Torts

Ralston is trapped under a boulder. Which of the following would NOT cause you to have a duty to rescue him?

• 1. Ralston is your employee and he was trapped in the scope of his work for you.

• 1. You caused Ralston to become trapped under the boulder, though you were not negligent in doing so.

• 1. A reasonable person in your position would definitely undertake to rescue Ralston.

• 1. Ralston is a customer of your business and he was trapped in the scope of his patronage of your business.

• 1. It is your boulder and you could move it if you chose to do so.

Which of the following defendants definitely cannot be sued for negligence in the situation presented?

• 1. A person who failed to protect plaintiff from being harmed by a third party.

• 1. A person who is successful in arguing that the statute of repose has run out, but is unsuccessful in arguing that the statute of limitations has run out.

• 1. The estate of a person who died after causing plaintiff’s injury.

• 1. A person who is married to the plaintiff, and was married to him at the time she caused plaintiff’s injury.

Dillard, a ten-year-old child, is sued for negligence. Which of the following statements about the case against her is accurate?

• 1. In determining what level of care was reasonable for Dillard, her general mental characteristics (such as her intelligence) will not be considered.

• 1. If Dillard was a trespasser, then under the “attractive nuisance” doctrine she might have owed the plaintiff a heightened duty.

• 1. If Dillard is found liable for negligence, her parents will be vicariously liable for that negligence.

• 1. If Dillard’s alleged negligence arose out of her using a motorized vehicle, she should be held to an adult standard of care.

Max goes to the store and buys a box of Pow!, a heavy-duty cleaner of high repute. Pow! is dark green (or, as a lawyer would say, dark green in color) and comes in a spray bottle. Max brings the Pow! home and leaves it on the counter. Louie, who lives with Max, sees the bottle of Pow! on the counter and thinks that it might be a tasty beverage, so he drinks it. He becomes violently ill. He sues the manufacturers of Pow! for not warning properly of the dangerous nature of their product. Which of the following is an accurate statement about the case?

• 1. Louie will win unless the label said something like “Do Not Drink. Ingestion May Cause Violent Illness” in big, prominent letters, in which case he will lose.

• 1. Louie will definitely win unless the jury decides that the danger of ingesting Pow! was obvious to a reasonable adult.

• 1. Louie will lose if the defendant can establish that Louie would not have paid attention to any warnings they might have provided, however convincing and noticeable the warnings might have been.

• 1. If Louie can establish that the defendant knew that their product was dangerous if ingested, he will definitely win.

• None of the above statements are accurate

Which of the following is an example of negligence?

• hitting a robber with a baseball bat

• accidentally running over a pedestrian

• all of these choices

• spreading rumors to ruin the reputation of a coworker

Which of the following is NOT an element needed to prove negligence?

• duty
• damages
  
• intent
• causation

Samara and Jim were practicing their salsa routine for the upcoming talent show. Jim was a bit overzealous on his dip, causing Samara to hit her head on the floor. Upset that her big debut would be ruined as a result, she sued Jim. She wasn't concerned about money; she wanted revenge. She wanted Jim to spend a few nights in jail. What will likely happen?

• 1. Samara assumed the risk of dancing with a non-professional. For this reason, Jim will not be liable.

• 1. Jim is guilty and will be sentenced to jail.

• 1. Samara stands a good chance of having Jim placed under arrest because technically the injury was his fault.

• 1. Jim will have to go to criminal court to sort this out.

A woman was injured when the car in which she was a passenger collided with a truck. The woman brought a negligence action against both drivers. In that action, the woman’s total damages were determined to be $7,500. The driver of the car and the driver of the truck were each, individually, found to be 35-percent responsible for her damages. The woman herself was found to be 30-percent responsible because, at the time of the accident, she was not wearing the shoulder-harness portion of her seat belt. The drivers were ultimately held jointly and severally liable.

In a comparative-negligence jurisdiction, which of the following most accurately states the woman’s likely recovery?

• $5,250 (70 percent of her damages) from each driver individually.

• A total of $5,250 (70 percent of her damages) from the drivers, whether the woman collects this amount entirely from just one driver or as a combination of amounts from both drivers.

• The woman may collect only $2,625 (35 percent of her damages) from each driver individually.

• Nothing, due to the woman’s own negligence.

A camper negligently started a campfire during a no-burn ban and failed to clear highly flammable brush from the surrounding area. A spark from the campfire ignited the brush, causing the fire to quickly spread. At about the same time, a lightning strike started another fire a few miles away. The two fires converged, burning acres of property between the two ignition points. An investigation revealed that either fire alone would have burned the same area by itself, even without the other fire.

Which of the following most accurately states whether the camper was an actual cause of the damage that resulted from the fire?

• The camper was not an actual cause of the damage because the lightning intervened and would have burned the same area by itself.

• The camper was an actual, concurrent cause of the damage (under the concurrent-causes test) because the camper caused the damage concurrently with the lightning.

• The camper was an actual, alternative cause of the damage from the fire (under the alternative-causes test) because either the campfire or the lightning would have burned the same area by itself.

• The camper was an actual, substantial cause of the damage (under the substantial-factor test) because the camper’s actions were a substantial factor in causing the damage.

Two teenagers were driving around town with a baseball bat. One teenager was driving over the speed limit, while the other leaned out the window with the bat and swung at mailboxes. The teenager with the bat decided to sit on the car windowsill and lean even farther out of the car to make contact with mailboxes set back a few feet from the road. When the driver rounded a slight curve in the road, the teenager with the bat fell out of the car, suffering injuries. The injured teen brought a lawsuit against the driver.

If the court finds that the injured teen is absolutely, not just partially, barred from recovering against the driver for his injuries, which of the following legal doctrines most likely explains why?

• Primary assumption of the risk.

• Secondary assumption of the risk.

• Exculpatory assumption of the risk.

• Exculpatory negligence.