1. Francis was an adult who was injured after ice skating at his local county park. Francis did not see any of the three signs posted around the perimeter of the lake by the county that warned skaters not to skate due to thin ice. Francis fell through the ice and was hospitalized for two days, after suffering several minor, soft tissue injuries and nearly drowning. Francis immediately sued the County for negligence in failing to post adequate warnings. Which of the following should Francis be MOST concerned about regarding his lawsuit? A. The County's defense of comparative negligence B. The County's defense of the state Tort Claims Act C. The County's defense of "express assumption of risk" D. Francis should not be concerned about any of the three County defenses asserted above. 2. Which of the following scenarios WOULD MOST LIKELY result in strict liability in tort being found? A. Plaintiff injured when Defendant driver speeds through a red light. B. Neighbor injured when a pet tiger gets free from its chains and bites neighbor. C. Defective product sold that is not manufactured in accordance with the design specs. D. All of the above would likely result in strict liability in tort being found. E. Only B and C are correct. 3. In a hurry to get to a party that he was running late for, James stopped at Shop-Quick to pick up a few last-minute things for the party. As he ran down the junk food aisle looking for cheese dip, he slipped and fell in a puddle of orange juice that had spilled halfway down the aisle and had not yet been cleaned up. When James sues Shop-Quick for his injuries, which of the following affirmative defenses would give Shop-Quick the greatest chance for victory? State Tort Claims Act B. Comparative Negligence C. Express Assumption of Risk D. Shopkeeper's Privilege A