Deck 9: Negligence and Strict Liability

Question 1

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

Answer 1

False

Question 2

Tina negligently hits student Susie with her car. Which of the following is true?

A) Tina has no duty to come to the aid of Susie.
B) Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie because she negligently hit her.
C) Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie only if police are not on the scene within a reasonable amount of time.
D) Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie only if Susie has no insurance.
E) Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie only if no one else is willing to do so.

Answer 2

Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie because she negligently hit her.

Question 3

Strict liability is liability without fault.

Answer 3

True

Question 4

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

Question 5

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

Question 6

More than half the states remain contributory negligence states.

Question 7

According to the pure comparative negligence defense, a defendant must be more than 50% at fault before the plaintiff can recover.

Question 8

In District of Columbia v. Wayne Singleton, the case in the text involving the single-vehicle bus accident, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because a single-vehicle accident is a type that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence.

Question 9

The ________ standard is a measurement of the way members of society expect an individual to act in a given situation.

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

Question 10

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

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

Question 11

The courts generally hold that landowners have a duty to protect individuals on their property.

Question 12

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

Question 13

While driving her car down the street, Susan sees a child playing near the road with no adult around. Which of the following is true?

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

Question 14

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

Question 15

Clients who feel that they have suffered damages as a result of a professional's breach of his or her duty of care can bring a negligence case against the professional referred to as a _____________ case.

A) Malfeasance
B) Malpractice
C) Mistake
D) Physician liability
E) Physician guilty

Question 16

Which of the following must a plaintiff prove to win a negligence case?

A) Duty, breach of duty, and causation, but not damages.
B) Breach of duty only.
C) Duty and causation only.
D) Causation and damages.
E) Duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.

Question 17

Which of the following is true regarding the duty that a business owes to customers?

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

Question 18

Assume Bob, who had no notice of any heart problem, is driving and suddenly has an unexpected heart attack causing him to run over a student crossing the street breaking the student's leg in the process. Which of the following is true?

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

Question 19

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

Question 20

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

Question 21

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

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

Question 22

Which of the following is sometimes referred to as "but for" causation?

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

Question 23

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

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

Question 24

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

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

Question 25

Which of the following are elements of causation?

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

Question 26

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

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

Question 27

Actual cause is also known as ______.

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

Question 28

Which of the following is true regarding the law of negligence in Germany?

A) It is the same as the law of negligence in the United States.
B) It focuses only on conscious negligence.
C) It focuses only on unconscious negligence.
D) Courts distinguish between conscious and unconscious negligence with defendants who have engaged in only conscious negligence being found not guilty.
E) Both mental and physical capabilities are taken into account in determining whether a defendant is negligent.

Question 29

Which of the following aids plaintiffs in establishing negligence claims?

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

Question 30

Proximate cause is also sometimes referred to as which of the following?

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

Question 31

Which of the following is an example of a dram shop act?

A) A statute which requires bar owners to have a license before operating a bar.
B) A statute which allows bartenders and bar owners to be held liable for injuries caused by individuals who become intoxicated at the bar.
C) A statute that prohibits any bars on certain streets in the jurisdiction.
D) A statute which allows the selling of beer but not hard liquor.
E) A statute which requires bar owners to post a bond before opening for business in a jurisdiction.

Question 32

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

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

Question 33

What does the term "negligence per se" mean literally?

A) Pure negligence.
B) Select negligence.
C) Negligence in or of itself.
D) Absolute wrongdoing.
E) Allowable negligence.

Question 34

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

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

Question 35

In most states, proximate cause is determined by _______.

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

Question 36

Which of the following is true regarding contributory negligence?

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

Question 37

Which of the following must the defendant prove in order to rely upon the defense of contributory negligence?

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 38

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

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

Question 39

Assume Bobby begins to cross the street in a jurisdiction that applies contributory negligence. He does not go to a crosswalk but proceeds to illegally cross the street without checking to see if any vehicles are coming. Slick sees Bobby in the street, notices that he is not in the crosswalk, and proceeds to hit Bobby with his vehicle because he believes that Bobby should be taught a lesson about how to cross the street. Slick does slow down somewhat and only causes Bobby some significant bruising, but Bobby is angry and sues. Which of the following is most likely to happen in a contributory negligence jurisdiction?

A) Slick will not be held liable because Bobby was contributorily negligent.
B) Bobby 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 Bobby.
C) Bobby will win because of comparative negligence.
D) Slick will win because of the assumption of risk doctrine based upon the fact that Bobby committed an offense by crossing the street where he did in violation of clearly defined law.
E) Bobby will lose because Slick, at least, reduced his speed.

Question 40

Why are punitive damages awarded?

A) Only to punish the offender.
B) Only to deter others from committing similar offenses.
C) Only to reimburse a plaintiff for his or her losses.
D) To punish the offender and to deter others from committing similar offenses.
E) To punish the offender, to deter others from committing similar offenses, and to reimburse a plaintiff for his or her losses.

Question 41

"Diving fiasco." Mike, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Mike 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. Mike did not reveal that information to the group of divers going with him because in his experience, as soon as customers hear of even 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 latches onto diver Susie's arm. Susie is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (her breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable difficulty. 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. Mike, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing but return to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Wendy, 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 pulls his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Mike.

-Billy and Susie are annoyed that Mike did not come to their assistance. Which is true regarding Mike's duty to provide assistance during the dive?

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

Question 42

Which of the following is an example of an inherently dangerous activity?

A) Driving a vehicle.
B) Operating an airplane.
C) Dynamite blasting in a populated area.
D) Burning trash.
E) Babysitting.

Question 43

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

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

Question 44

Which of the following occurs when a plaintiff expressly agrees, usually in a written contract, to assume the risk posed by the defendant's behavior?

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 45

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

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

Question 46

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

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

Question 47

Which of the following is liability without fault?

A) Negligence.
B) Assumption of the risk.
C) Strict liability.
D) Storekeeper liability.
E) Homeowner liability.

Question 48

In reference to the case in the text, Ex Parte Emmette L. Barran, III, what was the result after the plaintiff sued the national and local Kappa Alpha organization following hazing activities?

A) The court ruled that under pure contributive negligence principles, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
B) The court ruled that under pure comparative negligence principles, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
C) The court ruled that under modified comparative negligence principles, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
D) The court dismissed the case on the basis of negligence per se.
E) The court dismissed the lawsuit on the basis that the plaintiff assumed the risk of harm.

Question 49

Which is the most difficult part of establishing the defense of assumption of the risk?

A) Showing that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the actual harm suffered.
B) Showing that the defendant was aware that the plaintiff assumed the risk.
C) Showing that the plaintiff was aware of applicable law.
D) Showing that the plaintiff signed the contract assuming the risk without duress.
E) Showing a lack of contributory conduct on the part of other defendants.

Question 50

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

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

Question 51

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

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

Question 52

"Diving fiasco." Mike, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Mike 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. Mike did not reveal that information to the group of divers going with him because in his experience, as soon as customers hear of even 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 latches onto diver Susie's arm. Susie is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (her breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable difficulty. 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. Mike, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing but return to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Wendy, 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 pulls his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Mike.

-Which of the following is true regarding whether Mike is liable for the injuries Sam sustained in coming to the rescue of the divers in distress?

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

Question 53

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

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

Question 54

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

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

Question 55

Which of the following was the result in District of Columbia v. Wayne Singleton, the case in the text involving whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to a negligence action involving a single-vehicle accident?

A) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to absolve the defendant from liability.
B) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to establish the defendant's liability to the plaintiff.
C) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to prevent the defendant from invoking the doctrine of comparative fault.
D) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to the motor vehicle accident at issue because it applies only in litigation involving strict liability.
E) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the plaintiff failed to eliminate sufficiently other causes of the accident.

Question 56

Why have most states replaced the contributory negligence defense with a comparative negligence theory?

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

Question 57

"Diving fiasco." Mike, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Mike 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. Mike did not reveal that information to the group of divers going with him because in his experience, as soon as customers hear of even 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 latches onto diver Susie's arm. Susie is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (her breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable difficulty. 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. Mike, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing but return to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Wendy, 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 pulls his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Mike.

-Which of the following is true regarding whether Wendy and Sam had a duty to come to the assistance of the divers in peril?

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

Question 58

"Diving fiasco." Mike, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Mike 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. Mike did not reveal that information to the group of divers going with him because in his experience, as soon as customers hear of even 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 latches onto diver Susie's arm. Susie is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (her breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable difficulty. 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. Mike, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing but return to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Wendy, 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 pulls his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Mike.

-Billy, the diver who had damaged equipment because of the shark incident wants to sue Mike for damages. Which of the following is the most likely result?

A) Billy will win because Mike should have warned him about the occasional appearance of sharks.
B) Billy will lose because Mike 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 Mike whereby Mike 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 59

Which of the following occurs when a plaintiff implicitly assumes a known risk?

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

Question 60

Which of the following are laws holding that people in peril who receive voluntary aid from others cannot hold those offering aid liable for negligence?

A) Good Samaritan statutes.
B) Aid to others statutes.
C) Rescue statutes.
D) Freedom statutes.
E) All clear statutes.

Question 61

Identify and discuss the two separate elements of causation and how they are applied.

Question 62

"Blow up." Jeanie is hauling gas in the back of her pick-up truck for her personal watercraft. She is planning a lake party and thinks she will need a lot of it. On the way home, Jeanie stops at the automatic teller machine at her bank and exits her car. Holly pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Jeanie's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Holly for negligence claiming that Holly should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claimed that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

-Which of the following is true regarding whether actual cause exists in the bank's action against Holly?

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

Question 63

Which of the following theories will Susan likely use to defend herself?

A) Assumption of the risk
B) Comparative negligence
C) Res ipsa loquitur
D) Negligence per se
E) Stare decisis

Question 64

What type of damages would Robert seek in order to punish Susan and to deter her actions in regard to letting the dog run free?

A) Punitive.
B) Compensatory.
C) Nominal.
D) Liquidated.
E) There are no such damages available.

Question 65

Define the term "res ipsa loquitur" and set forth what a plaintiff must demonstrate in order rely upon that doctrine.

Question 66

Assume a jurisdiction has a law that all residential swimming pools must have a fence that is at least six feet tall surrounding the swimming pool. Cindy has a pool in her backyard; but it was built only a few months ago, and Cindy has not had the extra money with which to build the fence. Unfortunately, one of the neighborhood children goes swimming in the pool and drowns. The parents of the child sue Cindy. Discuss how they would likely go about proving their case and the elements that would be required.

Question 67

"Chewer." The state in which Susan lives has a statute prohibiting dogs from running at large. All dogs are required to be on a leash whenever they are off the owner's premises. Susan's dog, while not on a leash, visits the home of a neighbor down the street. While there, the dog carries off an expensive pair of shoes belonging to Robert. The shoes are chewed and destroyed. A neighbor informed Robert of what had happened. Robert commented that he never should have left his $300 shoes lying on the deck in the first place but that he expects to be repaid by Susan. Robert found out that the dog had carried away a number of shoes and other articles in the neighborhood, chewing them to pieces. Susan had done nothing to warn anyone. Robert thinks that she should be punished for her activities, and perhaps that would deter her from allowing the dog to run loose.

-Upon which of the following theories will Robert likely rely in seeking recovery for the shoes against Susan?

A) Negligence per se
B) Res ipsa loquitur
C) Stare decisis
D) A fortiori
E) Actus reus

Question 68

As the law currently stands in most jurisdictions, do individuals have a general duty to rescue strangers from perilous situations? Discuss whether or not you believe individuals should have a duty under tort law to rescue strangers from perilous situations and how you think the law should be written in that area.

Question 69

"Blow up." Jeanie is hauling gas in the back of her pick-up truck for her personal watercraft. She is planning a lake party and thinks she will need a lot of it. On the way home, Jeanie stops at the automatic teller machine at her bank and exits her car. Holly pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Jeanie's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Holly for negligence claiming that Holly should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claimed that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

-Which of the following is most likely true regarding whether Holly is the proximate cause of the bank burning?

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

Question 70

Identify and explain the elements of negligence.

Question 71

"Blow up." Jeanie is hauling gas in the back of her pick-up truck for her personal watercraft. She is planning a lake party and thinks she will need a lot of it. On the way home, Jeanie stops at the automatic teller machine at her bank and exits her car. Holly pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Jeanie's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Holly for negligence claiming that Holly should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claimed that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

-Which of the following is true regarding the bank's claim that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine?

A) The bank is correct because under that doctrine defendants are liable for any harm caused.
B) The bank is correct only if Holly has sufficient insurance to cover the bank burning.
C) The bank is correct only if it can be established that Holly was a repeat driving offender.
D) The bank is incorrect because the issue here is causation, not whether there was a lack of due care.
E) The bank is incorrect because res ipsa loquitur is a defense.