Defenses Flashcards

1
Q

A plaintiff’s recklessness is a … to negligence …

A

Defense / in a majority of states

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Hightower v. Paulson Truck Lines Inc.

A

Plaintiff’s recovery was not affected, despite his having tailgated the other vehicle because the other car stopped suddenly without warning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Restatement (Third) of Torts § 2

A

(1) A person acts recklessly in engaging in conduct if:

(A) The person knows of the risk of harm created y the conduct or knows facts that make thirst obvious to anther in the person’s situation

(B) The precautions that would eliminate or reduce the risk involved burdens that are so slight relative to the magnitude of the risk as to Redner the person’s failure to adopt the precaution a demonstration of the person’s indifference to the risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Fritts v. McKinne

A

A physician may not avoid liability for negligent medical treatment simply because the patient’s own negligence caused the injury necessitating the medical treatment under comparative negligence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Harb v. City of Bakersfield

A

Evidence of a plaintiff’s failure to take medications could not be used in a claim against first responders who mistook his stroke for intoxication

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Hall v. Dumitru

A

A plaintiff does not always have a duty to undergo surgery to mitigate damages caused by a defendant’s negligence on a reasonable person basis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Munn v. Algee

A

After a woman refused a blood transfusion because of religious beliefs, her family was not allowed to recover for wrongful death because she would have lived should she have accepted treatment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Chaining v. Board of Education

A

A statute’s purpose was to protect children against their own negligence when using the bus, so allowing their negligence to bar recovery would thwart the purpose of the statute

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Nabors Well Services Ltd. v. Romero

A

Evidence of a plaintiff’s failure to use a seat belt is admissible in car accident cases

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Greenwood v. Mitchell

A

Recommended the use of separate verdict forms in cases where the plaintiff failed to mitigate, with one covering before the failure and the other after

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Avoidable consequences are a … defense to negligence

A

Partial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Assumption of the risk is a … defense to negligence

A

complete

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly