FiltersDone

Question type

Essay

Multiple Choice

Short Answer

True False

Matching

Exam 8: Negligence, Strict Liability, and Product Liability

Show Answer

Share

---

All types

Filters

Study FlashcardsPractice ExamLearn

Question 1

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

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.

E) None of the above
F) A) and B)

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 2

True/False

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

A landowner's highest duty is owed to licensees.

A) True
B) False

Correct Answer

verified

False

Question 3

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

If the defendant successfully proves __________, no matter how slight the plaintiff's negligence, the plaintiff will be denied any recovery of damages.

In strict liability, if a company sells a beverage in a can that has sharp edges and injures several consumers, it will be held liable even if it didn't know about the problem.

A defendant engaging in an ultrahazardous activity is almost always liable for any harm that results.

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?

On Monday, Travis took his four-wheeler to Reppart's Equipment & Service for repair because the steering was not working properly. On Friday, he called Reppart's to see if his four-wheeler was ready because he wanted it for a weekend trip. Reppart's said they had done the major repairs but that the steering system still needed some work and they needed another few days to finish the repairs. Travis told them he would pick the four-wheeler up and use it for the weekend and then bring it back to have them finish their work. While riding with friends on the weekend, Travis ran into someone because the steering stuck and he couldn't swerve to avoid them. Discuss how a court would determine causation in a negligence suit against Travis.

While hunting, Roger enters Adele's property without permission and is injured by falling into a ditch that was obscured by the underbrush. Under the common law, Adele is liable for Roger's injuries.

The test of "foreseeability" is generally used to determine the existence of which element of a negligence case?

Silas asks his friend Shelby to come to his property to go fishing at his pond. If he fails to warn her that the pier has a rotten spot and she falls through and is injured, Silas would be held liable in most states.

Kenneth was exposed to radiation on his job in an environmental cleanup. In a lawsuit against his employer, the court must decide the full extent of both present and future damages rather than allowing Kenneth to return to court years later if medical problems develop at that time.

Don was driving his truck when a board fell out of the truck bed and onto the road. Alice, who was driving closely behind Don's truck, tried to avoid the board, swerved, and struck a telephone pole, causing her severe injuries. Which of the following is correct?

Kelley went ice skating on a neighbor's 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?

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must establish

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad  addressed the issue of furnishing alcohol to minors.

Bob, a weak swimmer, ignored warning signs in a recreational swimming area and went into deep water. He soon grew 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 brain damage from being submerged during the ordeal. Bob now sues Kelly for negligence for failing to try to save him. Bob will

Annette drove through an intersection without looking and hit Vincent's car that he had driven into the intersection without obeying a stop sign. Annette sued Vincent. The jury found that Annette's fault contributed 20 percent to the collision and determined that her total loss was $100,000. Under comparative negligence, the jury should award Annette

Most states recognize some form of comparative negligence.

Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant.

The doctrine of contributory negligence is followed in most states.