QUESTION 1 - Which of the following must the defendant prove in order to rely upon the defense of comparative or contributory negligence?

a). Only that a failure of the plaintiff was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injury.

b). Only that the plaintiff violated the last-clear-chance doctrine.

c). That the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm and that the plaintiff's failure was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injuries.

d). Only that the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm.

e). That the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm, that the plaintiff's failure was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injuries, and that the plaintiff failed to abide by the last-clear-chance doctrine.

QUESTION 2 - Select all of the following elements that must exist for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to apply.

a). The event is one that ordinarily wouldnt occur if someone wasnt breaching a duty of care.

b). The event was caused by some instrumentality exclusively in the defendant's control.

c). The event was not caused, even in part, by the plaintiff's own negligent acts or omissions.

d). The statute or ordinance set the standard of the conduct.

QUESTION 3 - A common defense known as ________ arises when a person knows or should know that a danger exists but still proceeds to act unreasonably such that the law will say that the person voluntarily assumed the risk of injury and will not be able to recover damages.

a). known harm defense

b). comparative fault.

c). consumer risk-taker

d). contributory negligence.

e). assumption of the risk