Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Proximate cause.
B) Significant cause.
C) Actual cause.
D) Legal cause.
E) Constructive cause.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Duty
B) Breach of duty
C) Causation
D) Intent
E) Damages
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) reasonable person
B) actual harm
C) legal person
D) professional person
E) causal harm
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Implied warranty against injury.
B) Express warranty against injury.
C) Express assumption of the risk
D) Implied assumption of the risk.
E) Danger invites rescue doctrine.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Slick will not be held liable because Darryl was contributorily negligent.
B) Darryl will be able to recover despite proof of contributory negligence on his part because Slick had a final clear opportunity to avoid the action that injured Darryl.
C) Darryl will win because of comparative negligence.
D) Slick will win because of the assumption of risk doctrine based upon the fact that Darryl committed an offense by crossing the street which he did in violation of clearly defined law.
E) Darryl will lose because Slick, at least, reduced his speed.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Yes, the bank is correct because under that doctrine defendants are liable for any harm caused.
B) Yes, the bank is correct only if Teresa has sufficient insurance to cover the bank burning.
C) Yes, the bank is correct only if it can be established that Teresa was a repeat driving offender.
D) No, the bank is incorrect because the issue here is causation, not whether there was a lack of duty of care.
E) No, the bank is incorrect because res ipsa loquitur is a defense.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Billy will win because Rogerio should have warned him about the occasional appearance of sharks.
B) Billy will lose because Rogerio had no duty to warn him of anything.
C) Billy will lose because he did not sustain physical injury.
D) Billy will win only if he can establish that he had a contract with Rogerio whereby Rogerio agreed to reveal harmful conditions.
E) Billy will win only if he can establish that he did not have insurance to cover the equipment.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The defense was once available in a few states but is not available in any state today.
B) It is available in all states today.
C) It was outlawed by a federal statute.
D) It was once available in all states but has been replaced in some states by the defense of comparative negligence.
E) It was once available in all states and has been replaced in some states by the defense of assumption of risk.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Only that the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm.
B) Only that a failure of the plaintiff was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injury.
C) Only that the plaintiff violated the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D) That the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk of harm and also that the plaintiff's failure was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injuries.
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 also that the plaintiff failed to abide by the last-clear-chance doctrine.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The student can recover upon a showing of injury. Nothing else is required.
B) The student may recover only if the student can show that the student was in the marked crosswalk.
C) It is unlikely that the student can recover because the accident could not have been avoided even with reasonable care.
D) The student can recover in an action for negligence only if it can be shown that Bob had insurance.
E) The student can recover only if the student can establish that the student did not have any medical insurance.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Lourde has no duty to come to the aid of Lennithia.
B) Lourde has a duty to come to the aid of Lennithia because he negligently hit her.
C) Lourde has a duty to come to the aid of Lennithia only if police are not on the scene within a reasonable amount of time.
D) Lourde has a duty to come to the aid of Lennithia only if there is no one else around to help her.
E) Lourde has a duty to come to the aid of Lennithia only if she cries out for help.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Superseding causes do not allow defendants to avoid liability.
B) Superseding causes are an example of the res ipsa loquitur defense.
C) Superseding causes are evidence that a defendant's breach of duty was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
D) Superseding causes demonstrate the plaintiff was actually responsible for his own injuries.
E) Superseding causes are evidence that a defendant's duty of care was fulfilled and thus no negligence occurred.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Implied assumption of the risk.
B) Express assumption of the risk.
C) Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D) Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
E) Assumption by incident.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Assumption of risk.
B) Last-clear-chance doctrine.
C) Modified risk doctrine.
D) Modified comparative doctrine.
E) There is no such doctrine.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Because the law holds that every U.S. citizen holds the duty to help a stranger in peril, she must come to the child's assistance.
B) She must come to the child's assistance only because a child is involved.
C) She has no duty to render assistance to the child.
D) She must render assistance to the child only if she can do so without peril to herself.
E) She must render assistance to the child only if she is acquainted with the child's parents.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The likelihood of harm.
B) The severity of the harm.
C) How socially beneficial the defendant's conduct was which posed the risk of harm.
D) The intent of the defendant to cause the harm experienced by the plaintiff.
E) The costs which would have been necessary to reduce the risk of harm.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Showing 1 - 20 of 90
Related Exams