Correct answer:
c
________________________________________
Your answer:
Phillip was waiting for a bus at a bus stop. Across the street and down the block, a mechanic negligently overinflated a tire he was intending to put onto Marsha's pickup truck. The exploding tire injured Marsha and frightened a neighborhood dog, which ran down the street and knocked Phillip down, injuring his knee. Phillip sued the mechanic. In applying the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. decision to this case, Phillip would:
a.win based on negligence per se.
b.win because the court would apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
c.lose because, although the mechanic's conduct was negligent toward Marsha, it was not a wrong in relation to Phillip, who was far away. The mechanic could not have foreseen injury to Phillip and therefore had no duty to him.
1
d.win because the mechanic was negligent in overinflating the tire, which led to Phillip's injury.
Correct answer:
c
________________________________________
Your answer:
In a comparative negligence state, if the plaintiff in a negligence lawsuit is found to be 30 percent negligent, the plaintiff would recover:
a.all of the damages.
b.none of the damages.
c.70 percent of the damages.1
d.30 percent of the damages.
Correct answer:
c
________________________________________
Your answer:
The Supreme Court of California in Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers, Inc.:
a.ruled that it did not matter whether the driver of the vehicle acted negligently or with criminal intent, the risk of harm from an unsafe fence was the same and defendants owed a duty to make the fence stronger.
b.placed importance on the fact that the child care facility had been the target of violence in the past.
c.required application of a different standard for third-party criminal acts versus acts of ordinary negligence.1
d.determined that foreseeability was not at issue in this case.
Correct answer:
c
________________________________________
Your answer:
A customer in a restaurant would be considered:
a.a social guest.
b.a licensee.
c.an invitee.1
d.None of these choices is correct.
Correct answer:
b
________________________________________
Your answer:
Tommie, a six-year-old child, was seriously injured when he stuck a fork into an electrical outlet. His parents sued the restaurant where the incident occurred, claiming it should have had child protective guards on the outlets. Whether the restaurant is liable will be dependent upon whether:
a.this is an ultrahazardous activity.
b.the incident was reasonably foreseeable.1
c.research shows it is likely for a child to commit such an act.
d.this is negligence per se.
Correct answer:
a
________________________________________
Your answer:
Laura, a brain surgeon, committed a negligent act when she ran a red light and injured Randy, a pedestrian crossing the street. Randy was a mentally impaired adult.
a.Both Laura's and Randy's conduct will be based on the "reasonable person" standard.1
b.The "reasonable person" standard does not apply to Randy since he is mentally impaired.
c.Laura will be held to a higher standard of conduct than Randy given her superior intelligence.
d.The "reasonable person" standard does not apply to Laura nor Randy given their respective degrees of extreme intelligence (one high and one low).
Correct answer:
b
________________________________________
Your answer:
Punitive damages are awarded:
a.for past and future medical expenses.
b.to punish the defendant.1
c.for past and future economic loss.
d.for past and future pain and suffering.
Correct answer:
d
________________________________________
Your answer:
Which of the following elements is not necessary to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?
a.The defendant had exclusive control of the thing that caused the harm.
b.The harm would normally not have occurred without negligence.
c.The plaintiff had no role in causing the harm.
d.An ultrahazardous activity is involved.1
Correct answer:
d
________________________________________
Your answer:
Don was driving his truck when a board fell out of the truck bed and onto the road. Alice, who was driving behind Don's truck, tried to avoid the board, swerved and struck a telephone pole, causing her severe injuries. Which of the following is correct?
a.Don is strictly liable to Alice for her injuries.
b.Don was not negligent in allowing the board to fall out of his truck.
c.Don is engaging in ultrahazardous activity.
d.In a comparative negligence state, the actions of Don and Alice will be weighed to determine liability.1
Correct answer:
false
________________________________________
Your answer:
When measured in dollars, street crime costs society more tha
Shady
HUH?
Orignal From: Tips: type something and get 2-10 points?
Post a Comment