Exam 5: Principles of Negligence

To whom does the hotel owe the least duty?

If a plaintiff in a negligence case is unable to prove proximate cause, the plaintiff will lose the case and not be able to recover.

An employer is liable for the negligent acts of its employees.

An employer is never liable for the acts of independent contractors.

Which of the following is not one of the elements a plaintiff in a negligence case must prove?

A restaurant patron was injured when she fell on icy steps. The steps did not have a railing. Had a railing been present, the patron could have stopped her fall. The local laws applicable to buildings mandated that all steps have railings on both sides. Which of the following will apply in this case?

The doctrine of ______________________________ imposes liability on the seller of a defective product without regard to negligence.

Two precautions a hotel with mirrored or glass walls might take to avoid injury are _______________________________________, _______________________________________.

If the problem that caused injury to a diner at a restaurant could not have been discovered upon a reasonable examination of the premises, the restaurant will not be liable for the injury.

A restaurant's duty to licensees requires that it inspect the premises for unsafe conditions and then correct those conditions.

Which of the following is not true concerning young people?

____________________ refers to many types of noncriminal wrongful conduct done by one person and causing injury to another.

Proximate cause is a direct and foreseeable connection between the duty owed and the breach of that duty.

Which of the following means, "the thing speaks for itself"?

In a case where both the plaintiff and defendant are negligent, the defendant will have no liability if the state follows the rule of ______________________________.

Which of the following is not an objective of the doctrine of respondeat superior?

For a plaintiff in a negligence case to succeed there must be a ______________________________ relationship between the injury and the unreasonable conduct.

A patron was injured at a restaurant. Both the restaurant and the patron were negligent. If the restaurant is located in a state that follows the comparative negligence rule, which of the following is true?

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur creates a rebuttable inference that the defendant was negligent.

Due to a hotel's negligence, an entertainer broke her leg and was unable to perform as scheduled at a sold-out concert. The promoter of the concert sued the hotel in negligence to recover its loss. True or false: The hotel will be liable to the promoter for the loss.