Question 21pts

An accountant was driving her car when she inadvertently ran off the road and into a construction worker who was working on cracks in a sidewalk. The accountant worked for an accounting firm, and spent about sixty percent of her time at the office and about forty percent of the time at clients' offices. She was required to use her own car for these trips and the firm reimbursed her for mileage. The accountant had planned her last client visit so that it would be the one nearest her home. According to her timesheets, she finished work when she left the last client's house. The accident occurred as she was on her way home from her last client visit. If the construction worker brings a respondent superior claim against the employer, will the employer be liable?

Group of answer choices

No, the employer will not be vicariously liable for the accident caused by the employee because this situation would fall within the going and coming rule or commuting rule, since she was just driving home from work and not serving the employer's purpose.

Yes, the employer will be vicariously liable for the accident caused by the employee because the employee was satisfying a dual purpose of the employer's and herself by visiting the last client near her home and then driving home.

Yes, the employer will be vicariously liable for the accident caused by the employee because the employer required her to drive her car and have it available for the employer's work.

No, the employer will not be vicariously liable for the accident caused by the employee because she violated the law and went off the road, so the employer should not be liable for violations of the driving laws.

Question 3

Question 31pts

The owner of a large farm was interested in raising exotic animals. He acquired some zebras, camels, and kangaroos. The farmer eventually decided that it would be even more exciting to raise dangerous animals, so he obtained several tigers. These tigers lived within a fenced enclosure on the farm. The farmer often would reach through openings in the fence and pet the tigers. When the farmer had a guest visiting the farmer, the farmer allowed the guest to reach into the enclosure and pet the tigers as well. While the guest was petting a tiger, the tiger suddenly bit the guest on the arm. The guest sued the farmer, seeking to recover damages for the injury to her arm from the tiger's bite. Will the farmer be strictly liable for the guest's injury?

Group of answer choices

Yes, because a tiger is a wild animal.

No, because the guest voluntarily reached into the tiger's enclosure.

Yes, because the farmer gave his consent for the guest to touch the tiger.

No, because the farmer had often petted the tiger without being bitten and so there was no specific reason to foresee that the tiger would harm someone.

Question 4

Question 41pts

A company stores and manufactures acid gas on its premises. Early one morning, a leak developed in the connecting lines between the tanks. The leak was not the fault of the company. The escaping gas formed a greenish cloud. Before the greenish cloud of acid gas reached the point of dispersal, it made contact with a cable repairman who was repairing a cable atop a telephone pole. The repairman did not see the cloud and he inhaled the gas, which caused him to black outand fall from the pole, sustaining severe injuries.

In a suit by the cable repairman against the company, on which of the following legal theories should he base his cause of action?

Group of answer choices

Battery

Private nuisance

Strict liability

Negligence

Question 5

Question 51pts

A utility company had a high voltage electricity power substation near a housing project. The company took every possible precaution to prevent any harm to any children who might try to climb the fence and get near the electricity power substation.

If a homeless man receives an electric shock after climbing the fence and getting near the electricity power substation, even though the company posted "No Trespassing" and "Warning!" signs, will the company be liable to that man?

Group of answer choices

Yes because the electricity power substation was negligently maintained.

Yes because this was an activity involving a serious degree of danger.

No because the exercise of extreme care was used.

No because there is no fault.

Question 6

Question 61pts

A man was visiting a wild animal park. He let his arm reach out from the bus that was carrying him around. The man attempted to feed one of the lions. The lion accepted the food, along with the man's hand, which the lion bit off and swallowed in one gulp. When the man recovered, he sued the wild animal park for failure to control the animals. The wild animal park raised the defense of contributory negligence.

The wild animal park will:

Group of answer choices

Win because the man was reckless.

Win because the man was negligent.

Lose because contributory negligence is not a defense to strict liability.

Lose because the man was not negligent.

Question 7

Question 71pts

A woman purchased a blender and went home to make smoothies for her family. Unknown to the woman, the blender had a defective blade. When the woman placed several pieces of fruit into the blender to make the smoothie and turned on the blender, it exploded, spewing pieces of fruit all over her kitchen counter. The woman took a damp rag and wiped up the mess. Suddenly, her telephone rang, so she went into the other room to answer it. She did not see the damp rag fall off the counter and onto the floor. Just then,her five-year-old entered the kitchen and slipped on the damp rag. The child broke her arm. The woman sued the blender manufacturer for strict liability on behalf of her child.

Will the woman recover on behalf of her child?

Group of answer choices

Yes because a parent can sue on behalf of a child.

No, if this type of injury is unforeseeable from the use of the blender.

Yes because the woman purchased the blender.

No because the child was contributorily negligent.

Question 8

Question 81pts

One day, a pizza delivery boy who was employed by a local Italian restaurant was driving on a public highway and, because he was anxious to make sure that he delivered all of his pizzas within thirty minutes or less, he was speeding and lost control of his van. The vehicle jumped the curb and struck a pedestrian.The pedestrian was seriously injured in the accident.

Under what doctrine could the pedestrian bring a cause of action against the restaurant that employed the pizza delivery boy?

Group of answer choices

Respondeat superior.

Independent contractor.

Negligent hiring.

Nondelegable duty

Question 9

Question 9

A garbage collector was trying to improve his lot in life and was attending night school. One day, while he was driving his garbage truck, he stopped at the local library and got some books for his night courses. As soon as he returned to the garbage truck and attempted to drive the truck out of the parking space, his truck struck and hit an elderly man.

If the man sues the garbage company that employed the garbage collector, the garbage company's best defense will be:

Group of answer choices

The garbage company's duty was nondelegable.

The garbage collector was acting within the scope of his employment.

The garbage collector was engaged in a frolic and detour.

The garbage collector's actions were a superseding cause.

Question 10

Question 101pts

A school bus driver was operating his bus negligently while driving students to school. His bus hit a car and he was cited by the police for negligent driving. Several students received injuries. The school system had a strict safety policy that required the summary dismissal of any employees who were cited for negligent driving. The injured students sued the school system for negligence.

The school system's safety controls and its policy of summarily dismissing careless employees will:

Group of answer choices

Prevent the students from recovering from the school system because the driver was acting beyond the scope of his employment.

Enable the students to recover from the driver only.

Prevent the students from recovering from the school system because the driver was engaged in a frolic and detour.

Enable the students to recover from the driver and school system.