Correct Answer
verified
Essay
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
Multiple Choice
A) A surprise event
B) A superseding cause
C) A relative cause
D) An unusual cause
E) Assumption of the risk
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
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.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
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.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
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.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
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.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
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.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
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.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Proximate cause.
B) Actual cause.
C) Cause in fact.
D) Significant cause.
E) Legal cause.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Showing 61 - 71 of 71
Related Exams