QUESTION 41 Lisa who is 22 years old goes Bungee Jumping at A1 jump with her freinds. Lisa signs an exculpatory clause that states that A1 cannot be sued for any damages if Lisa is injured while bungee jumping. Lisa Jumps but she breaks her leg. ' a. A1 can be found liable for damages despite the exculpatory clause in the contract. ' b. A1 can be found liable for damages because Bungee Jumping is a dangerous sport and they are liable under strict liablitly \\ c. A-1 cannot be found liable under the doctrine of assumption of the risk because Lisa is adult and she clearly is aware of the dangers of bungee jumping. " d. A-1 could only be liable if Lisa was a minor. QUESTION 42 Consent is a defense for: ' Assault \\ Battery \\ Both a & b \\ The good Samaritan law QUESTION 43 The reasonable person standard used in tort cases involving a malpractice case against a Doctor would be measured by: a. Other professionals such as lawyers and accountants. " b. other doctors " c. other patients treated by that doctor " d. Any health care professionals such as lab technicians and nurses QUESTION 44 Astatute states that all electricians must be licensed to install light xtures. John an unlicensed electrician put in a light xture and does the work propertly ,but through no fault of his own the light fixture is faulty and catches on fire. Jonn would be liable under: ' a. Negligence per se " b. The dram shop acts " 0. Res Ipsa Loquitor " d. None of the above QUESTION 45 All of the following statements are true with regard tthe rule of Proximate cause except: " a. Proximate cause is often referred to as legal cause " b. Analysis of proximate cause involves a question of the act being foreseeable or predicatable " c. Proximate cause is the legal doctrine developed in the Palsgraf case " d. Proximate cause and actual cause mean the same thing QUESTION 46 Mcdonald's was sued by a woman who was severely burned when placing her coffee between her legs and spilling it in a car. Mcdonald's" " a. Was not held liable because of contributory/comparative negligence " b. Was not held liable because of res ipsa loquitor " 0. Was held liable because they heated the coffee to 20-30 degrees higher than the normal temperature " d. Was held liable because they served the coffee and are responsible under strict liablity