15. a. In California, which is not a defense to a negligence claim? The defendant did not owe plaintiff a duty. b. The defendant behaved reasonably under the circumstances. The harm to plaintiff was not foreseeable. d. The plaintiff was contributively negligent. c. 16. A plaintiff seeks to hold a landowner liable for injuries occurring on her property. The best argument for the landowner to raise in order to minimize the duty owed to the plaintiff is to argue that the plaintiff was Negligent. b. A trespassing adult. A licensee. d. An invitee. a. c. 17. 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 prevail because society places a duty on people to help each other and Kelly breached this duty, resulting in Bob's suffering injury. b. Bob will lose because as a threshold issue Kelly had no legal duty to rescue him. Bob will lose because Bob will not be able to prove that Kelly's act caused his injury. d. Bob will lose because the amount of his damages are speculative. a. c. 18. Kelley climbed a fence and went ice skating on a neighbor's recently dug pond, but she fell through a thin area into icy waters and was badly injured after nearly drowning. Kelley did not have permission to be on the property, and the neighbor did not even know that she was there. Is the neighbor liable for Kelley's injuries? Yes. The neighbor is liable for all injuries on the property. b. Yes. The neighbor is negligent per se. No. The neighbor did not intend for Kelley to get hurt. d. Maybe. It depends upon Kelley's age. a. c