Filters
Question type

Study Flashcards

Strict liability is liability without fault.

A) True
B) False

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

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

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

The two elements of causation are actual...

View Answer

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

F) A) and C)
G) C) and E)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

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.

F) A) and E)
G) A) and B)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

"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.

F) B) and E)
G) A) and C)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

"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.

F) C) and E)
G) None of the above

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

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.

F) B) and D)
G) D) and E)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

"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.

F) D) and E)
G) A) and B)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

"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.

F) A) and B)
G) A) and C)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

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.

F) B) and C)
G) C) and D)

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

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.

A) True
B) False

Correct Answer

verifed

verified

Showing 61 - 71 of 71

Related Exams

Show Answer