Multiple-Choice Questions
1. In which case is a plaintiff most likely to sue based on strict liability?
(a) Defamation.
(b) Injury caused on the job.
(c) Injury caused by a tiger that escapes from a zoo.
(d) Injury caused partially by plaintiff and partially by defendant.
(e) Injury caused by defendant's careless driving.
2. Martha signs up for a dinner cruise on a large commercial yacht. While the customers are eating dinner, the yacht bangs into another boat. Martha is thrown to the deck, breaking her wrist. She sues. At trial, which of these issues is likely to be the most important?
(a) Whether the yacht company had permission to take Martha on the cruise.
(b) Whether the yacht company improperly restrained Martha.
(c) Whether Martha feared an imminent injury.
(d) Whether the yacht's captain did a reasonable job of driving the yacht.
(e) Whether Martha has filed similar suits in the past.
3. Dolly, an architect, lives in Pennsylvania, which is a comparative negligence state. While she is inspecting a construction site for a large building she designed, she is injured when a worker drops a hammer from two stories up. Dolly was not wearing a safety helmet at the time. Dolly sues the construction company. The jury concludes that Dolly has suffered $100,000 in damages. The jury also believes that Dolly was 30 percent liable for the accident, and the construction company was 70 percent liable. Outcome?
(a) Dolly wins nothing.
(b) Dolly wins $30,000.
(c) Dolly wins $50,000.
(d) Dolly wins $70,000.
(e) Dolly wins $100,000.
4. A taxi driver, hurrying to pick up a customer at the airport, races through a 20 mph hospital zone at 45 mph, and strikes May, who is crossing the street in a pedestrian crosswalk. May sues the driver and the taxi company. What kind of suit is this?
(a) Contract.
(b) Remedy.
(c) Negligence.
(d) Assault.
(e) Battery.
5. CPA QUESTION To establish a cause of action based on strict liability in tort for personal injuries resulting from using a defective product, one of the elements that the plaintiff must prove is that the seller (defendant):
(a) Failed to exercise due care.
(b) Was in privities of contract with the plaintiff.
(c) Defectively designed the product.
(d) Was engaged in the business of selling the product.