Exam 8: Negligence and Strict Liabilitypart Iii: Contracts

A "reasonable person standard" does not apply to children since they do not have the judgment, intelligence, knowledge, or experience of adults.

If negligence of the plaintiff and negligence of the defendant proximately caused the injury and damage sustained by the plaintiff, the plaintiff can recover some damages in those states where contributory negligence is still recognized.

Sarina goes to Marlin's Department Store to look for clothes.The store happens to be in the process of remodeling, and there is a lot of clutter in the aisle.Sarina trips over the clutter and is injured.Under the Second Restatement, Sarina's status with regard to the store is that of:

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

Under the Second Restatement, a possessor of land must warn licensees of dangerous conditions of which the possessor has knowledge and the licensees do not and which they are not likely to discover.

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.

A defendant will be liable for all harm that can be traced back to the defendant's negligence.

While driving his car five miles over the speed limit, Carl struck Darla, who was jaywalking across the street.When the case came to trial, the jury determined that Carl was 40% negligent and that Darla was 60% negligent.Darla's injuries are $10,000.If this accident occurred in a state following the modified comparative negligence theory of recovery, Darla will:

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.

A principal factor that the courts consider in determining limitations on the causal connection between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injury is:

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.

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

Under the Second Restatement, a possessor of land has a legal duty to warn business invitees of obvious dangers that invitees should be able to discover themselves.

In responding to the previous question (Question 5), think about and then discuss why in your analysis the reasonable standard of care differs for the above listed categories of individuals.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?

An action for negligence consists of which of the following elements which the plaintiff must prove?

All intervening causes of harm are also superseding causes.

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.

Which of the following are activities that give rise to strict liability?

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.

A tiger gets loose from the tent of a circus and mauls a passerby.The circus claims it has always treated the animal well and that it was not at all negligent in its handling of the animal.The circus has no liability for the injury caused by the animal.