Morgan and Steven were adults who occasionally gave into adolescent tendencies by racing their mopeds. One day, they decided to race along the riverfront on a blacktop path which had the following town ordinance posted along it: "Absolutely no travel permitted along the path via use of motorized transport." Their mopeds were capable of being either pedaled or motor-driven, and that day they were riding in the pedaling mode. As they raced their mopeds, Steven lost his balance, and slid off of the blacktop onto a nearby grassy area, where Samuel was playing nearby. Steven's moped slammed into Samuel, causing personal injuries to Samuel.

Samuel later asserted that Steven was negligent per se in a lawsuit to recover for his (Samuel's) injuries. What is the most probable result regarding whether or not Steven was negligent per se?

Question 12 options:

a)

Steven was negligent per se, because the town ordinance was meant to protect against the type of injury Samuel incurred.

b)

Steven was not negligent per se, because Steven was pedaling his moped without the motor running.

c)

Steven was negligent per se, because Samuel was a member of the class of persons intended to be protected by the ordinance.

d)

Steven was not negligent per se, because he had regularly engaged in the same activity many times without incident.

Question 13(12 points)

Victoria and Laura were friends. One day Victoria asked Laura to assist in the theft of jewelry from a local jewelry store. Laura declined to participate in the crime that Victoria described as a plan by Victoria to secretly shoplift jewelry while Laura would distract the storeowner. Instead, she (Laura) called Jewelry Store Owner and told him about Victoria's criminal scheme. Jewelry Store Owner did not call the police because he did not believe Laura. Subsequently, Victoria decided to perpetrate the crime herself by boldly entering and breaking open a jewelry case, grabbing the contents, and quickly running out of the store. Victoria went to Jewelry Store Owner's jewelry store at the planned time, and attempted to steal jewels from the jewelry store. Victoria broke open the glass jewelry case. Shards of glass from the broken jewelry case flew over and struck Customer, causing Customer personal injury. If Customer brings a cause of action against Jewelry Store Owner in negligence, what is the most likely decision as regards proximate cause?

Question 13 options:

a)

There is no proximate cause, because the criminal activity of Victoria was an intervening event that broke the chain of causation.

b)

There is no proximate cause, because it was not foreseeable to Jewelry Store Owner that Victoria would break the glass jewelry case in the perpetration of the crime.

c)

There is proximate cause, but Customer assumed the risk of being hurt when she visited the jewelry store.

d)

There is proximate cause, because Jewelry Store Owner was aware of the criminal plan of Victoria at the time Customer visited the jewelry store.

Question 14(12 points)

Estate Owner, who owned a large estate, invited Friend over to her house to watch a sporting event. Within the course of watching the game, they became upset at each other because they were rooting for different teams. When Estate Owner's team lost, she became very upset; she disabled the telephone system and left the house saying, "Friend, you can just stay here and enjoy the victory of your team, but I am leaving. You can eat what you would like, and walk the grounds, but I am locking the gate when I leave, so that you cannot leave until I return." Estate Owner left the house and locked the main gate. It was impossible for Friend to leave the estate because of the high wall surrounding the estate. After Estate Owner left, Friend raided the kitchen and took a swim in the pool. When Estate Owner returned several hours later Estate Later, Friend brought an appropriate action against Estate Owner. What is the most likely result?

Question 14 options:

a)

Estate Owner is liable, because she intentionally confined Friend to a bounded area.

b)

Estate Owner is not liable, because Friend enjoyed herself and suffered no real harm.

c)

Estate Owner is liable, because she should not have left Friend alone in a large house.

d)

Estate Owner is not liable, because Friend was not confined within a bounded area but instead enjoyed full access to a large estate.