Question 1 (2 points)

A violent flood washed out a road leading to a major highway. The government agency in charge of road maintenance contracted with Paver to construct a new road to replace the one damaged by the flood. In order to leave sufficient room for the road construction vehicles and workers, Paver closed the bike path that was adjacent to the damaged road. Biker had regularly used the path to bicycle to and from work each day. On the morning that Paver began construction, Paver blocked off the bike path. Persons using the bike path had to cross a busy highway to go around the construction area and resume use of the bike path on the other side. Paver did not provide any protective cones or traffic enforcement to assist persons traversing the highway to reach the bike path. Biker was injured while crossing the highway when struck by a vehicle driven negligently by Tom. If Biker brings suit against Paver to recover for his injuries, Biker will:

Question 1 options:

a)

Recover, because Paver caused Biker's injuries.

b)

Recover, because road construction is an abnormally dangerous activity.

c)

Not recover, because Biker was injured as a result of Tom's negligent driving.

d)

Not recover, because Biker assumed the risk of injury.

Question 2 (2 points)

Biker was riding his bicycle on a four-lane divided highway in violation of a state law that restricted such highway uses to motor vehicles only. After riding for several miles, Biker tired and stopped at a public rest stop to use the restroom. While exiting the restroom, Biker tripped and fell when he stepped on a wet floor that had not been properly marked by state highway maintenance workers who had just cleaned the restroom. Assuming that the state in which the restroom is located and the action is tried retains the common law landowner/occupier rules which are based on the status of the plaintiff, which of the following would be the status designation that Biker should reasonably expect to achieve if he seeks to recover damages from the state?

Question 2 options:

a)

Business invitee.

b)

Licensee.

c)

Public invitee.

d)

Frequent trespasser.

Question 3 (2 points)

Fran drove her car to a downtown parking garage owned and operated by Garage. Fran entered and parked her car, leaving her keys with the garage attendant. For the next 3 hours, Fran visited several bars and consumed a large number of alcoholic beverages. When Fran returned to the parking garage she was visibly intoxicated. The attendant, a Garage employee, saw Fran and asked her, "Do you want me to call a taxi?" Fran said no and grabbed the keys from the attendant's hand. On the way home, Fran struck another car with hers and injured Paul, the driver of the other vehicle. Paul brought suit against Garage and the attendant, attempting to collect for his injuries. Which of the following will provide the best defense for Garage and the attendant in this suit?

Question 3 options:

a)

Paul was injured by Fran, not by the defendants.

b)

Fran's intoxicated condition was the cause of the accident and neither defendant was responsible for furnishing Fran with the alcohol.

c)

Neither Garage nor the attendant owed any duty of care to Paul to refuse Fran's request for her car keys.

d)

Neither Garage nor the attendant created any foreseeable risk of harm to third parties when they allowed Fran to drive out of the garage.

Question 4 (2 points)

Perry was on vacation at the Paradise Isle Hotel (Hotel) in Hawaii. One day while dining in the Hotel restaurant, Perry swallowed a large piece of food that became lodged in his throat. Perry began to gasp for breath and his face turned bright red as he struggled to remove the piece of food from his throat. Doctor, another restaurant patron on vacation at Hotel, saw Perry but chose not to assist Perry when a restaurant employee began to administer a commonly used medical anti-choking technique of standing directly behind the choking person, wrapping both arms around the choking person's chest, and quickly pushing in on the chest to try to expel the lodged food item. After several minutes of failed attempts, paramedics arrived and rushed Perry to the hospital for an emergency operation. Perry survived, but suffered from reduced brain function due to the length of time he was deprived of sufficient oxygen before the operation extracted the food item lodged in Perry's throat. If Perry brings suit against Doctor to recover for his injuries, Perry will:

Question 4 options:

a)

Recover, if Doctor could have helped Perry by offering basic emergency medical care.

b)

Recover, if Doctor knew or should have realized that the restaurant employee was not properly performing the anti-choking technique.

c)

Not recover, because the risk of liability from offering assistance to a stranger outweighs the likelihood of successfully assisting a stranger to avoid injury.

d)

Not recover, because Perry cannot prove that his injury was caused by any negligent affirmative act of Doctor's part.

Question 5 (2 points)

Dorman decided to construct a fish pond in his backyard. When completed, the pond was located on the boundary of Dorman's property and located next to a public trail used by joggers and others when traveling through the woods. Dorman stocked the pond with fish, but he became angry when he discovered that some local children had been feeding candy and other snacks to the fish and many fish were dying as a consequence. To prevent the children from reaching the pond, Dorman constructed a barbed wire fence around the pond and bordering the public trail. The fence was posted every 20 feet with a sign warning of the dangers of coming into contact with the barbed wire fence. Rider was out riding on horseback on the trail when his horse was injured when it brushed against the barbed wire fence. Rider was not aware of the existence of the barbed wire fence and had not seen any of the warning signs because the local schoolchildren had recently stolen most of the signs installed by Dorman. If Rider brings suit against Dorman for the injuries suffered by his horse, Rider will:

Question 5 options:

a)

Prevail, but only if it is established that using barbed wire fencing adjacent to a frequently-used public trail amounts to reckless conduct on Dorman's part.

b)

Prevail, if Dorman failed to use reasonable care to warn of the dangers presented by the fence.

c)

Not prevail, because Rider was a trespasser.

d)

Not prevail, because a landowner has no duty to warn persons not on his land about dangers arising from natural conditions on the property.

Question 6 (2 points)

Niteclub is an evening entertainment establishment featuring live music and other entertainment which includes a restaurant, bar, and dance floor. The police department informed the management of Niteclub that several of Niteclub's customers had complained that they had been robbed or found their cars stolen after leaving the club late at night. In response, Niteclub posted large well-lit signs at the entrances and in the restrooms of Niteclub warning that "Niteclub does not ensure the safety of the property or persons of those who enter Niteclub" and that "Customers should be careful to watch for thieves and robbers who may try to rip you off in the parking lot." Piddle entered Niteclub one evening to meet some friends. Piddle entered the club, but left less than 5 minutes later when he discovered that his friends were not inside. When Piddle returned to the parking lot, his car had been stolen. If Piddle brings a lawsuit against Niteclub to recover damages, Piddle will:

Question 6 options:

a)

Not recover, because the warning signs were clearly visible.

b)

Not recover, because the car thief is the proximate cause of the harm suffered by Piddle.

c)

Recover, because Niteclub will be responsible for any and all harm suffered by invitees while on the premises.

d)

Recover, if Niteclub failed to take reasonable steps to protect against the harm suffered by Piddle.

Question 7 (2 points)

Shopper was shopping in a grocery store owned and operated by Grocer with her small child. After shopping on several aisles, the child told Shopper she needed to use the restroom. Shopper took the child to the public restroom in the grocery store, but there was a sign posted on the entrance stating that all the restrooms were temporarily out of service due to a plumbing problem. Shopper looked at child and knew that child could not wait until they left the grocery store to find another rest room. Shopper led child into the back area of the grocery store in search of an employee restroom. Shopper continued walking into the back area of the grocery store past a sign that read, "Loading Area Off limits to unauthorized personnel." Shopper read the sign, but continued walking briskly with child in search of the employee restroom. As Shopper turned a corner, she saw an employee restroom sign in the distance. As she walked toward the restroom, Shopper saw an employee of Grocer who smiled as Shopper walked past with child. Shopper pointed to child and said, "We need to use the restroom." The employee said nothing but pointed to the employee restroom off in the distance. The employee also saw that there was a forklift carrying a large pallet of groceries heading toward Shopper and her child, but the employee did not believe it was necessary to warn Shopper because the employee assumed that Shopper saw the large forklift approaching. Shopper was looking down at child attempting to comfort child when she was struck by the approaching forklift. If Shopper brings an action against Grocer to recover for her injuries, Shopper will:

Question 7 options:

a)

Recover, because the forklift was a dangerous condition and Shopper was a known trespasser.

b)

Recover, if the employee should have reasonably determined that Shopper did not see the forklift.

c)

Not recover, because Shopper was a trespasser.

d)

Not recover, because Shopper assumed the risk of her injury when she continued after reading the posted sign.

Question 8 (2 points)

Johnny told his mother (Mom) that he wanted to go miniature golfing for his 6th birthday. When the day arrived, Mom took Johnny to the local miniature golf course. On the first two golf holes, Johnny became frustrated because he could not strike the ball with enough force to allow the ball to climb over the obstacle between the tee and the hole. Mom instructed Johnny to bring the club back farther and swing harder to drive the ball over the obstacle. Pell was playing miniature golf on an adjacent hole and watched with amusement as Mom was instructing Johnny. A short time later, Pell was struck in the back of the head by an errant golf shot struck by Johnny from an adjacent tee. Pell suffered a concussion and has now brought suit against Mom and Johnny to recover for his injuries. If Pell brings a negligence action against Mom, Pell will:

Question 8 options:

a)

Prevail, if Johnny was negligent.

b)

Prevail, if Mom did not reasonably supervise Johnny's conduct.

c)

Prevail, because parents are liable for the torts committed by their children.

d)

Prevail, if Johnny intended to strike Pell.

Question 9 (2 points)

Drew owned a home in a residential neighborhood. At the request of his teenage son, Drew built a wooden skateboard ramp for use by Drew's son and other children in the neighborhood in the driveway in front of Drew's home. Drew always insisted that children using the skateboard ramp wear helmets and other protective safety pads when using the skateboard ramp. When Drew took his family on a weekend trip to visit relatives, he disassembled the ramp and placed the skateboard ramp against the side of the garage. On that same weekend, Paul moved into the house next door to Drew. Paul was 11 years old and loved to ride his skateboard. When he looked out of his second-story bedroom window over the fence at Drew's house, he saw something that appeared to be a wooden skateboard ramp leaning against the side of Drew's garage. When he climbed over the fence to take a closer look, he knew exactly what he was going to do. Paul took the ramp and placed it in Drew's driveway and began skating up and down the ramp. On the third attempt, Paul fell off the top of the ramp and broke his wrist. If he had been wearing a wrist pad, he would not have been injured. If a lawsuit is brought on Paul's behalf against Drew, Paul will:

Question 9 options:

a)

Not prevail, because Paul had not seen the skateboard ramp assembled and operating previously and so he was not attracted to Drew's house because of it.

b)

Not prevail, because Paul did not obtain permission from Drew before entering Drew's property.

c)

Not prevail, if Paul did not act reasonably as measured by that of a child of similar age, intelligence, and experience.

d)

Not prevail, if the children likely to be attracted to the skateboard ramp would normally realize the risks of using the ramp without wearing protective equipment.

Question 10 (2 points)

Pam is walking across the street and she is almost hit by a car. It frightens her and she screams out of fear, but she is not harmed or contacted by the car. Will Pam prevail in a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the driver of the car?

Question 10 options:

a)

No, because she was not in the harmed or contacted by the car.

b)

No, because she does not have physical manifestations from the emotional distress.

c)

Yes, because she was in the zone of danger.

d)

Yes, because she was at the scene and witness the car almost hit her.

0 of 10 questions saved