QUESTION 1

A(n) __________ is a sudden, unexpected event calling for immediate action, that is considered when determining whether conduct was reasonable in a negligence lawsuit.

a.

res ipsa loquitur.

b.

duty to act.

c.

emergency.

d.

None of these.

QUESTION 2

As a general rule:

a.

the defenses available to intentional torts and negligence are interchangeable.

b.

if a plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence all the required elements of a negligence action, the plaintiff will automatically recover damages.

c.

more defenses are available for intentional torts than are available in negligence cases.

d.

any defense to an intentional tort is also available in an action for negligence.

QUESTION 3

The doctrine ofres ipsa loquiturwould permit the court to infer negligence in which of the following situations?

a.

A ladder rung broke under the weight of a worker's foot.

b.

A sign over a storefront fell on your head.

c.

A patron of a restaurant slipped on a wet spot on the floor and hit her head on a chair.

d.

All of these.

QUESTION 4

Which of the following is/are considered in determining the application of the reasonable person standard?

a.

Physical disability.

b.

Superior skill or knowledge.

c.

Emergency circumstances.

d.

Each of these are considered.

QUESTION 5

The legal doctrine upon which Justice Cardozo based his decision in thePalsgrafcase is the doctrine of:

a.

negligenceper se.

b.

res ipsa loquitur.

c.

assumption of the risk.

d.

foreseeability.

QUESTION 6

A ninety-year-old patient walked away from a nursing home and wandered onto some nearby railroad tracks. Once on the tracks, the patient stumbled and sprained his ankle. A few minutes later a train approached. The engineer saw the man on the track and could have stopped, but the train's brakes were defective. As a result, the train hit and killed the man. His family is suing the railroad for negligence in a state that follows the contributory negligence doctrine. In this case,

a.

the train's striking of the man was an intervening cause, so the railroad company was negligent.

b.

because the patient was contributorily negligent, the railroad has no liability.

c.

the patient has assumed the risk of wandering onto the railroad tracks.

d.

the train had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, so the patient's contributory negligence does not bar his estate's recovery.

QUESTION 7

In determining the duty of care owed by a defendant using the reasonable person standard, the court will consider which of the following factors?

a.

The existence of emergency conditions.

b.

A physician's training and years of experience.

c.

A person's severe mental retardation.

d.

Both theexistence of emergency conditions and also aphysician's training and years of experience.

QUESTION 8

Henry was burning leaves in his backyard. One of the burning leaves was lifted by the wind into Bob's yard next door. It landed on the lawnmower which exploded, setting fire to the wooden lawn furniture. Henry's best argument against liability to Bob would be:

a.

it was not foreseeable that the lawnmower would explode.

b.

the leaf was not a substantial factor in causing the damage.

c.

the damage was not caused by the leaf but by the gasoline.

d.

the gasoline in the lawnmower is a superseding cause of the damage.

QUESTION 9

If a statute is found to be applicable to a fact situation, then the courts will hold that an unexcused violation of that statute which causes an injury to another is:

a.

strict liability.

b.

assumption of the risk.

c.

negligenceper se.

d.

res ipsa loquitur.

QUESTION 10

William, who is a waiter, is injured when an unopened bottle of cola explodes in his hand while he is putting it into the restaurant's cooler. If William wants to sue the bottling company for his injuries:

a.

he will win based on the last clear chance rule.

b.

he will lose, because it will be impossible for him to prove that the bottle was overpressurized by the bottler.

c.

he will probably win if the court allows him to use theres ipsa loquiturdoctrine.

d.

he will lose, because the bottling company has no duty to him.

QUESTION 11

Stan doesn't like having neighborhood teenagers walk across his yard at night. He rigs an animal trap on the path the teenagers usually use to cross his land. One night, Tim and his friends are walking across the yard when Tim gets caught in the trap. He is taken to the hospital for his injuries. Stan:

a.

has the right to strongly discourage anyone from trespassing, and Tim was a trespasser.

b.

has no duty toward Tim.

c.

is not free to inflict intentional injury on a trespasser.

d.

All of these.

QUESTION 12

Which of the following is correct with respect to the reasonable person standard?

a.

It makes allowance for mental deficiency.

b.

It makes allowance for physical disability.

c.

It applies an individualized test to children that takes into consideration the child's age, intelligence, and experience.

d.

Two of these but not all of these.

QUESTION 13

Cal sprayed pesticide on his crops in a very careful manner on a windless day. Nevertheless, some of the pesticide spray fell on his neighbor's side of the fence and contaminated the cracked corn for the chickens. The chickens died and the neighbor sues. What is the likely result?

a.

Cal is not liable because the neighbor assumed the risk of damage to the feed by placing it so close to the fence.

b.

Cal is not liable for the damage because of contributory negligence.

c.

Cal is liable because spraying pesticides is an abnormally dangerous activity.

d.

Cal is not liable because he was not negligent in his spraying operation.

QUESTION 14

Garnett, who was driving too fast for conditions, collided with a truck carrying explosives. The truck was unmarked, so Garnett had no way of knowing what it contained. The collision caused an explosion, which shattered glass in a building a block away. The glass injured Ida, who was working inside the building. John, who was walking down the street near the site of the collision, was seriously burned as a result of the explosion. In this case:

a.

Garnett's negligent driving is the proximate cause of Ida's injury.

b.

Garnett's negligent driving is the proximate cause of John's injury.

c.

both Ida and John are within the zone of danger of the collision.

d.

All of these.

QUESTION 15

The rule which permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain events is:

a.

comparative negligence.

b.

res ipsa loquitur.

c.

causation in fact.

d.

proximate cause.

QUESTION 16

Seventeen-year-old Brice has just received his driver's license. He is driving a little too fast one day and slams into the back of another car, which has just stopped for a stop sign. In most states:

a.

since Brice is engaging in an adult activity, he will be held to the same standard as an adult.

b.

since Brice is a minor, he will have no responsibility for his torts.

c.

Brice's parents are responsible for any torts he commits.

d.

Two of these are true.

QUESTION 17

A form of strict liability applies to all except which of the following situations?

a.

Abnormally risky medical procedures.

b.

A lawnmower sold in a defective condition that injures its owner.

c.

A herd of goats that walk onto a neighbor's property and trample and eat the neighbor's roses.

d.

A fireworks factory that blows up and injures townspeople and their property.

QUESTION 18

Under the Second Restatement, the duty of a possessor of land to persons who come on the land usually depends on whether those persons are:

a.

fiduciaries.

b.

involved in abnormally dangerous activities.

c.

reasonable persons.

d.

invitees, trespassers, or licensees.

QUESTION 19

The reasonable person standard is:

a.

external and objective.

b.

external and subjective.

c.

internal and objective.

d.

internal and subjective.

QUESTION 20

Arnie negligently stopped his car on the highway. Beth, who was driving along, saw Arnie's car in sufficient time to attempt to stop. However, Beth negligently put her foot on the accelerator instead of the brake and ran into Arnie's car. In this case:

a.

because both parties were negligent, in a state that follows the pure comparative negligence doctrine, both parties will share the liability for their injuries.

b.

Arnie's contributory negligence will prevent his recovery from Beth in all jurisdictions.

c.

Beth had the last clear chance to avoid the accident and will bear legal responsibility for it.

d.

Arnie has assumed the risk of the accident.