Exam 8: Negligence and Strict Liability

Conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection and which cooperates with the negligence of the defendant in bringing about the plaintiff's harm is:

By law, all apartment buildings in Mary's state must have smoke alarms in the ceilings. If Mary suffers smoke inhalation because the smoke alarm in her apartment building was not yet installed and Mary sues the owner for negligence, Mary would have to prove:

A person who falls asleep while driving would not be liable for any resulting injury since it would be an unavoidable accident.

Henry was burning leaves in his backyard. One of the burning leaves was lifted by the wind into Emilio's yard next door. It landed on the lawn mower which exploded, setting fire to the wooden lawn furniture. Henry's best argument against liability would be:

A form of strict liability applies to all of the following situations except:

Two of the factors that are taken into consideration in determining the scope of liability for negligent conduct are foreseeability and superseding cause.

The Third Restatement of Torts has abandoned the doctrine of implied voluntary assumption of risk in tort actions.

Jack is a trucker who makes his living moving modular homes. This is a dangerous business in that the portions of the houses once on the truck are wider than the road lanes. Also, Jack frequently has to travel much more slowly than the other vehicles on the road. One day, Jack, on his way to Atlanta with a modular home in tow, found himself approaching two trucks coming from the opposite direction with the words "High Museum Exhibits" on the truck panels. When Jack swerves to avoid a bicyclist, a museum truck runs off the road and tumbles down an embankment. No one is harmed, but the exhibit being transported is damaged. Discuss the various theories of liability that might be applied here and why they would be appropriate.

Tom's dog has bitten three mailmen, but Tom can't bear to chain him up. When the dog bites the newspaper delivery person, Tom will be strictly liable.

Where two factors, each of which is sufficient to bring about the harm in question, together cause a harm, the "but for" rule of causation is not useful.

Compliance with a legislative enactment or administrative regulation does not prevent a finding of negligence if a reasonable person would have taken additional precautions to avoid harm.

A number of states have included social guests in the invitee category, although they have traditionally been labeled as licensees.

The rule which permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain events is:

In applying the reasonable person standard, the court takes into account a person's physical, but not mental, handicaps.

Because of the harshness of the all-or-nothing contributory negligence rule, nearly all states have now substituted the last clear chance doctrine for contributory negligence.

All intervening events that occur subsequent to the defendant's negligent conduct will relieve the defendant of liability.

In which of the following situations would a landowner NOT have liability to a trespasser?

Chris was driving a car with defective brakes very slowly down Fifth Avenue looking for a parking place. Mindy jumped out into the street five feet in front of his car. Chris could not avoid hitting her. What is Chris's best defense to the charge of negligence?

In determining the duty of care owed by a defendant using the reasonable person standard, the court will consider all of the following factors except:

Think about and then discuss why, in your analysis, the reasonable standard of care differs for the following categories of individuals: children, persons with physical disabilities, persons with mental disabilities, people with superior skill or knowledge, people in emergency situations, and those who violate statutory duties. Is there any logic on which to base these differences because of societal need and expectations? Does justice demand a different result? Why would the courts make these distinctions?