1) Frank Carra drives a truck for WTL. During an otherwise routine journey, about a kilometre after passing a road construction zone a deer jumped onto the highway and caused Carra to swerve out of his lane and onto a strip of gravel that divided northbound and southbound trafc. Carra's truck collided with a signpost, which was left bent with more than half of the sign protruding out of the ground. Carra could not remove the post and while he thought about calling the police, he failed to do so. About a day later, Samuel Oke, a driver for Highway Transport, Inc. (HTD was travelling in the opposite direction on the same highway. Although the solid yellow lines on the road prohibited such a maneuver, Oke attempted to pass the slow moving vehicle of Prof. Jones by driving on the gravel divider. As he did so, he saw the protruding sign and turned to avoid it. His car hit the slow moving vehicle driven by Prof. Jones. Prof. Jones sues Carra, WTL, Oke and HTI for negligence. Will Prof. Jones succeed? John Brokaw was interested in purchasing an apartment building that was in great demand with two offers currently presented for the property. He lmew had to act quickly to get his offer in before the seller made a decision. He was, however, very concerned about the price. Since he did not trust the revenue gures that the vendor had provided, he hired Lonnie Hauser, a licensed property value appraiser. Brokaw explained in great detail that he needed to lmow as precisely as possible, how much the apartments would generate in rent. Hauser asked for the rent rolls for the building. Brokaw said the building owner had not delivered them yet, but he could provide a copy of the names of all of the people who lived in each unit of the building. Hauser's nal report indicated the building was worth between $1 million and $1.2 million when fully rented with two tenants in each unit at rents of $325 per person. The range in priced depended on whether Brokaw made capital improvements to the building. Brokaw accepted that information and purchased the property at the price of $1.2 million. He soon discovered, however, that the building was actually worth considerably less. The tenants were all on social assistance. The basic rent that the government was willing to pay was set at $325 per month, and each apartment contained two tenants. Hauser therefore had simply assumed that each apartment would produce $650 per month. In fact, however, whenever the two tenants were related, the government set the rent at $520 per month. A number of apartments were occupied by married couples. As a result, the actual value of the property was $1.1 million. Hauser says he should not be liable because he reasonably assumed that the same rent would apply to every apartment. Will Brokaw be successful if he sues Hauser for professional liability