LWC1 - Chapter 7 Practice Questions

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must establish: a. duty, strict liability, causation, and injury. b. mens rea, breach, foreseeable harm, and injury. c. duty, actus reus, foreseeable harm, and causation. d. duty of due care, breach, causation, foreseeable harm, and injury.

In most states dram acts apply to: a. liquor stores, bars, and restaurants but not to social hosts. b. liquor stores, bars, restaurants and to social hosts. c. social hosts, liquor stores, and bars. d. None of the above.

Arturo drove through an intersection without looking and hit Vincent's car that he had driven into the intersection without obeying a stop sign. Arturo sued Vincent. The jury found that Arturo's fault contributed 20 percent to the collision and determined that his total loss was $100,000. Under comparative negligence, the jury should award Arturo: a. $20,000. b. $80,000. c. $100,000. d. nothing.

Negligence concerns harm that: a. is unforeseeable. b. arises intentionally. c. arises by accident. d. is always substantial.

In Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents, the court held: a. individuals who intentionally provide alcohol to minors can be liable for negligence to injured third parties. b. individuals who intentionally provide alcohol to minors cannot be held liable for negligence to injured third parties. c. individuals who carelessly provide alcohol to minors can be liable for damages for resulting injury to third parties. d. none of the above.

Bob, a weak swimmer, ignored warning signs in a recreational swimming area and went into deep water. He soon tired and realized that he could not make it back to shore. Seeing Kelly, he cried out for help. Kelly, however, ignored the pleas. Bob was finally saved by Dorothy, but suffered partial brain damage by being submerged without oxygen for a number of minutes. Bob now sues Kelly for negligence for failing to save him: a. Bob will prevail because society places a duty on people to help each other and Kelly breached this duty, resulting in Bob's suffering injury. b. Bob will lose because Kelly had no legal duty to rescue him. c. Bob will lose even though Kelly had a legal duty to save him, since Bob will not be able to prove that Kelly's failure to act was the proximate cause of his injuries. d. Bob will lose because a reasonable person could not have foreseen that someone in a recreation area could not swim well.

One morning, Miles placed a thumbtack on the chair of the office manager where he worked. He had no quarrel with the office manager, but thought this would be funny. Two days after sitting on the tack, the office manager was hospitalized with an infection caused by the tack. Which of the following is correct? a. Miles actions were negligent. b. No tort has been committed. c. Miles committed an intentional tort. d. Miles is strictly liable.

A plaintiff sues in negligence but has no direct proof that the defendant behaved unreasonably. Which of the following is most likely to help the plaintiff? a. Res judicata. b. Stare decisis. c. Res ipsa loquitur. d. Mens rea.

Wayne worked in an office. He had no criminal record, had never had a complaint made against him about his work or his conduct, and had been a faithful employee for nearly 20 years. One day, Wayne followed his supervisor to his home and fatally shot him. The estate of the supervisor sued the company, claiming it should have been aware of Wayne's growing frustration with work. The company's best defense will be: a. that there was no way to foresee that the incident would happen. b. that the incident occurred away from the office. c. that the killing was the result of a personal conflict between Wayne and the supervisor. d. that even if the company had been aware of Wayne's difficulty with his supervisor, Wayne did not have any criminal history.

Which of the following acts resulting in injury would be negligence per se? a. Janet driving 40 mph over the posted speed limit. b. Ted keeping explosives in his private, locked garage without complying with state law regulating the storage of such materials. c. A retailer selling glue containing benzene to a 14-year-old boy in violation of state law. d. All the above acts are negligence per se.

Which of the following statements regarding a negligence case is correct? a. A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act was both the factual cause of her injury as well as a foreseeable injury. b. A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act was the factual cause of her injury even if the injury was not foreseeable. c. A plaintiff must show that the defendant's act created a foreseeable danger even if it was not the factual cause of her injury. d. A plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant's act either created a foreseeable danger or that the act was the factual cause of her injury.

Under a state law, a dog owner is absolutely liable to any person who is injured by a dog. This is an example of: a. negligence per se. b. strict liability. c. res ipsa loquitur. d. negligence.

If a court applies res ipsa loquitur: a. the plaintiff needs to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence. b. the plaintiff must prove the case by clear and convincing evidence. c. the defendant has the burden of proving he or she is not liable. d. the defendant is strictly liable.

Kelley climbed a fence and went ice skating on a neighbor's recently dug pond, but she fell through a thin area into icy waters. Kelley did not have permission to be on the property, and the neighbor did not even know that she was there. Is the neighbor liable for Kelley's injuries? a. Yes. The neighbor should have posted "thin ice" notices. b. No. Kelley was a trespasser and the neighbor could only be held liable for intentionally injuring her or for gross misconduct.. c. It may depend on Kelley's age. d. Yes, the neighbor is strictly liable.

Kyle was eating clam chowder soup in a restaurant when a very small piece of bone lodged in his throat. Fortunately, he was able to remove the bone with his fingers. However, he was upset by the incident and sued the restaurant for negligence. The most likely result would be: a. Kyle will not collect any damages since he did not sustain any damages. b. Kyle will collect damages as bones in chowder are common. c. Kyle will collect damages if he proves it was possible to prevent tiny fish bones from being present in clam chowder. d. Kyle will collect damages, as res ipsa loquitur applies.