Quiz: Chapter 9 Flashcards
Question 1: When might it be permissible to use the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?
When the substantial factor test applies.
When the cause of the victim’s injury is unknown.
When the but-for test applies.
When the defendant caused the victim’s injury.
When the cause of the victim’s injury is unknown.
Question 2: How does the “substantial factor” test seek to prove causation?
By identifying who contributed substantially to the victim’s injury.
By identifying what contributed substantially to the victim’s injury.
By identifying who contributed materially to the victim’s injury.
By identifying what contributed materially to the victim’s injury.
By identifying what contributed materially to the victim’s injury.
Question 3: Did a defendant, who increased the risk of the victim’s injury, cause that injury?
The fact-finder must not draw that inference.
The fact-finder may draw that inference.
The fact-finder may draw that inference, but only in cases of personal injury.
The fact-finder must draw that inference.
The fact-finder may draw that inference.
Question 4: How does the “but-for” test seek to prove causation?
By identifying what contributed materially to the victim’s injury.
By attempting to establish what would have happened in different circumstances.
By using the NESS test.
By identifying who contributed materially to the victim’s injury.
By attempting to establish what would have happened in different circumstances.
Question 5: What is the difference between general and specific causation?
Specific causation involves the but-for test, whereas general causation involves the substantial factor test.
Specific causation is concerned with whether something is capable of causing the harm in question, whereas general causation is about whether it did in the instant case.
General causation involves the but-for test, whereas specific causation involves the substantial factor test.
General causation is concerned with whether something is capable of causing the harm in question, whereas specific causation is about whether it did in the instant case.
General causation is concerned with whether something is capable of causing the harm in question, whereas specific causation is about whether it did in the instant case.
Question 6: In what circumstances does use of the “but-for test” lead to inaccurate conclusions?
When there are consecutive causes.
When vicarious liability is a factor.
When there are concurrent causes.
When there are multiple causes.
When there are concurrent causes.
Question 7: Who decides questions relating to causation in fact?
The trial judge.
The jury decides questions of both general and specific causation.
The trial judge decides questions of general causation, whereas the jury decides questions of specific causation.
Experts decide questions of general causation, whereas the jury decides questions of specific causation.
The trial judge decides questions of general causation, whereas the jury decides questions of specific causation.
Question 8: Fred had never been on a train before. The station where he had to board the train had a track-level crossing and, after asking someone which platform to use, he began to cross the tracks. Then he heard someone cry out and, thinking someone was calling to him, turned round to see who it was. He was unable to identify whom it might have been but continued to stand on one of the tracks while he looked at those on the platform. Then some of the crowd started waiving and shouting at him, and he waived and shouted back. Then Fred was hit by a train, and bits of his body flew in all directions. His head hit Amy. Other people standing on the platform saw what happened to Amy and suffered emotional distress. One of those people on the platform (Gail) later found blood on her clothing. After analysis, the blood type is found to match Fred’s but not her own. She is now suffering emotional distress. Was Gail’s emotional distress caused by Fred’s behavior?
We do not have sufficient evidence to say, but the law will assume that Gail can prove causation in order to permit her to claim compensation.
We can infer that Gail’s injury was caused by Fred’s conduct.
We do not have sufficient evidence to say, so Gail cannot prove causation.
We must infer that Gail’s injury was caused by Fred’s conduct.
We can infer that Gail’s injury was caused by Fred’s conduct.
Question 9: When must a fact-finder draw an inference?
When the plaintiff pleads res ipsa loquitur.
Never.
When there is evidence on which to base the inference.
When the substantial factor test is being used to establish causation.
When there is evidence on which to base the inference.
Question 11: The “necessary element of a sufficient set” (NESS) test is concerned with:
Identifying one of a number of factors which, acting together, would have been enough to cause the victim’s injury.
Identifying the sole cause of the victim’s injury.
Identifying one of a number of factors which, acting together, caused the victim’s injury.
Identifying one of a number of independent causes of the victim’s injury.
Identifying one of a number of factors which, acting together, would have been enough to cause the victim’s injury.
Question 12: Mr. Smith was in financial difficulties, but did not wish his wife to know. He sought to obtain a new, larger mortgage on the house that they owned together, and forged his wife’s signature on the relevant documents. He had those documents notarized by a friend, who knew both Smiths but who did not bother to check Mrs. Smith’s forged signature. Mr. Smith has since died, and Mrs. Smith now finds herself faced with much bigger mortgage payments than she expected — payments she cannot hope to meet without her husband’s income to augment her own. Did the notary cause harm to Mrs. Smith?
Yes, because the notary was the but-for cause of Mrs. Smith’s loss.
No, because the person who caused harm to Mrs. Smith was her husband.
Yes, because the notary’s actions were one of the causes of Mrs. Smith’s loss.
No, because those who caused harm to Mrs. Smith were a combination of her husband and the mortgage lender.
Yes, because the notary’s actions were one of the causes of Mrs. Smith’s loss.
Question 10: When might a fact-finder draw an inference?
When the plaintiff pleads res ipsa loquitur.
When the defendant increased the risk of the victim’s injury.
When there is evidence on which to base the inference.
When the substantial factor test is being used to establish causation.
When there is evidence on which to base the inference.
Question 13: In a doctrine that does not recognize joint and several liability (other than in cases of vicarious liability), how are the damages to be divided among multiple defendants when the victim suffered an indivisible injury and vicarious liability is not a factor?
The total damages are divided according to proportion of harm caused.
Every defendant is liable for 100% of the damages.
The total damages are divided equally among the defendants.
The total damages are divided according to proportion of fault.
The total damages are divided according to proportion of fault.
Question 14: In a doctrine that recognizes joint and several liability, how are the damages to be divided among multiple defendants when the victim suffered an indivisible injury?
The total damages are divided according to proportion of fault.
The total damages are divided equally among the defendants.
The total damages are divided according to proportion of harm caused.
Every defendant is liable for 100% of the damages.
Every defendant is liable for 100% of the damages.
Question 15: What is the purpose of the doctrine of causation in fact?
To establish who was a cause of the victim’s injury.
To establish what was the cause of the victim’s injury.
To establish who was the cause of the victim’s injury.
To establish what was a cause of the victim’s injury.
To establish who was a cause of the victim’s injury.
