Question 1

Today,trespassers who are injured while on someone else's land:

Accepted Answer

A) never recover against the landowner in a negligence action. 
B) recover against the landowner in a negligence action only when permitted by statute. 
C) recover only when the possessor knows they are likely to trespass. 
D) recover only when the owner willfully and wantonly injures them after their presence is known. 
A) never recover against the landowner in a negligence action. 
B) recover against the landowner in a negligence action only when permitted by statute. 
C) recover only when the possessor knows they are likely to trespass. 
D) recover only when the owner willfully and wantonly injures them after their presence is known.

Question 2

In Toms v.Calvary Assembly of God,Inc. ,the case in the text,which of the following was not considered when the court determined whether noise emanating from the discharge of fireworks display constituted an abnormally dangerous activity?

Accepted Answer

A) Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great 
B) Inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care 
C) Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on 
D) Professional expertise of those carrying out the activity 
A) Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great 
B) Inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care 
C) Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on 
D) Professional expertise of those carrying out the activity

Question 3

In the case in the text,Black v.William Insulation Co. ,the court held that:

Accepted Answer

A) WIC owed a duty to Black because it was aware of its employees' state of exhaustion and still required them work extensive hours and drive to and from the worksite. 
B) WIC owed a duty to Black because the harm to Black's decedent was a foreseeable consequence of WIC's actions (or inactions). 
C) WIC did not owe a duty to Black because the decedent's injuries were not the "natural and probable consequence of" any acts of negligence by WIC in the course of Ibarra-Viernes's employment. 
D) WIC did not owe a duty to Black under the impact test. 
A) WIC owed a duty to Black because it was aware of its employees' state of exhaustion and still required them work extensive hours and drive to and from the worksite. 
B) WIC owed a duty to Black because the harm to Black's decedent was a foreseeable consequence of WIC's actions (or inactions). 
C) WIC did not owe a duty to Black because the decedent's injuries were not the "natural and probable consequence of" any acts of negligence by WIC in the course of Ibarra-Viernes's employment. 
D) WIC did not owe a duty to Black under the impact test.

Question 4

With the emergence of comparative negligence and comparative fault,some states have eliminated assumption of risk as a defense.Does this mean that the plaintiff's knowledge of the risk and his voluntary acceptance of it have no role to play in negligence law? Why or why not?

Accepted Answer

In many states,knowledge and voluntarine

Question 5

What must a possessor of property do in order to exercise reasonable care for the safety of his invitees?

Accepted Answer

A) He must take appropriate steps to protect them against only the dangers he is aware of on his premises. 
B) He must take appropriate steps to protect them against dangerous on-premises conditions that he is aware of,or reasonably should discover,whether or not the invitee is likely to discover them on her own. 
C) He must take appropriate steps to protect them against dangerous on-premises conditions that he is aware of,or reasonably should discover,and that the invitee is unlikely to discover. 
D) He must take appropriate steps to protect them against only the abnormally dangerous on-premises conditions that he is aware of,and that the invitee is unlikely to discover. 
A) He must take appropriate steps to protect them against only the dangers he is aware of on his premises. 
B) He must take appropriate steps to protect them against dangerous on-premises conditions that he is aware of,or reasonably should discover,whether or not the invitee is likely to discover them on her own. 
C) He must take appropriate steps to protect them against dangerous on-premises conditions that he is aware of,or reasonably should discover,and that the invitee is unlikely to discover. 
D) He must take appropriate steps to protect them against only the abnormally dangerous on-premises conditions that he is aware of,and that the invitee is unlikely to discover.

Question 6

Special duties that run from possessors of real estate to those who enter that property are called "premises liability" cases.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 7

You are standing on a street corner.A truck belonging to the Safety First Trucking Co.(SFTC)carrying radioactive nuclear waste has a tire blown out,which causes the truck to overturn near you.Radioactive waste escapes from the truck and covers half your body.As a result,you suffer serious medical harm.What legal theory of recovery that is available to you will not require you to prove that SFTC was careless in its handling practices?

Accepted Answer

A) Negligence 
B) Express warranty 
C) Implied warranty 
D) Strict liability 
A) Negligence 
B) Express warranty 
C) Implied warranty 
D) Strict liability

Question 8

Traditionally,________ has not been a defense in ultrahazardous activity cases,but ________ has been a defense.

Accepted Answer

A) comparative negligence;assumption of risk 
B) assumption of risk;comparative negligence 
C) assumption of risk;contributory negligence 
D) contributory negligence;assumption of risk 
A) comparative negligence;assumption of risk 
B) assumption of risk;comparative negligence 
C) assumption of risk;contributory negligence 
D) contributory negligence;assumption of risk

Question 9

A business visitor who is invited to enter the property for a purpose connected with the possessor's business is classified as a(n):

Accepted Answer

A) trespasser. 
B) licensee. 
C) invitee. 
D) restricted licensee. 
A) trespasser. 
B) licensee. 
C) invitee. 
D) restricted licensee.

Question 10

Which of the following characteristics is NOT considered by the court to determine the "reasonableness of the risk"?

Accepted Answer

A) Magnitude of the foreseeable harm 
B) Social utility of the defendant's conduct 
C) Personal characteristics of the defendant 
D) The defendant's subjective mental state 
A) Magnitude of the foreseeable harm 
B) Social utility of the defendant's conduct 
C) Personal characteristics of the defendant 
D) The defendant's subjective mental state

Exam 7: Negligence and Strict Liability

Today,trespassers who are injured while on someone else's land:

In Toms v.Calvary Assembly of God,Inc. ,the case in the text,which of the following was not considered when the court determined whether noise emanating from the discharge of fireworks display constituted an abnormally dangerous activity?

In the case in the text,Black v.William Insulation Co. ,the court held that:

With the emergence of comparative negligence and comparative fault,some states have eliminated assumption of risk as a defense.Does this mean that the plaintiff's knowledge of the risk and his voluntary acceptance of it have no role to play in negligence law? Why or why not?

What must a possessor of property do in order to exercise reasonable care for the safety of his invitees?

Special duties that run from possessors of real estate to those who enter that property are called "premises liability" cases.

Traditionally,________ has not been a defense in ultrahazardous activity cases,but ________ has been a defense.

A business visitor who is invited to enter the property for a purpose connected with the possessor's business is classified as a(n):

Which of the following characteristics is NOT considered by the court to determine the "reasonableness of the risk"?

The Nature of Law

The Resolution of Private Disputes

Business and the Constitution

Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Governance, and Critical Thinking

Criminal Law and Procedure

Intentional Torts

Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition

Introduction to Contracts

The Agreement: Offer

The Agreement: Acceptance

Consideration

Reality of Consent

Capacity to Contract

Illegality

Writing

Rights of Third Parties

Performance and Remedies

Formation and Terms of Sales Contracts

Product Liability

Performance of Sales Contracts

Remedies for Breach of Sales Contracts

Personal Property and Bailments

Real Property

Landlord and Tenant

Estates and Trusts

Insurance Law

Introduction to Credit and Secured Transactions

Security Interests in Personal Property

Bankruptcy

Negotiable Instruments

Negotiation and Holder in Due Course

Liability of Parties

Checks and Electronic Transfers

The Agency Relationship

Third-Party Relations of the Principal and the Agent

Introduction to Forms of Business and Formation of Partnerships

Operation of Partnerships and Related Forms

Partners Dissociation and Partnerships Dissolution and Winding up

Limited Liability Companies, limited Partnerships, and Limited Liability Limited Partnerships

History and Nature of Corporations

Organization and Financial Structure of Corporations

Management of Corporations

Shareholders Rights and Liabilities

Securities Regulation

Legal and Professional Responsibilities of Auditors, Consultants, and Securities Professionals

Administrative Law

The Federal Trade Commission Act and Consumer Protection Laws

Antitrust: the Sherman Act

The Clayton Act, the Robinsonpatman Act, and Antitrust Exemptions and Immunities

Employment Law

Environmental Regulation

Filters

Traditionally, has not been a defense in ultrahazardous activity cases,but has been a defense.