Deck 7: Negligence and Strict Liability

Question 1

The tort of negligent hiring is distinct from tort liability predicated upon the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Answer 1

True

Question 2

The doctrine of "Res ipsa loquitur" means the thing speaks for others.

Answer 2

False

Question 3

Attendees of free public lectures and church services would be called:

A) trespassers
B) licensees
C) invitees
D) business visitors

Answer 3

C

Question 4

Which of the following enters a property with the possessor's consent but for his/her own purpose?

A) Licensee
B) Trespasser
C) Invitee
D) Attendee

Question 5

Under many "mixed" comparative negligence systems, a plaintiff recovers nothing where the plaintiff's own negligence is 50% or more.

Question 6

Proximate causation presupposes the existence of actual or but-for causation; you can't have the former without the latter.

Question 7

The "modified impact rule" does not require an element of direct physical contact.

Question 8

Someone confronted with an emergency requiring rapid decisions and action need not employ the same level of caution and deliberation as someone in circumstances allowing for calm reflection and deliberate action. This exception reflects the consideration of _____ in a negligence case.

A) personal characteristics
B) context
C) special duties
D) negligence

Question 9

In a strict liability case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant breached a duty.

Question 10

Unforeseeable acts are held to be an intervening cause.

Question 11

Generally, property owners do not owe a duty of care to trespassers, who regularly enter the land without authorization.

Question 12

Negligent defendants are never liable for the consequences of an unforeseeable intervening cause.

Question 13

In many cases, a blind person will be held to a different standard of reasonable care than a person who can see.

Question 14

Which of the following enters a land without its possessor's consent and without any other privilege?

A) Invitees
B) Trespassers
C) Guests
D) Licensees

Question 15

Whatever the type of injury experienced by the plaintiff, the usual rule is that only punitive damages are recoverable in a negligence case.

Question 16

Special duties that run from possessors of real estate to those who enter the property are called "premises liability" cases.

Question 17

In a case involving an ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activity, the plaintiff must prove recklessness on the defendant's part. Any lower fault standard would be unfair to the defendant in such cases.

Question 18

Social guests are licensees in some states.

Question 19

In some states that have eliminated assumption of risk as a separate defense; assumption of risk reappears as one of the many kinds of fault that a court must weigh in applying the state's comparative fault defense.

Question 20

Negligence cases that address duties that run from possessors of real estate (land and buildings) to those who enter that property are often called:

A) special cases duties.
B) premises liability cases.
C) strict liability cases.
D) negligence per se cases.

Question 21

One day, Jon carelessly left a rake next to the sidewalk when he went to lunch. Deb, a customer of the bank, stepped on the rake as she walked next to the sidewalk and was injured. Which statement is most likely correct?

A) The bank is liable for Deb's injuries.
B) The bank is not liable for Deb's injuries, because she should have used due care.
C) The custodian is liable for Deb's injuries but not the bank.
D) The bank is not liable for Deb's injuries because the rake was a latent defect.

Question 22

_____ is the plaintiff's voluntary consent to a known danger.

A) Contributory negligence
B) Assumption of risk
C) Comparative negligence
D) Negligence per se

Question 23

Today, trespassers who are injured while on someone else's land:

A) never recover against the landowner in negligence.
B) recover against the landowner in negligence only when this is permitted by statute.
C) recover only when the possessor knows they are likely to trespass.
D) recover only when the owner willfully and wantonly injures them after their presence is known.

Question 24

Ann had gone hiking into the woods. On the way, one of the tires of her new car failed. Her vehicle was rendered inoperable. The road was deserted. Rick, a co-hiker was passing on the way. He abducted her and sexually assaulted her. Ann wants to sue the car company for negligence. Will she succeed?

A) No, because she had voluntarily assumed the risk while passing through the deserted road.
B) No, because Rick's sexual assault is an unforeseeable intervening cause.
C) Yes, because the company has breached its duty.
D) Yes, because the tire's failure only resulted in her injury.

Question 25

Catherine decided to have lunch at Tom's, one of the most popular restaurants in town. She ordered soup before her main course as usual. The soup served to Catherine contained a maggot floating about in it. Fortunately, she noticed this before she had it. She sued Tom's for negligence. The most likely result will be:

A) Catherine will not win since she did not sustain any damages.
B) Catherine will not win, as bones in clam chowder are foreseeable.
C) Catherine will win if she proves emotional distress.
D) Catherine will win because the restaurant failed to use due care.

Question 26

What is the term to describe a plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care for her own safety?

A) Premises liability
B) Strict liability
C) Contributory negligence
D) Assumption of risk

Question 27

Parsons, a pedestrian watching a construction project, sees that a metal beam being lifted by a crane is about to drop on some unsuspecting workers. Thus, he rushes to the scene to warn the workers. For his efforts, he is struck by the falling beam. He sues the construction company in negligence. Which of the following is true? Assume that the falling beam was caused by a breach of duty on the company's part.

A) Parsons will recover against the company.
B) Parsons will recover, because it is foreseeable that a pedestrian would run onto the scene of an accident such as this.
C) Parsons will not recover, because he knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk of being struck by the beam.
D) Parsons will not recover, because he should have instead sued the worker operating the crane.

Question 28

A defendant who is negligent is not liable for the unlikely or unforeseeable harm that results. This rule is called:

A) the proximate cause.
B) the distal cause.
C) the just cause.
D) the "but for" rule.

Question 29

Rebecca goes for a ride in Owen's car, even though he has told her that the car's brakes frequently fail. In case of any injuries due to this defect, Rebecca would be said to have:

A) an implied assumption of risk.
B) contributory negligence.
C) strict liability.
D) negligence per se.

Question 30

The owner of a theatre negligently failed to install the requisite number of emergency exit. During the show of Shakespeare's Macbeth, one of the intoxicated viewers got carried away and burned himself. The entire hall was ablaze. There was only one emergency exit. Thus many people were killed in the stampede. Will the theatre owner be liable for negligence?

A) No, because the intervening cause of an intoxicated viewer burning himself absolves the theatre owner's liability.
B) No, because the viewer's reaction was completely unforeseeable by any reasonable man of ordinary prudence.
C) Yes, because the harm was foreseeable and the owner cannot escape his liability.
D) Yes, because though the harm was unforeseeable, the owner still cannot escape his breach of duty.

Question 31

Many courts have adopted a test in resolving the proximate cause question, under which a defendant who has breached a duty of care is liable:

A) only for the "natural and probable consequences" of his actions.
B) for all injuries sustained by the plaintiff.
C) even for injuries caused by the plaintiff's negligence
D) at least 50 percent of the damages.

Question 32

Which of the following characteristics is NOT considered by the court to determine the "reasonableness of the risk"?

A) Magnitude of the foreseeable harm
B) Social utility of the defendant's conduct
C) Social characteristics of the defendant
D) The defendant's subjective mental state

Question 33

Which of the following personal traits or conditions will not change the normal reasonable person standard to which defendants are subject?

A) Blindness.
B) Deafness.
C) Voluntary intoxication.
D) Childhood.

Question 34

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be translated as:

A) "you may have the body".
B) "to show, prove, or ascertain".
C) "by what warrant".
D) "the thing speaks for itself".

Question 35

Jack had taken his girlfriend Jenny on a long drive. While driving on the highway, he suddenly had a severe headache and lost control of the car. They were hit by a passing car. The doctor had earlier warned Jack that he has a brain tumor, due to which he would experience occasional pains. Jenny sued Jack for negligence. Will she succeed?

A) Yes, because Jack could reasonably foresee severe pain which might to lead to accidents.
B) No, because Jack did not intend to cause an accident.
C) Yes, because Jack caused the accident.
D) No, because she should have sued the driver of the passing car which hit them.

Question 36

Questions of proximate cause assume the existence of _____.

A) intervening cause
B) strict liability
C) actual cause
D) comparative fault

Question 37

State X has a "Sunday Closing Law" making it a crime to operate a retail business on Sundays. The law's legislative history reveals that it was enacted to promote respect for the Sabbath by all the people of the state, and thus to promote public decency and morality. One Sunday, Judy Smith slips on a puddle of spilled soft drink at Joe's Hamburger joint (which is operating in violation of the statute), and suffers an injury to her spine. The soft drink would not have been spilled if the store had not been open on Sunday. Judy sues Joe in negligence. One part of her complaint relies on the doctrine of negligence per se. Under the doctrine of negligence per se:

A) Judy will recover because the spilled drink posed a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm, and Joe failed to eliminate that risk.
B) Judy will recover because Joe violated the Sunday Closing Law.
C) Judy will not recover because she was not within the class of persons intended to be protected by the statute.
D) Judy will not recover because she did not suffer harm of a kind that the statute was intended to protect against.

Question 38

Negligence "per se" is a legal rule that established a defendant's negligence when:

A) a statute intended to protect persons like the plaintiff has been violated.
B) the defendant intended to harm the plaintiff.
C) the plaintiff intended to harm the defendant.
D) both the defendant and the plaintiff intended to harm each other.

Question 39

Trioka Corp. owns an apartment complex at which break-ins and prior instances of criminal activity had occurred. However, no security-related measures have been adopted. As a result, a criminal intruder easily enters the complex and physically attacks a tenant. Which of the following is true regarding the case?

A) Trioka has no liability for breach of duty.
B) Trioka is liable only for actual cause.
C) Trioka is liable only for proximate cause.
D) Trioka is liable for proximate and actual cause.

Question 40

Homer's negligence caused an automobile accident with Bart. As a result of the collision, Bart's car collides with a telephone pole, causing it to fall. The falling pole then takes out some electrical power lines. The resulting power outage leaves Patty without any light in her apartment. As she fumbles in the darkness, she trips over her cat, falls, and is injured. Patty sues Homer. In order to avoid liability, Homer's best defense is that:

A) there is no actual cause between the negligence and the injury.
B) there is no proximate cause between the breach of duty and the injury.
C) Bart's car was the one that collided with the telephone pole.
D) the electrical power lines should not have fallen under the force of a car.

Question 41

Phil decided to rescue Bobo, the Dancing Bear, from a traveling circus that was closing its business. Although Bobo was a well-behaved grizzly bear, Phil took great caution to make sure that Bobo would not escape from his yard by reinforcing the yard's fence with steel and padlocking the gate. One day, without notice, Bobo rushed the fence, knocked the padlock off the gate, and escaped from Phil's yard. Bobo lunged at a young child in the neighborhood, injuring him. Based on these facts:

A) Phil will be liable, only if he breached a duty of due care owed to the child.
B) Phil will be liable if the harm that resulted to the child was foreseeable to Phil.
C) Phil will be liable, regardless of the steps that he took to secure the yard.
D) Phil will most likely not be liable.

Question 42

Amtul and Hassan were involved in an automobile accident. Amtul's car, worth $10,000 was destroyed. Hassan suffered no personal injuries or property damage. The case went to the court and a jury determined that Amtul was 30% at fault and Hassan was 70% at fault. Under what legal theory would Amtul be able to recover $7,000 from Hassan?

A) Contributory negligence
B) Comparative negligence
C) Negligence per se
D) Res ipsa loquitur

Question 43

What effect does the rule of res ipsa loquitur have in a negligence case?

A) It creates a rebuttable presumption of breach of duty.
B) It creates a non-rebuttable presumption of causation.
C) It results in strict liability of the defendant.
D) It results in strict liability of the plaintiff.

Question 44

What are the strategies followed by the tort reform movement?

Question 45

Pam and Deb were in a car accident. Deb went through a red light, hitting Pam from the side. Pam was driving 45 miles per hour in a 25 miles per hour zone. Pam sues Deb based on negligence for damages. If Pam loses the suit, which of the following is the most likely reason?

A) The lawsuit was filed in a "contributory negligence" state.
B) The lawsuit was filed in a "comparative negligence" state.
C) Pam is uninsured.
D) Pam's accident was seen as "res ipsa loquitur."

Question 46

Jill voluntarily uses Joe's lawn mower, even though Joe had told her that his mower frequently fails and can even cause accidents. In case of an accident, Joe has the defense of:

A) contributory negligence.
B) assumption of risk.
C) comparative negligence.
D) comparative fault.

Question 47

Patrick sues Derek for negligence. At the trial, it is determined that Patrick's negligence was 40% responsible for his injury, and Derek's negligence was 60% responsible. Patrick's losses total $10,000. Under a pure comparative negligence system, he will recover:

A) nothing.
B) $4000.
C) $6000.
D) $10,000.

Question 48

Strict liability makes people liable irrespective of their fault. How is this justified? What is the standard rationale for strict liability?

Question 49

Today, a "tort reformer" is someone who wants to:

A) help more injured plaintiffs recover more money.
B) make tort law more clear, coherent, and rational through uniform legislation.
C) deal with the "insurance crisis" by limiting plaintiffs' ability to recover damages.
D) get rid of negligence law and replace it with strict liability.

Question 50

You are standing on a street corner. A truck belonging to the Safety First Trucking Co. (SFTC) carrying radioactive nuclear waste has a tire blown out, which causes the truck to overturn near you. Radioactive waste escapes from the truck and covers half your body. As a result, you suffer serious medical harm. What legal theory of recovery is available to you that will not require you to prove that SFTC was at fault?

A) Negligence
B) Express warranty
C) Implied warranty
D) Strict liability

Question 51

State X has a law requiring that all cars have a functioning muffler. The law's sole purpose is to protect all the citizens of the state against noise pollution. Donna violates the law when her muffler falls off her car while she is driving on a busy freeway. Pete, a citizen of state X, suffers damage to his car after colliding with the muffler. Pete sues Donna under negligence per se. Will he recover? Why or why not?

Question 52

What is a provision in a contract that purports to relieve the defendant of a duty of care he would otherwise owe to the plaintiff called?

A) Strict liability clause
B) Exculpatory clause
C) Intervening cause
D) Actual cause

Question 53

The most important example of strict liability principles in modern legislation is:

A) Road safety legislations
B) Environmental acts
C) Disabilities acts
D) Workers' compensation acts

Question 54

Fred Sweet runs dancing classes for middle-aged and elderly people. Some of Fred's customers lack physical coordination, and injuries from kicks, falls, etc. are common. Fred naturally fears that injured customers will sue him for negligence. Thus, he makes each customer sign a written contract containing a clause relieving Fred of all liability for injuries suffered during his dancing classes. However, fearful that he will lose business if potential customers become aware of his strategy, Fred states the clause in fine print and doesn't point it out to them. An injured customer sues Fred in negligence. Fred wants to defend on the basis of the clause in the contract. Which of the following is the biggest weakness in Fred's position?

A) That Fred tried to use an exculpatory clause at all, because such clauses are invalid on public policy grounds.
B) That Fred tried to use an exculpatory clause to relieve himself of negligence liability.
C) That Fred has superior bargaining power, which makes the customer's acceptance of the exculpatory clause involuntary.
D) That Fred used a fine-print exculpatory clause, which means that the customer lacked knowledge of the clause's existence.

Question 55

People who engage in abnormally dangerous activities:

A) are liable only if they are negligent.
B) are liable only if they intended to cause harm.
C) are liable only if they consciously disregard the risks inherent in that activity.
D) are liable even if they are not at fault.

Question 56

A legal theory that imposes liability even if the defendant acts with all reasonable care and caution is called:

A) assumption of risk.
B) strict liability.
C) superseding event.
D) contributory negligence.

Question 57

Which of the following is a criticism of strict tort liability that has been witnessed in recent years?

A) Increases in the frequency of punitive damage awards
B) Greater costs imposed on defendants
C) Impediment in the development of new products
D) Greater imposition of strict liability

Question 58

You are walking down a street and you pass by a beer brewery. A barrel rolls out of a third story window and injures you. You have no idea how this accident occurred, and you will have difficulty proving that the brewery was at fault. What legal theory will serve you best if you sue the brewery?

A) Negligence per se
B) Res ipsa loquitur
C) Strict liability
D) Battery

Question 59

With the emergence of comparative negligence and comparative fault, some states have eliminated assumption of risk as a defense. Does this mean that the plaintiff' of the risk and his voluntary acceptance of it have no role to play in negligence law? Why or why not?