Law: SB # 6 Flashcards
Will owns and operates a hotel. To save money, he negligently fails to install fire escapes outside windows. Jillian is in a room without a fire escape. A fire starts in Jillian’s room and while sleeping, Jillian dies in bed from smoke inhalation. Jillian’s family sues Will for damages on a negligence theory based on the failure to install fire escapes. What is the most likely outcome for this case?
Jillian’s family will win. Will will win.
b
Jillian died in bed; thus, the proximate cause of her death was smoke inhalation. The lack of a fire escape was not a cause in fact of her death.
Which one of the following three concepts is least like the other two?
assumption of the risk comparative negligence contributory negligence
b
Contributory negligence and assumption of the risk are defenses to liability claims. In contrast, comparative negligence is a system of comparing the relative fault of two or more persons in a lawsuit.
This question focuses on the opinion in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad in the text. Assume (although we don’t know why) that the railroad employees breached the duty of care. Logically, the next question is whether the conduct of the employees was the cause of Mrs. Palsgraf’s injuries. Which of the following is correct?
The causation requirement was not met because there was proximate (legal) cause but not cause in fact. The causation requirement was not met because there was cause in fact but not proximate (legal) cause. The causation requirement was not met because there was neither proximate (legal) cause nor cause in fact. The causation requirement was met because there were both cause in fact and proximate (legal) cause.
b
The conduct of the railroad employees in pulling the man onto the train and dislodging the package was a cause in fact of the explosion that dislodged the scales and injured Ms. Palsgraf. But, as discussed in the case, the injury to Ms. Palsgraf was not a foreseeable result of the conduct of the employees. Thus, there is cause in fact, but not proximate cause, and therefore no causation.
This question focuses on the opinion in Rigtrup v. Strawberry Water Users Ass’n in the text. Assume (1) that strict liability applies to supplying electricity, (2) that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was negligent, and (3) that failure of the defendant to supply electricity was the sole proximate cause of the plaintiff’s losses. Also assume that Rigtrup’s damages equaled $100,000. Which of the following is correct?
Rigtrup will receive $100,000. Rigtrup will receive $50,000. Rigtrup’s recovery cannot be calculated from these facts. Rigtrup will receive nothing.
a
Strict liability, plus proximate cause, plus injury, equals liability, where there are no offsetting defenses. If there are no offsetting defenses, Rigtrup is entitled to a full recovery of $100,000.
In a civil case, which of the following is best stated?
Jed is liable. Jed is guilty.
a
Guilt is a criminal law term, not a civil law term. Liability is the correct civil law term.
In which of the following cases would it be most difficult to establish liability based on strict liability?
keeping flammable paint and turpentine in the basement of a residence keeping an African lion as a pet using explosives to eliminate tree stumps on a farm
a
Keeping an African lion as a pet and using explosives to blow out tree stumps are, by definition, unusually hazardous activities. In contrast, keeping paint and turpentine in one’s basement is debatably an unusually hazardous activity. Thus, a plaintiff would find the paint and turpentine case the most difficult to establish.
This question focuses on the opinion in Rigtrup v. Strawberry Water Users Ass’n in the text. Assume that Strawberry Water Users had alleged and proved assumption of the risk on the part of the plaintiff but not negligence. Also, that the proportions of fault found by the jury were Rigtrup, 40 percent and Strawberry Water Users, 60 percent. Also assume that Rigtrup’s damages equaled $100,000. Which of the following is correct?
Using a comparative negligence system, Rigtrup will receive $60,000 after deducting $40,000 (40 percent) because of assumption of the risk. Using a comparative negligence system, Rigtrup will receive $100,000 because the amount of negligence is deducted from a recovery, but assumption of the risk is not. Rigtrup will receive nothing. Rigtrup’s recovery cannot be calculated from these facts.
a
For purposes of comparative negligence calculation, assumption of the risk is treated the same as contributory negligence; thus, the 40 percent of assumption of the risk is offset just as contributory negligence would be, and Rigtrup recovers $60,000.
Which of the following statements is correct?
The so-called reasonable man standard is objective in nature and asks what the defendant should have done under the circumstances. The so-called reasonable man standard is subjective in nature and asks what the defendant thought should be done under the circumstances.
a
The reasonable man standard asks what a reasonable man would have done under the same or similar circumstances. The defendant is liable if the conduct of the defendant fails to rise to that standard.
This question focuses on the opinion in Rigtrup v. Strawberry Water Users Ass’n in the text. Assume (contrary to the opinion) that the jury returned a verdict that Rigtrup (the chicken farmer) and Strawberry Water Users (the electricity supplier) were each 50 percent negligent. Also assume that Rigtrup’s damages equaled $100,000. Which of the following is correct?
Rigtrup will receive nothing. Rigtrup will receive $50,000. Rigtrup will receive $100,000. Rigtrup’s recovery cannot be calculated from these facts.
a
The negligence of the plaintiff (called contributory negligence) does not bar recovery by the plaintiff “if such negligence was not as great as the negligence . . . of the person against whom recovery is sought.” (Quoted from the Rigtrup decision.) In the new facts, the negligence of the plaintiff was as great as that of the other party (50 percent/50 percent); thus, the plaintiff cannot recover.
This question focuses on the opinion in Rigtrup v. Strawberry Water Users Ass’n in the lesson, and the opinion in McCain v. Florida Power Corp. Is it likely that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor could have been used successfully in either or both of these cases?
yes, in both cases yes, in Rigtrup, but not McCain yes, in McCain, but not in Rigtrup not in either case
d
Res Ipsa Loquitor applies when the defendant has had exclusive control of the instrumentalities involved. In Rigtrup, the chicken farmer controlled the electricity once it arrived on site. In McCain, the plaintiff was in control of the trencher. Thus, in both cases, the exclusive control requirement was not met.
