answer true or false:

12. A person carelessly trimmed trees in their yard. Unbeknownst to them, a large limb fell into the neighbor's yard. The neighbor then went into the yard at night and tripped over the limb and then rolled down the hill and hit their head on a slab of concrete. Was the defendant's action of cutting the tree the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury? a. No. What occurred to the neighbor is too remote in proximity to the time when the large tree limb fell into the neighbor's yard. b. No. The neighbor should not have gone into the yard at night without either putting an outside light on or taking a flash/search light with him or her. Thus, this could be considered carelessness on the neighbor's part making it a superseding cause and the legal effect of the superseding cause it to but off the legal responsibility of the person who trimmed the tree. c. Yes, Proximate cause will be found to exist in this situation thereby making the person who trimmed his/her trees in his/her yard responsible in negligence for the injuries sustained by the neighbor. d. No. It was not reasonably foreseeable that the neighbor would go into his/her backyard at night without taking something along with him/her which would illuminate the are so the neighbor could see what was in the yard, such as the fallen tree limb.

7. Cindy was riding her bike on a paved path and had an accident with another bike rider. Cindy's $1,000.00 bike was destroyed in the accident. If the jury determined that Cindy was 49% at fault and the other bike rider 51% at fault, under which comparative negligence doctrines would Cindy be entitled to recover $ 510.00 from the other bike rider? a. Pure comparative negligence only. b. Partial comparative negligence only. c. Modified partial comparative negligence only d. Partial comparative negligence and modified partial comparative negligence. e. All of the above.

13. In a State that has a tort law that applies strict liability to abnormally dangerous/ultra-hazardous activities, wild animals, domestic dogs, especially certain breeds of dogs, which of the following statements are true about strict liability: a. Only that one who keeps wild animals (lions, tigers, bears, etc.) is strictly liable for any harm they cause b. Only that domestic animals (cats, dogs, birds, etc.) also escape and run loose and if a domestic animal comes onto someone else's property and attacks them, then the animal's owner is held liable under strict liability.

c. Only that some breeds of dogs are classified as "dangerous" and owners are required to take the steps necessary to keep them properly restrained but the owners are still strictly liable. d. Only a and b above. e. Only a and c above. f. All of the above. 14.What are the reason(s) that businesses are held strictly liable if they are acting reasonably or are even being ultra-cautious: a. As with most issues in law, the answer lies in social policy. In essence, strict liability torts exist because businesses that engage in covered activities (such as transporting hazardous chemicals or operating bars) profit from those activities. b. These types of businesses are also in the best position to ensure that every precaution can be taken to avoid an unexpected event, which may have catastrophic consequences. c. Victims of these events are often innocent members of the public who are not in any position to avoid being injured and therefore should not be denied a legal remedy simply because the defendant took prudent precautions. d. Only a and b above. e. Only a and c above. f. All of the above. g. None of the above.