Exam 8: Negligence and Strict Liability

In most of the states, a sixteen-year-old who drives a car will be held to the same standard of care in driving as an adult for purposes of determining negligence.

There is an established rule in the law of torts that even one who has not created a peril has a duty to take affirmative action to assist an imperiled person, no matter what the relationship with that person, when the imperiled person can be saved from harm at little or no personal risk to the rescuer.

Which of the following would not be considered an abnormally dangerous activity, subjecting the person who carries it out to strict liability?

Identify the elements a plaintiff must prove in an action for negligence.

Which of the following is/are considered in determining the application of the reasonable person standard?

Which of the following activities do not give rise to strict liability?

There are no defenses available for strict liability; it is imposed absolutely.

A blind person will be held to the standard of care of the reasonable blind person rather than that of the reasonable sighted person for purposes of determining negligence.

The reasonable person standard is:

Res ipsa loquitur makes it easier for the defendant to prevail in a negligence action.

The harshness of the contributory negligence doctrine has been mitigated by:

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would permit the court to infer negligence in which of the following situations?

The general rule for the standard of care used in tort law is: a person is under a duty to all others at all times to exercise reasonable care for the safety of other persons and their property.

Ray is informed that his six-year-old child is shooting in the street with a handgun. Ray fails to take the gun away from the child. The child unintentionally shoots Bill, a pedestrian. Ray is liable to Bill.

Robin owns a dog. If there are no applicable statutes, what is her liability for damage if her dog digs up her neighbor's prize roses? Would it make any difference if the animal that destroys her neighbor's flower garden is the wild orangutan she owns?

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

In the majority of states, in a case of negligence per se , the plaintiff would only have to prove violation of a statute in order to show negligent conduct.

Defenses to an action in strict liability include:

If a person's 150-pound sheep dog has a propensity to jump enthusiastically on visitors, the animal's keeper would be liable for any damages done by the dog's playfulness.

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