Question 1 (2 points)

Able and Baker were each driving in their automobiles when they collided. Both parties were negligent because at the moment of impact, Able was speeding and Baker failed to signal when making a lane change. Able sues Baker for injuries sustained in the collision. If the jurisdiction where the lawsuit is filed adopted the pure form of comparative negligence, how should the court rule?

Question 1 options:

a) Judgment for Baker, because Able was negligent.

b) Judgment for Able, and Able may recover for all of his injuries because Baker was negligent.

c) Judgment for Able, but only if Baker's fault in causing the accident was greater than Able's.

d) Judgment for Able, and Able may recover for all his injuries but his judgment will be reduced in direct proportion to the percentage of his fault.

Question 2 (2 points)

Questions 2 and 3 are based on the same fact pattern. Able and Baker were playing football in the street. Able threw a long pass to Baker. Baker ran into an automobile driven by Charlie while attempting to catch the pass and suffered from several broken bones and other internal injuries. Able saw the automobile approaching but threw the long pass anyway, believing that Charlie would see Baker and stop his automobile safely before reaching Baker. Baker brought suit against Able and Charlie to

recover for his injuries. At the close of the trial, the jury determined that Baker had suffered $100,000 in damages and that Able was 40% at fault, Baker 10% at fault, and Charlie was 50% at fault for causing the injuries Baker sustained. Assume all parties are solvent and have sufficient assets and insurance to cover any judgment amount awarded. The jurisdiction where the lawsuit was filed uses contributory negligence, the last clear chance doctrine, and joint and several liability.

If Baker seeks to recover a portion of the $100,000 judgment from Charlie, will Baker succeed?

Question 2 options:

a) No, because Baker was negligent.

b) No, because Charlie's negligence exceeded Baker's.

c) Yes, if Charlie could have avoided the harm.

d) Yes, because Able's negligence exceeded Baker's.

Question 3 (2 points)

Question 3 is based on the same fact pattern as Question

2. Able and Baker were playing football in the street. Able threw a long pass to Baker. Baker ran into an automobile driven by Charlie while attempting to catch the pass and suffered from several broken bones and other internal injuries. Able saw the automobile approaching but threw the long pass anyway, believing that Charlie would see Baker and stop his automobile safely before reaching Baker. Baker brought suit against Able

and Charlie to recover for his injuries. At the close of the trial, the jury determined that Baker had suffered $100,000 in damages and that Able was 40% at fault, Baker 10% at fault, and Charlie was 50% at fault for causing the injuries Baker sustained. Assume all parties are solvent and have sufficient assets and insurance to cover any judgment amount awarded. The jurisdiction has adopted a pure form of comparative negligence, abolished both contributory negligence and the doctrine of last clear chance, but retains joint and several liability.

If Baker seeks to recover all of the $100,000 judgment from Charlie, how much will Baker be entitled to recover?

Question 3 options:

a) $100,000. b) $90,000. c) $45,000. d) Nothing.

Question 4 (2 points)

Dan the doctor operates on Paul the patient. He removes Paul's gallbladder. Paul develops a variety of problems after the surgery and he sues Dan claiming that the surgery was not performed correctly. Which of the following is true?

Question 4 options:

a) Paul will be able to use res ipsa loquitur to establish that Dan did not perform the surgery correctly.

b) Whether or not Dan performed the surgery correctly is within the common knowledge of the jury.

c) Paul will need an expert to testify about what the expert would have done differently if the expert had performed the surgery.

d) Paul will need to provide expert testimony to establish the standard of care and that Dan breached that standard of care.

Question 5 (2 points)

Paul was a passenger in Deke's car. Deke was driving and, while not paying attention to the road, collided with a car driven by Trudy. Trudy was late for work and was driving in excess of the posted speed limit when she collided with Deke's car. Paul suffered a broken leg and brought an action against Deke to recover for his injuries. At trial, evidence of all the above facts was introduced. Will Paul prevail?

Question 5 options:

a) No, if Trudy is found negligent and a cause in fact of Paul's injuries.

b) No, unless Deke's negligence exceeded Trudy's.

c) Yes, if Deke was negligent and a cause in fact of Paul's injuries.

d) Yes, unless Trudy had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.

Question 6 (2 points)

Doris was driving in her car to work with Peter, a coworker. Doris needed to drop off some clothing at a laundry so she pulled to the curb and got out, leaving Peter in the car with the key in the ignition and the engine running. Due to an increase in car thefts, the state had recently passed a new statute that made it illegal for the driver of an automobile to leave the automobile at any time or for any reason with the key in the ignition. While Doris was in the laundry, a car driven by Harold sped around the corner at an excessive rate of speed and struck Doris's car. The impact caused Doris's car transmission to engage and the car traveled for 50 feet and struck a power pole. Peter was injured when the car hit the power pole. If Peter asserts a claim against Doris to recover damages for his injuries, basing his claim on Doris's violation of the statute, will Peter prevail?

Question 6 options:

a) No, Peter assumed the risk when he chose to remain in Doris's car with the key in the ignition and the engine running.

b) No, the purpose of the statute was not to protect against injuries occurring in this manner.

c) Yes, Doris is liable under the doctrine of negligence per se.

d) Yes, because Doris negligently left the car running.

Question 7 (2 points)

Paula goes into a federal building to obtain a permit. The building's elevator is not working and the office she needs is at the top floor, which requires climbing 10 flights of stairs. On the

way up the stairs, she slips and falls. She sues the federal agency that designed, owns, and operates the building under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that designing the building to have stairs without hand rails caused her to slip and fall. The federal agency moves to dismiss the case under discretionary immunity. The court should:

Question 7 options:

a) Deny the motion because failing to have a hand rail on stairs in a building is negligent.

b) Deny the motion because the decision to not include hand rails is a ministerial act.

c) Grant the motion because the decision to not include hand rails is a ministerial act.

d) Grant the motion because the decision to not include hand rails in the design of the building is a discretionary act.

Question 8 (2 points)

Richard had always wanted to become a police officer but had been rejected each time he applied to law enforcement agencies throughout the county where he lived. After receiving his fifth rejection letter, Richard decided he would engage in law enforcement as a hobby by monitoring police radio calls and watching "America's Most Wanted Criminals" on television. On one television broadcast, the picture of an escaped prisoner was displayed. The prisoner was described as armed and dangerous. The following day, Richard was at the shopping mall when he spotted a man, Charles, who matched the description of the escaped prisoner. Richard casually walked near Charles to get a

closer look. When Charles saw Richard approach, he turned and walked quickly toward the shopping mall exit to the parking lot. Richard ran after Charles and reached into his jacket and pulled out a gun and yelled at Charles to "stop...or I'll shoot!" When Charles appeared to reach into his jacket and turn to face Richard, Richard shot at Charles. The bullet missed and struck Sherman, another shopper who was entering the mall through the same doorway that Charles was attempting to use to exit the mall. The police arrived and it was determined that Richard was mistaken because Charles was not an escaped felon and he was not armed although Charles did bear a strong resemblance to the escaped felon whose picture was broadcast on the television program Richard had seen the night before.

If Charles brings an action for assault against Richard, he will: Question 8 options:

a) recover, if Charles reasonably suspected that he was about to be shot.

b) recover, because Richard attempted to shoot Charles.

c) recover, under the reasoning in choice (A) or (B).

d) not recover.

Question 9 (2 points)

Fred the farrier goes to Sally's horse barn to replace the shoes on Sally's horses. One of the horses, named Millie, has a problem with her feet. Fred tells Sally he recognizes the cause of the problem and will give her some special shoes to help fix it.

The special shoes make Millie's feet worse and she has to be put down because she is in pain and cannot walk. Sally sues Fred alleging malpractice. Fred claims he should only be held to a reasonable person standard. The court will:

Question 9 options:

a) Find that the reasonable person standard applies.

b) Find that Fred is not the proximate cause of Millie's injuries because her foot was already injured.

c) Find that a professional negligence standard of care applies if Fred went through training, uses judgment and discretion in his job, and is licensed.

d) Find that Fred acted as a minimally competent farrier would in similar circumstances.

Question 10 (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 Johnny, he will:

Question 10 options:

a) Prevail, because a child is responsible for his or her own tortious conduct.

b) Prevail, because he was hit with a golf ball struck by Johnny.

c) Not prevail, if Johnny exercised the degree of care to be expected from a 6-year old child of the same experience and intelligence.

d) Not prevail, because Pell assumed the risk of being struck by an errant golf shot.