Question 1

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

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False  True

Question 2

Which of the following is true regarding contributory negligence?

Accepted Answer

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. D

Question 3

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?

Accepted Answer

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. D

Question 4

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:

Accepted Answer

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 5

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.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 6

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 7

[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?

Accepted Answer

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 8

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?

Accepted Answer

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 9

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 10

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?

Accepted Answer

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 11

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?

Accepted Answer

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

Question 12

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

Accepted Answer

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

Question 13

Why do superseding causes allow defendants to avoid liability?

Accepted Answer

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 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?

Accepted Answer

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

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

Accepted Answer

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 16

[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.
-Claiming that recovery under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is an option, do you believe the bank is correct?

Accepted Answer

A)   Yes, the bank is correct because under that doctrine defendants are liable for any harm caused.
B)   Yes, the bank is correct only if Teresa has sufficient insurance to cover the bank burning.
C)   Yes, the bank is correct only if it can be established that Teresa was a repeat driving offender.
D)   No, the bank is incorrect because the issue here is causation, not whether there was a lack of duty of care.
E)   No, the bank is incorrect because res ipsa loquitur is a defense.

Question 17

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?

Accepted Answer

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 18

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

Accepted Answer

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 19

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

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 20

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

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Exam 9: Negligence and Strict Liability

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

Which of the following is true regarding contributory negligence?

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?

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:

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.

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

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?

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

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?

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?

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

Why do superseding causes allow defendants to avoid liability?

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?

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

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

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

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