 8

Aisha suffered a stroke after consuming allergy medicine manufactured by Upsilon Inc.The evidence indicates that the stroke was caused by the combined effect of the medicine and Aisha's poor diet.The evidence also indicates that the stroke would not have occurred unless both of those factors were present.Finally, the evidence indicates that the medicine was 40 percent to blame for the stroke, while Aisha's poor diet was 60 percent to blame.The court held that Upsilon negligently failed to warn Aisha of the risk that its medicine could cause a stroke to people who have a diet like Aisha.If the total value of Aisha's losses is $100 000, she will be entitled to receive $100 000 from Upsilon.

Question 9

Maura was injured by the unexpected explosion of a widget that was manufactured by Theta Ltd.As a general rule, it will be easier for Maura to prove a claim in negligence against Theta if the explosion was caused by the negligent manufacture, rather than the negligent design, of the widget.

Question 10

In determining whether or not the defendant can escape liability on the basis of the defence of illegality, a court is most influenced by the extent to which the plaintiff's illegal act involved violence or the threat of violence.

Question 11

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.

Question 12

Bettina works as a financial advisor.Cory had hired Bettina to help him prudently invest money that he had inherited from his parents.Unfortunately, very little of that money remains.Cory claims that he suffered substantial financial losses as a result of following Bettina's careless advice.Because the dispute arose between a professional advisor and her client, Cory must sue Bettina for the tort of professional negligence rather than the general tort of negligence.

Question 13

The thin skull doctrine applies to the case in which the plaintiff eventually would have suffered the same injury even if the defendant did not act carelessly.That doctrine imposes liability, but only to the extent that the defendant's carelessness caused the plaintiff to suffer the injury early.

Question 14

Andreas has sued Kathryn for negligence.Kathryn argues that she did not owe a duty of care to Andreas.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A)The court cannot recognize a duty of care if Andreas was injured as a result of Kathryn's omission, rather than by her action.
B)The court may refuse to recognize a duty of care even if it was reasonably foreseeable that Andreas might be injured as a result of Kathryn's carelessness, on grounds that public policy does not permit the extension of the duty of care to this relationship.
C)A court may recognize a duty of care even if it was not reasonably foreseeable that Andreas might be injured as a result of Kathryn's carelessness.
D)The court cannot recognize a duty of care if Kathryn was Andreas's mother.
E)The court cannot recognize a duty of care if Andreas and Kathryn were parties to the same contract.

Question 15

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.

Question 16

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.

Question 17

After Mustaffa paid a price of $50 to X-Adventure Inc, the company allowed him to jump off a low bridge while tied to a bungee cord.He was injured when the bungee cord broke and he fell to the ground.X-Adventure denies liability on the basis of a document that Mustaffa carefully read and signed before jumping from the bridge.The relevant portion of that document said that Mustaffa accepted "only the physical risk of injury." A court will probably reject Mustaffa's claim in negligence on the basis of the defence of voluntary assumption of risk.

Question 18

Alpha Corp recently suffered two losses.First, as a result of the carelessness of its financial adviser, Jewel, it lost $100 000 when it invested in worthless shares.Second, in a separate incident, it lost $50 000 when its lawyer, Maia, failed to file a certain document at the land registry office on time.Both Jewel and Maia are liable to Alpha for the tort of negligence.The doctrine of joint and several liability always applies if two or more tortfeasors are liable to the plaintiff.Alpha is entitled to claim $150 000 from Jewel, and Jewel would then be entitled to claim $50 000 in contribution from Maia.

Question 19

Omikron Ltd hired Mekhi, a recent graduate from law school, to act as its lawyer in a business transaction.Omikron suffered a substantial financial loss as a result of a mistake that Mekhi made.Nevertheless, Mekhi cannot be held liable for the tort of negligence if he acted as a reasonable person with similarly little experience would have acted, even if a more experienced lawyer probably would have acted differently.

Question 20

Careless statements are different than careless acts because

A)people are almost always more careful with words than with actions.
B)careless statements can never support a duty of care, but careless acts often involve a duty of care.
C)careless statements seldom cause substantial losses.
D)careless statements always result in pure economic losses, whereas careless acts may cause pure economic losses, property damage, or personal injury.
E)careless statements can often be repeated in a way that careless acts cannot and are usually more "volatile" than deeds.

Question 21

Jennet bought a widget that the Lamda Corp had manufactured.After the widget caused her to suffer an injury, she sued the company for failing to warn her about the risks associated with the product.Lamda Corp seeks to avoid liability on the basis of the learned intermediary rule.The learned intermediary rule

A)is usually considered in connection with the duty of care.
B)is usually considered in connection with the issue of causation.
C)applies only if Jennet had trained other people about the safe use of widgets even before she purchased the widget from Lamda Corp.
D)applies only if Lamda Corp actually knew of the risk that led to Jennet's injury, and only if it had learned about that risk from a learned professional.
E)applies only if Lamda Corp delivered the widget to a professional who then delivered it to Jennet, and only if the company provided that professional with a warning that the professional should have passed on to Jennet.

Question 22

Jamari negligently hit Samantha on the head with a stick.A reasonable person would expect the normal victim to suffer a simple bruise in that situation.A simple bruise would require compensation of $200.Samantha, however, actually suffered brain damage because she had an unusually fragile skull.Her losses have been valued at $5 million.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A)Jamari is liable for $5 million in damages payable to Samantha.
B)Jamari is liable for $200.
C)Jamari is not liable for any damages because the actual consequences of his negligence were not reasonably foreseeable.
D)Jamari is liable for $5 million only if he actually knew that Samantha had a fragile skull before he hit her.
E)Jamari is liable for $5 million only if Samantha knew that she had a fragile skull before the accident occurred.

Question 23

Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the issue of factual causation in negligence?
A.The issue of factual causation is always decided on the basis of the but-for test.
B.Liability cannot be imposed if the defendant's carelessness was only a cause, and not the only cause, of the plaintiff's losses.
C.Liability cannot be imposed if the defendant's carelessness was only a cause, and not the most important cause, of the plaintiff's losses.
D.The issue of factual causation is decided on the basis of the reasonable person test.
E.The doctrine of joint and several liability applies if different defendants caused the plaintiff to suffer a single injury.

Question 24

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?

A)Sigma Ltd only needs to issue a warning to people who purchase widgets.
B)Sigma Ltd only needs to issue a warning with respect to dangers that it is aware of before the widgets are sold.
C)Sigma Ltd only needs to issue a warning with respect to dangers that arise when a widget is used for its intended purpose.
D)Sigma Ltd is not required to warn about every possible danger that it knows about when a widget is sold.The warning must be reasonable.
E)As the manufacturer, Sigma Ltd is the only party that could be required to issue a warning.

Question 25

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?

A)Peter can collect a total of $100 000 from Calista and Lailani.
B)Peter can collect $40 000 from Lailani.
C)Peter cannot collect any damages from either Calista or Lailani because he was responsible for more than half of the loss that he suffered.
D)Peter can collect $60 000 from Calista.
E)Peter can collect $60 000 from Calista and Lailani combined.

Question 26

Which of the following statements most accurately describes the but-for test for causation?

A)The defendant may be held liable if the answer to the but-for test is "no."
B)The defendant may be held liable if the answer to the but-for test is "yes."
C)The but-for test requires proof on a balance of reasonable doubts.
D)The but-for test compares the actual events with the events that would have occurred if the defendant had breached the standard of care.
E)The but-for test is relevant to the issue of negligence but not to the issue of contributory negligence, because plaintiffs do not owe a duty of care to themselves.

Question 27

Kendra suffered a broken back as a result of Duncan's carelessness.Duncan has argued, however, that Kendra's injury is remote from his carelessness, and that he therefore cannot be held liable.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A)Duncan cannot be held liable unless the manner in which Kendra suffered her injury was reasonably foreseeable.
B)Duncan cannot be held liable unless the type of harm that Kendra suffered was reasonably foreseeable.
C)If Kendra was unusually vulnerable to a back injury, Duncan cannot be held liable unless the severity of Kendra's injury was reasonably foreseeable.
D)Duncan cannot be held liable unless Kendra's injury was likely to occur as a result of his carelessness.
E)Duncan will be held liable only if Kendra's injury was a direct result of his carelessness.

Question 28

Dashawn was severely injured while participating in a "fitness challenge" that was organized and operated by Zeta Inc.He has sued for negligence.Zeta relies on the defence of voluntary assumption of risk.In support of that defence, Zeta has produced a "Disclaimer of Liability" that Dashawn signed.Which of the following statements is most likely to be TRUE?

A)As a result of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Crocker v Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd, the exclusion clause is presumed to be valid unless Zeta Inc was guilty of gross negligence.
B)Zeta Inc will be relieved of liability only if the disclaimer clause applied to both the physical risk of injury and legal risk of injury, and only if it is contractually enforceable.
C)Because of general contractual principles, the disclaimer clause would have protected Zeta Inc if Dashawn had sued for breach of contract, but it cannot protect the company from his claim in negligence.
D)As a general rule, the disclaimer clause is effective only if Dashawn carelessly contributed to his own loss.
E)If the defence applies, the court will reduce liability only to the extent that is fair, so that Dashawn will still recover some damages.

Question 29

Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the standard of care in negligence?
A.A child is never required to meet the standard of a reasonable adult.
B.The standard of care never takes account of the defendant's subjective characteristics.
C.The defendant can never escape liability by proving a mental disability.
D.The sudden peril doctrine recognizes that even reasonable people sometimes make mistakes during emergencies.
E.The standard of care is always met if the defendant followed an approved practice within a particular industry.

Question 30

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?

A)Araceli cannot possibly be held liable if she complied with a practice that was approved by her professional body.
B)Araceli cannot possibly be held liable if she did not realize that her services were careless when she performed them.
C)Araceli cannot possibly be held liable if she did her best, but her best was not good enough because she had received very poor training in school.
D)Araceli cannot possibly be held liable if Iota Corp should have realized that she was incompetent but did not take reasonable precautions to investigate the competence of Araceli.
E)Araceli may not be held liable for an error in judgment even if another professional in her position would have acted differently.

Question 31

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?

A)Neither woman will be held liable because Randall cannot prove, on a balance of probabilities, which one fired the bullet that hit him.
B)Randall's claim will be decided by the concept of market share liability.
C)Under an exception to the but-for test, Diana and Naomi will be held jointly and severally liable even though Randall cannot prove causation in the usual way.
D)The difficulty in this case involves the issue of remoteness of damage.
E)The court most likely will impose liability upon one defendant only.

Question 32

Oprah suffered a broken collarbone as a result of Sheldon's negligence.She later suffered a broken foot as a result of Tom's negligence.Tom dropped a heavy box on Oprah's foot while she was getting out of her car at her physiotherapist's office.She was visiting her physiotherapist for rehabilitation of her collarbone.She would not have been in that parking lot, and therefore would not have suffered a broken foot, if Sheldon had not negligently caused the first injury.Which of the following statements is most likely TRUE?

A)Tom is liable for contributory negligence because he added to Oprah's list of injuries.
B)A court will deny damages on the basis that Oprah voluntarily assumed the risk of being injured in the parking lot.
C)Tom did not owe a duty of care to Oprah because she was already injured.
D)If Oprah's injuries cause her to miss work, she will be able to recover full damages from Tom and again from Sheldon.
E)The court will use the doctrine of intervening acts in order to decide whether Sheldon is liable for Oprah's broken foot.

Question 33

Chloe sued Vincent for negligence.He has relied on the defence of contributory negligence.That defence may be successful only if the evidence proves that

A)it was reasonably foreseeable that a careless act by Chloe might inflict a loss upon Vincent.
B)Chloe actually knew that she might injure herself if she acted carelessly.
C)Chloe's carelessness created one injury and Vincent's carelessness caused a different injury.
D)Chloe failed to act like a reasonable person would have acted in her circumstances.
E)Chloe and Vincent cooperated in creating the actual accident that injured Chloe.

Question 34

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 most likely to be TRUE?

A)Oswald's conduct falls under the heading of contributory negligence.
B)Sussex Corner has the option of recovering $50 000 from either Ruby or Oswald.
C)Ruby and Oswald are jointly and severally liable for the full loss.
D)Ruby will not be held liable at all because Oswald's negligence is an intervening act.
E)Oswald may be held liable for some damages even though Ruby had already damaged the bridge.

Question 35

Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the concept of remoteness?

A)The concept of remoteness is part of the test for a duty of care.
B)The concept of remoteness is based mostly on statutes.
C)The concept of remoteness has been rejected as a test in thin skull cases.
D)The concept of remoteness has been rejected as a test in cases of intervening acts.
E)The concept of remoteness includes the thin skull doctrine, the crumbling skull doctrine, and the thin wallet doctrine.

Question 36

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

A)her carelessness occurred while she was performing a contractual obligation.
B)she was inexperienced at the time of the mistake and by proving that a reasonable novice accountant might have made the same mistake.
C)although some professional accountants would have avoided the mistake that she committed, she merely committed an error of judgment.
D)she was not really a qualified accountant, even though she had told Evan that she was.
E)Evan paid her less than the market rate.

Question 37

Selena has cancer.She has sued the Tau Corp for negligence.She claims that her condition was caused by fumes that the Tau Corp carelessly allowed its factory to emit.Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the issue of causation?

A)If Selena proves that there is a 75 percent chance that her condition was caused by Tau Corp's carelessness, she will receive 75 percent of her damages.
B)If Selena proves that there is a 50 percent chance that her condition was caused by Tau Corp's carelessness, she will receive 100 percent of her damages.
C)If Selena proves that there is a 25 percent chance that her condition was caused by Tau Corp's carelessness, she will receive 25 percent of her damages.
D)If Selena proves that there is a 51 percent chance that her condition was caused by Tau Corp's carelessness, Selena will recover 100 percent of her damages.
E)If Selena proves that there is a 50 percent chance that her condition was caused by Tau Corp's carelessness, she will receive 50 percent of her damages.

Question 38

Psi Co owned a ship called The Greek that was worth $15 million.It intended to use that ship to perform a contract with Omega Inc that required it to deliver Omega's widgets from Vancouver to Los Angeles.Wilson negligently created a fire that destroyed The Greek.Psi Co wanted to buy a replacement ship, called The Athenian, for the purpose of performing its contract with Omega, but it could not immediately afford the full purchase price.Psi Co therefore rented a ship, called The Canadian, for $2 million and used it to perform its contract with Omega.After being paid by Omega, Psi Co bought The Athenian for $15 million.Psi Co has successfully sued Wilson for negligence.The court agrees that Psi Co is entitled to $15 million for the loss of its original ship.Psi Co, 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 Co's claim for $2 million?

A)That claim is properly decided under the concept of an intervening act.
B)That claim will probably fail because there was a lack of factual causation.
C)That claim will probably fail because there was no duty of care.
D)That claim traditionally would have failed because the relevant loss is partially attributable to the plaintiff's own impecuniosity.
E)That claim will be decided by the crumbling skull rule.

Question 39

The concept of a crumbling skull

A)does not exist in Canadian law.
B)is exactly the same as the concept of a thin skull.
C)allows the plaintiff to recover damages for the full extent of a loss, as long as it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant's carelessness would cause a normal person to suffer some injury.
D)allows the plaintiff to recover some damages when the defendant's carelessness hastens the occurrence of a loss that the plaintiff eventually would have suffered in any event.
E)states that a defendant with an intellectual disability cannot be expected to meet the general standard of care.

Question 40

The concept of remoteness

A)arises for consideration under concept of duty of care.
B)asks whether a person in the plaintiff's position could have reasonably foreseen that loss that occurred because of a breach of care.
C)is relevant only if the defendant in fact carelessly caused the plaintiff's loss.
D)is treated as a defence to the action in negligence.
E)is most closely connected to the concept of the standard of care.

Question 41

Demarcus sued Marguerite for negligence.She has relied on the defence of illegality.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A)That defence allows for the apportionment of responsibility between the parties.
B)That defence may apply if the recovery of damages would allow Demarcus to avoid a criminal penalty.
C)That defence will not apply if it would re-enforce a criminal penalty.
D)That defence could apply only if Demarcus committed a crime that was punishable by imprisonment.
E)The Supreme Court of Canada has abolished the defence of illegality on the basis that it often creates unfair results.

Question 42

Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the test that Canadian judges apply to determine the existence of a duty of care?
A.Policy concerns usually relate to the relationship between the parties.
B.Proximity concerns usually relate to the effect that a duty of care would have on society generally.
C.Canadian judges now use a three-part test, but they previously used a two-part test.
D.The fear of opening the floodgates is usually addressed under the heading of reasonable foreseeability.
E.The fear of interfering with political decisions is usually addressed under the heading of proximity.

Question 43

Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to the standard of care that is applied to professionals?

A)The standard of care is raised with respect to experienced professionals and lowered with respect to beginners.
B)A professional may be held liable despite acting in compliance with an approved practice.
C)An error of judgment always constitutes a breach of the standard of care.
D)A judge will always hold that the defendant acted carelessly if the defendant injured the plaintiff while committing a breach of a statute.
E)Because there is no separate tort of breach of a statutory duty, a court cannot consider the effect of a statute when it formulates the standard of care.

Question 44

Pishoy recently graduated from medical school and established a general practice in a small town.Unfortunately, one of his patients, named Rick, has been diagnosed with late-stage colon cancer.Pishoy could have discovered that condition much earlier by instructing Rick to undergo a colonoscopy.In accordance with standard practice, however, Pishoy generally instructs his male patients to undergo that type of test only after they turn 40.Rick has sued Pishoy for negligence.Which of the following statements is most likely to be TRUE?

A)Pishoy will be held liable because did not act as a reasonable professional would have acted.
B)Because Pishoy is a relatively new physician, the court will lower the standard of care.
C)The content of the standard of care would be the same whether Pishoy was a general practitioner or a specialist in colon cancer.
D)in applying the standard of care, the court will be influenced by the quality of the medical school that Pishoy attended.
E)Rick's claim will fail because Pishoy acted as a reasonable general practitioner would have acted.

Question 45

Arsenio was injured by a product that had been manufactured by Magic Enterprises Inc.Which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to Arsenio's claim against the company for product liability?

A)Because liability for defective products in Canada is strict, Arsenio does not have to prove that Magic acted carelessly.
B)It will be easier for Arsenio to win if his claim is based on an allegation of careless manufacture, rather than an allegation of careless design.
C)If Arsenio's injury occurred after he used the company's product in an improper way, there is no chance that the company will be held liable.
D)The learned intermediary rule will apply if Arsenio uses a lawyer to bring his claim against the company.
E)The company may be held liable in contract, but never in tort, if Arsenio bought the harmful product directly from the company.

Question 46

Nelson has sued Shaniqua under the tort of negligence.A duty of care is most likely to be recognized by a court if

A)Nelson was injured by Shaniqua's carelessness while she carried him during pregnancy.
B)Nelson suffered a pure economic loss as a result of relying upon a financial statement that Shaniqua had prepared for private use by another person.
C)Nelson was injured by a driver who had become obviously intoxicated while drinking to excess at Shaniqua's tavern.
D)Nelson lost his entire retirement fund because Shaniqua, who had been appointed by the government to regulate investment brokers, carelessly failed to notice that Nelson's broker was dishonest.
E)despite being a complete stranger to Nelson, Shaniqua easily could have saved him from nearly dying by drowning.

Question 47

Sarah sued Jerry and Tom in negligence.A court held that Jerry and Tom were jointly and severally liable.This means that

A)Jerry and Tom must have acted together to create a single danger.
B)Sarah must collect her damages from assets that Jerry and Tom own together.
C)Sarah must have suffered at least two distinct injuries.
D)Sarah must collect some of her damages from Jerry and the rest from Tom.
E)Sarah is entitled to collect all of her damages from Tom, even if Jerry had acted with greater carelessness in causing her injuries.

Question 48

Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A)The effect of a thin skull is usually considered in the context of the breach of the standard of care.
B)The concept of reasonable foreseeability requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff would likely be injured by the defendant's carelessness.
C)Product liability in Canadian tort law is strict.
D)An "error in judgment" is always a breach of the standard of care, but the court will reduce damages on the basis of the defendant's honesty.
E)The defence of contributory negligence may apply even if the plaintiff's carelessness contributed to the extent of the plaintiff's injury but not the creation of the accident.

Question 49

A Canadian court will determine the existence of a duty of care by examining the factors of
A.reasonable foreseeability, proximity, and policy.
B.proximity and reasonable expectations.
C.proximity, policy, and intention.
D.reasonable foreseeability, policy, and intention.
E.precedent, policy, and practicality.

Question 50

Which of the following is a defence to the tort of negligence?
A.strict liability
B.mental incapacity
C.inexperience
D.res ipsa loquitur
E.volenti

Question 51

Dinar has sued Alpha Inc under the tort of negligence.The court must decide whether or not the company owed a duty of care to Dinar.Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A)The judge will require proof that someone within the company actually realized, as a matter of reasonable foreseeability, that someone might be hurt in the way that Dinar was hurt.
B)If the relationship between Dinar and Alpha Inc falls within a recognized category of the duty of care, there is no need for the court to analyze the duty of care on a principled basis.
C)The judge will require proof that the accident that injured Dinar was an inevitable outcome of the company's activities.
D)While policy considerations may affect the measure of damages, it cannot affect the existence of a duty of care.
E)Dinar must sue a person associated with Alpha Inc, rather than suing the company itself.

Question 52

The concept of reasonable foreseeability is directly relevant to

A)the duty of care and the standard of care but not remoteness.
B)the standard of care but not the defence of contributory negligence.
C)factual causation.
D)the duty of care.
E)both the but-for test and the concept of an intervening act.

Question 53

Remy invited his friend, Fabiola, to ride on his handlebars as he cycled down a large hill.Fabiola initially refused because neither she nor Remy had ever tried that stunt before.Remy, however, was persistent.He told her that he had seen plenty of people riding on handlebars and he said that it did not look particularly difficult.Fabiola finally agreed.Halfway down the hill, the pair crashed and Fabiola suffered significant injuries.She has sued Remy for negligence.On what basis is Remy most likely to avoid or reduce his potential liability?

A)Fabiola committed contributory negligence when she placed herself in a dangerous situation.
B)Fabiola committed an illegal act because there is a law that prohibits riding on a bike's handlebars.
C)Fabiola voluntarily assumed the risk because she freely chose to sit on Remy's handlebars despite knowing that he had no experience with that stunt.
D)Fabiola was not owed a duty of care because Remy did not foresee the accident that occurred.
E)Fabiola's decision to sit on the handlebars constituted an intervening act between Remy's original invitation and the accident.

Question 54

Henry negligently caused June to fall and break her leg.Because of her injury, June's leg was in a cast for many weeks.Even with crutches, she found it difficult to move around. June's lack of mobility led to additional injuries.First, while slowly crossing a street, she was knocked over by a careless cyclist.While she escaped that incident without serious harm, June did lose her two front teeth as a result of that accident.The second episode occurred while June was attending a party.One of her friends had strung a rope between two large trees and invited June to try walking on the rope.June broke her arm after falling off the rope.Which of the following statements is most likely to be TRUE?

A)Henry's liability for June's lost teeth and broken arm depends entirely on the but-for test.
B)Henry is not liable for the broken arm because it was not reasonably foreseeable that his original negligence would cause that injury.
C)Henry is not liable for June's front teeth because the cyclist's carelessly broke the chain of causation between Henry's original negligence and that injury.
D)Henry is liable for June's lost teeth ad her broken arm because, as a matter of law, his original negligence caused her to have a thin skull.
E)Henry is not liable for June's broken arm because she voluntarily assumed the risk of injury when she accepted her friend's invitation to rope walk.

Question 55

Kirsten recently went through breast implant surgery.As a result of a rare occurrence, one of the implants ruptured and leaked harmful fluid into her body.Kirsten has sued the manufacturer of the implant under the tort of negligence.That manufacturer

A)cannot be held liable unless the implant was carelessly designed.
B)might not be held liable if it issued a warning of the relevant risk to Kirsten's physician, even if it did not warn Kirsten herself.
C)can escape liability under the learned intermediary rule if it can prove that Kirsten could have discovered the risk if she had done sufficient research on the internet.
D)will not be held liable to Kirsten unless she purchased the implant directly from the manufacturer.
E)is subject to strict liability because its products are so dangerous.

Question 56

Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A)While the courts are relatively reluctant to impose a duty of care if the defendant's careless statement caused the plaintiff to suffer a pure economic loss, a duty of care almost always exists if the defendant's careless act caused the plaintiff to suffer a psychological injury.
B)The sudden peril doctrine falls within the standard of care issue.
C)The concept of reasonable foreseeability is relevant to the issues of causation and standard of care, but not to the issue of duty of care.
D)Because life and health are more important than dollars and cents, the standard of care is not influenced by the amount of money that the defendant would have to spend in order to reduce the risk of injury to the plaintiff.
E)"Joint liability" means that the defendant has been held liable for causing two or more accidents.

Question 57

Which of the following statements is TRUE?

A)The test for the recognition of a new duty of care requires a court to consider proximity, reasonable foreseeability, and policy.
B)The effect of an intervening act is usually considered in the context of the standard of care.
C)Canadian law does not include the learned intermediary rule.
D)Product liability may arise from a careless act in the manufacture of a product or carelessness in the design of a product but not from a careless failure to warn of the risks associated with a product.
E)Contributory negligence was originally a partial defence.

Question 58

Zoe was injured last New Year's Eve in a traffic accident that was caused by Miles.The accident would not have occurred if Miles had not been drunk.Because Miles has no assets and is not worth suing, Zoe has instead sued Thelonious, who was in control of the premises where Miles became drunk.The judge must determine whether or not Thelonious owed a duty of care to Zoe.A duty is less likely to be imposed if

A)without Thelonious' knowledge, Zoe had also been drinking alcohol immediately before the accident.
B)Thelonious knew, on the basis of past experience, that Miles was likely to drive himself home after becoming drunk.
C)Zoe was a regular customer at Thelonious' sports bar.
D)Miles became drunk at Thelonious' sports bar after being served by an employee who has liability insurance.
E)Miles became drunk while visiting Thelonious at home, than if Miles became drunk while visiting Thelonious' sports bar.

Question 59

Aher is legally classified as an "infant" because he has not yet reached the age when a person is considered an adult.That does not mean, however, that he is a toddler.In fact, although he is in junior high, he is as tall and as muscular as many of his male teachers.Unfortunately, Aher recently inflicted a serious physical injury on his neighbour, Sofia.She has sued him under the tort of negligence.Which of the following statements is most likely to be TRUE?

A)If the court finds that Aher is negligently responsible for Sofia's injury, it will also hold his parents vicariously liable for Aher's tort.
B)Because he is not an adult, the court will hold that Aher did not owe a duty of care to Sofia.
C)If Aher injured Sofia while carelessly driving a vehicle, the standard of care will not be affected by the fact that Aher is a child.
D)Because Aher is a child, Sofia must sue Aher's parents rather than Aher himself.
E)If Aher is Sofia's son, the court will apply a policy rule and refuse to recognize a duty of care.

Question 60

Halle wants to create a new accounting company.She is, however, concerned about the possibility of incurring liability under the tort of negligence if she acts carelessly.Restricting yourself to the possibility of liability for negligent statements, which of the following statements is TRUE with respect to Halle's proposed business?

A)Under the tort of negligence, the same rules are applied in exactly the same way whether an allegation of negligence arises in connection with a careless statement or a careless action.
B)Canadian courts are guided by the fact that "deeds are more volatile than words."
C)Halle's concerns would fall under the tort of professional negligence, which is different than the tort of negligence.
D)Canadian judges apply precisely the same approach whether careless words cause physical injury or pure economic loss.
E)Canadian judges do not apply special rules if the defendant's careless statement led to the plaintiff's physical injury.

Question 61

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.

Question 62

Explain the two-fold significance of the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson.

Question 63

Thalia has sued Pi Inc for negligence.The company admits liability, but can prove that most of Thalia's damages stemmed from the fact that she could not financially afford to mitigate her losses in a timely manner.The company therefore insists that it should not be held liable for those losses.How would a modern court resolve that issue?

Question 64

Shamar works as a financial adviser.He was recently asked by the Upsilon Corp to produce a report.Because Upsilon Corp is involved in a highly complex and highly volatile field, Shamar is very concerned about making a mistake and being held liable to the company.The company is sympathetic to that concern, and is therefore willing to make some concessions in its contract with Shamar.Assuming that he wants to perform the project, what should he do, from a risk management standpoint, to avoid the possibility of liability to the company.Provide the single best answer to that question.

Question 65

Indira has informed the Bogus Corp that she intends to sue it for product liability, but she has not yet provided details of her claim.The company is curious as to whether she is claiming negligent manufacture or negligent design.What is the factual difference between those two possibilities? What is the legal difference? Which type of claim do courts approach more carefully?

Question 66

Leia was injured in a car accident with Hakim.At trial, Hakim admits that he crashed into Leia's vehicle, but he insists that he should not be held liable because, at the time of the accident, he was suffering from a form of mental illness that deprived him of control over his actions.The expert evidence supports Hakim's version of events, but it also reveals that Hakim is now fully cured of his illness.Will Hakim be held liable to Leia?

Question 67

Samir has sued Beatrice for the negligent performance of a professional service.How is Beatrice's status as a professional person relevant to the standard of care? Would it matter if she was a novice at the time of the accident? What if she was an expert? What if she falsely claimed to be an expert? Explain your answers.

Question 68

Gamma Corp carelessly allowed its factory to spew toxic chemicals into the environment.Gamma Corp's factory is located near a park.Mary often visited that park while she was pregnant with Antonio.Antonio was born with a severe disability.That disability was caused by one of two factors: the toxic chemicals that Gamma Corp's factory emitted or the cigarettes that Mary smoked during her pregnancy.Mary chose to chain-smoke during her pregnancy despite knowing the risks that her behaviour presented for her unborn child.Can Antonio recover compensatory damages if the evidence proves that his disability was caused by Gamma Corp? Can he recover compensatory damages if the evidence proves that his disability was caused by his mother's smoking? Provide the best explanation for your answer.

Question 69

What is the difference between a complete defence and an apportionment defence? Provide an example of each.Explain your answer.

Question 70

Identify and briefly explain the primary social tension that the cause of action in negligence attempts to resolve.How is the flexibility of the action in negligence related to the resolution of that tension?

Question 71

"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.

Question 72

Identify and briefly explain three ways in which careless statements are significantly different, in a legal sense, than careless actions.

Question 73

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.

Question 74

Tallal sued Fiona for negligence.She admits that she owed him a duty of care and that she caused his injury.She insists, however, that she cannot be held liable because she did not breach the standard of care.While she committed an act that would, in normal circumstances, be considered clearly careless, she did so while suffering from a severe mental illness.Is it possible for Fiona to escape liability on that basis? Explain your answer.

Question 75

Under the terms of a contract, Abigail provided accounting services to Theta Inc.Those services culminated in the production of a financial statement.Unfortunately, Abigail did her job carelessly and the financial statement was inaccurate.Raekwon, who is a shareholder in Theta Inc, suffered a loss after relying upon the financial statements that Abigail prepared.He has sued her for negligence.Identify and briefly explain the factors that a court will consider in deciding whether or not Abigail owed Raekwon a duty of care.