Multiple Choice Questions

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.
  • Both Laura's and Randy's conduct will be based on the "reasonable person" standard.
  • duty of due care, breach, causation, foreseeable harm, and injury.
  • lose because Kelly had no legal duty to rescue him.
  • Kyle will not collect any damages since he did not sustain any damages.
One morning, Miles placed a thumbtack on the chair of the office manager where he worked. He had no quarrel with the office manager, but thought this would be funny. Two days after sitting on the tack, the office manager was hospitalized with an infection caused by the tack. Which of the following is correct?
  • Miles committed an intentional tort.
  • an invitee; of reasonable care.
  • the incident was reasonably foreseeable.
  • An ultrahazardous activity is involved.
Which of the following elements is not necessary to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?
  • A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act was both the factual cause of her injury as well as a foreseeable injury.
  • An ultrahazardous activity is involved.
  • an invitee; of reasonable care.
  • the incident was reasonably foreseeable.
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?
  • False
  • In a comparative negligence state, the actions of Don and Alice will be weighed to determine liability.
  • 70 percent of the damages.
  • All the above acts are negligence per se.a. Janet driving 40 mph over the posted speed limit.b. Ted keeping explosives in his private, locked garage without complying with state law regulating the storage of such materials.c. A retailer selling glue containing benzene to a 14-year-old boy in violation of state law.
Negligence concerns harm that:
  • Miles committed an intentional tort.
  • duty of due care
  • duty of due care, breach, causation, foreseeable harm, and injury.
  • arises by accident
Which of the following acts resulting in injury would be negligence per se?
  • In a comparative negligence state, the actions of Don and Alice will be weighed to determine liability.
  • False
  • All the above acts are negligence per se.a. Janet driving 40 mph over the posted speed limit.b. Ted keeping explosives in his private, locked garage without complying with state law regulating the storage of such materials.c. A retailer selling glue containing benzene to a 14-year-old boy in violation of state law.
  • 70 percent of the damages.
In a comparative negligence state, if the plaintiff in a negligence lawsuit is found to be 30 percent negligent, the plaintiff would recover:
  • False
  • 70 percent of the damages.
  • All the above acts are negligence per se.a. Janet driving 40 mph over the posted speed limit.b. Ted keeping explosives in his private, locked garage without complying with state law regulating the storage of such materials.c. A retailer selling glue containing benzene to a 14-year-old boy in violation of state law.
  • In a comparative negligence state, the actions of Don and Alice will be weighed to determine liability.
In most states dram acts apply to:
  • strict liability
  • liquor stores, bars, and restaurants but not to social hosts.
  • carelessly provide alcohol to minors can be held liable for damages for resulting injury to third parties.
  • False
In a negligence case, the plaintiff must establish:
  • duty of due care, breach, causation, foreseeable harm, and injury.
  • the defendant has the burden of proving he or she is not liable.
  • duty of due care
  • Kyle will not collect any damages since he did not sustain any damages.
Bob, a weak swimmer, ignored warning signs in a recreational swimming area and went into deep water. He soon tired and realized that he could not make it back to shore. Seeing Kelly, he cried out for help. Kelly, however, ignored the pleas. Bob was finally saved by Dorothy, but suffered partial brain damage by being submerged without oxygen for a number of minutes. Bob now sues Kelly for negligence for failing to save him. Bob will:
  • lose because Kelly had no legal duty to rescue him.
  • the incident was reasonably foreseeable.
  • Miles committed an intentional tort.
  • Kyle will not collect any damages since he did not sustain any damages.
The test of "foreseeability" is generally used to determine the existence of which element of a negligence case?
  • False
  • arises by accident
  • duty of due care
  • An ultrahazardous activity is involved.
Which of the following statements regarding a negligence case is correct?
  • an invitee; of reasonable care.
  • An ultrahazardous activity is involved.
  • Both Laura's and Randy's conduct will be based on the "reasonable person" standard.
  • A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act was both the factual cause of her injury as well as a foreseeable injury.
A plaintiff sues in negligence but has no direct proof that the defendant behaved unreasonably. Which of the following is most likely to help the plaintiff?
  • an invitee; of reasonable care.
  • duty of due care
  • arises by accident
  • Res ipsa loquitur.
In Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents, the court held that individuals who:
  • False
  • carelessly provide alcohol to minors can be held liable for damages for resulting injury to third parties.
  • strict liability
  • liquor stores, bars, and restaurants but not to social hosts.
If a court applies res ipsa loquitur:
  • Kyle will not collect any damages since he did not sustain any damages.
  • duty of due care, breach, causation, foreseeable harm, and injury.
  • the defendant has the burden of proving he or she is not liable.
  • the incident was reasonably foreseeable.
Wayne worked in an office. He had no criminal record, had never had a complaint made against him about his work or his conduct, and had been a faithful employee for nearly 20 years. One day, Wayne followed his supervisor to his home and fatally shot him. The estate of the supervisor sued the company, claiming it should have been aware of Wayne's growing frustration with work. The company's best defense will be:
  • strict liability
  • that there was no way to foresee that the incident would happen.
  • required application of a different standard for third-party criminal acts versus acts of ordinary negligence.
  • False
A customer in a restaurant would be considered ________ to whom the restaurant owner owes a duty ________.
  • the incident was reasonably foreseeable.
  • An ultrahazardous activity is involved.
  • an invitee; of reasonable care.
  • IT may depend on Kelley's age
Punitive damages are awarded:
  • arises by accident
  • Res ipsa loquitur.
  • to punish the defendant.
  • an invitee; of reasonable care.
Under a state law, a dog owner is absolutely liable to any person who is injured by a dog. This is an example of:
  • carelessly provide alcohol to minors can be held liable for damages for resulting injury to third parties.
  • liquor stores, bars, and restaurants but not to social hosts.
  • strict liability
  • False
0 h : 0 m : 1 s

Multiple Choice Questions
Answered Not Answered Not Visited Correct : 0 Incorrect : 0