please help! its for my business law class.

20. In the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Compamxcase in the readings, the case is famous for a. malpractice by a company to a customer. breach of duty is by a company for their customers. b. addressing what a c. issuing the standards of care for companies to customers. d. assessing damages in a negligence case for customers. case. e. addressing the issue of proximate cause in a negligence 21. The standard of care associated with the duty owed in a negligence case is the standard. a. actual harm b. professional person c, causal harm d. legal person e. reasonable person 22. Many states have statutes that allow bartenders and bar owners to be held liable for injuries caused by individuals who become intoxicated at the bar. These are known as a. voluntary intoxicated persons statutes. b. bar owner liability statutes. c. negligent bar owner acts. d. social host laws. e. dram shop acts. 23. Which of the following is a doctrine available to defendants whereby a defendant may avoid liability by establishing that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm that the defendant caused? a. Negligence per se. b. Assumption of the risk doctrine. c. Last-clear-chance doctrine. d. Res insa loquitur. e. Contributory negligence doctrine. 24. What was the result on appeal of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco case in the text in which the trial court awarded a smoker $200,000 against R. J. Reynolds Tobacco? a. The appellate court reversed the award, finding the company had no duty to warn smokers of the harm associated with smoking cigarettes. b. The appellate court reversed the award because harm from smoking cigarettes was unforesecable. c. The appellate court affirmed the award against R. J. Reynolds Tobaceo, which before 1969 had negligently failed to warn smokers of the harm associated with smoking cigarettes. d. The appellate court reversed the award because consumers were harmed only when they misused the product. though the product was misused. e. The appellate court affirmed the award, even 25. As recognized by the court in Sperry-New Holland v. John Paul Prestage and Pam Prestage, which of the following is true regarding the consumer expectations test for product defect? a. That a plaintiff may only recover if the plaintiff reasonably expected the manufacturer to have insurance, that the manufacturer did have insurance of the type to cover the injury at issue, and that the plaintiff had no part in causing the injury. b. That a plaintiff may only recover if the plaintiff was the purchaser of the product causing injury. c. That if the plaintiff, applying the knowledge of an ordinary consumer, sees the danger and can appreciate that danger, then he cannot recover for any injury resulting from that appreciated danger. d. That a plaintiff cannot recover if a reasonable person would conclude that the danger in fact of the product, whether foreseeable or not, outweighs the utility of the product. e. That a plaintiff may only recover if consumer-oriented household goods are involved. 26. Who could be considered foreseeable plaintiffs in product liability cases? a. Users and consumers only. b. Users, consumers, and bystanders. c. Users and bystanders only. d. Users only. e. The purchaser and any family member only. 27. What was the result in the text's case involving a plaintiff who suffered permanent liver damage as a result of drinking a glass of wine with a Tylenol capsule? a. For plaintiff, because the degree of potential harm was substantial and it would have been easy to place a warning on the product label. b. For plaintiff, because no comparative negligence was found. c. For defendant, because there was no proof of market share. d. For defendant, because it had no duty to warn. e. For defendant, because the plaintiff's adverse reaction from the ingestion of only one capsule was extremely rare