Torts Flashcards
In Virginia, a contract provision that purports to release a defendant from liability for personal injury caused by the defendant’s future negligence is […].
[prohibited]
However, contract provisions releasing a defendant from liability for property damage caused by the defendant’s future negligence are enforceable.
While a member of a […] corporation is generally not entitled to a distribution, a member generally enjoys the same rights as a shareholder of a stock corporation, such as the right to […], and is subject to the same restrictions.
[nonstock]
[inspect the corporation’s books and records]
In general, a duty of care is owed to …
However, a landowner generally does not owe a duty to …
With respect to an artificial condition, the landowner generally …
With respect to an activity conducted on the premises by the owner or by someone subject to the owner’s control, the landowner generally …
… all foreseeable persons who may foreseeably be injured by the defendant’s failure to act as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence under the circumstances.
… a person not on the premises, such as a passerby, who is harmed by a natural condition on the landowner’s premises.
… owes a duty to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to persons who are not on the premises.
… owes a duty of reasonable care to persons who are not on the premises.
An action will be the proximate cause of an injury if …
An unforeseeable intervening cause is …
… the injury is the natural and probable consequence of the act, and was foreseeable.
… a superseding cause that breaks the chain of causation between the plaintiff and the defendant so that the intervening cause alone produced the injury, without the defendant’s contributory negligence.
Generally, there is no affirmative duty to act. However, a person who ___ another has a duty to ___.
Virginia’s Good Samaritan law protects …
… voluntarily aids or rescues … act with reasonable care in the performance of that aid or rescue.
… people rendering emergency care, in good faith, without compensation, even if they are negligent in rendering that care.
Contributory fault occurs when …
Under traditional rules, the plaintiff’s contributory negligence is a …
… a plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable care for her own safety and thereby contributes to her own injury.
… complete bar to recovery if the plaintiff’s negligence was a substantial cause of her injury.
An employer can be held liable for ___ an employee that harms the plaintiff within ___.
Conduct within the scope of employment includes …
An employer can also be liable under the ___ for a tort committed by an employee within the scope of their employment. However, an employer is not usually liable for the … unless …
A person is an employer if …
A person is an independent contractor if …
… negligent hiring or retaining … the employee’s scope of employment.
… acts that the employee is employed to perform or that are intended to benefit the employer.
… respondeat superior … intentional torts committed by an employee.
… the person has the right to control the means and methods by which another performs a task or achieves a result … force is inherent in the employee’s work.
… if they are engaged to accomplish a task or achieve a result but are not subject to another’s right to control the method and means by which the task is performed, or the result reached.
The duty of care owed to a plaintiff for dangerous conditions on the defendant’s premises depends on …
An invitee is a person who enters onto the land in response to either for a ___ or ___.
A possessor owes a duty of ___ to an invitee to (1) and (2).
Generally, the plaintiff must show the owner’s …
However, a possessor does not have a duty to warn or protect an invitee from …
… the plaintiff’s status as an entrant.
… an invitation by the owner of the premises … business purpose … as a member of the public.
… reasonable care … (1) to have the premises in a reasonably safe condition for the invitee’s use consistent with the invitation … (2) to warn invitees of any unsafe conditions that were known or should have been known to the owner.
… actual or constructive knowledge of a defective condition on the premises.
…open and obvious dangers.
Apart from ___, Virginia generally does not recognize a cause of action based on strict liability.
… abnormally dangerous activities …
Virginia ___ adopted dram shop laws that impose vicarious liability on the seller of intoxicating beverages.
… has not …
The violation of a statute establishes …
… negligence as a matter of law or negligence per se.
To establish negligence per se, a plaintiff must prove (1), (2), and (3).
(1) the defendant violated a statute that was enacted for public safety
(2) the defendant belongs to the class of persons for whose benefit the statute was enacted, and
(3) the statutory violation was a proximate cause of his injury.
Virginia law rejects the family purpose doctrine. Thus, …
However, Virginia permits claims for direct liability against parents based on ___. The plaintiff must prove …
… the owner of an automobile is not vicariously liable for a family member’s negligent operation of an automobile solely by virtue of the family relationship.
… negligent entrustment of a vehicle to a child … the parent owner knew or had reason to know, she was entrusting her vehicle to an unfit driver by giving express or implied permission, likely to cause injury to others.
A child between the ages of 7 and 14 is presumed ….
A defendant can rebut this presumption by …
To show a child plaintiff’s conduct amounted to contributory negligence, the evidence must show …
… not to have the capacity to understand and appreciate the perils and dangers of his acts and is legally incapable of committing acts of negligence.
… showing that the plaintiff child did have the capacity to understand the peril and dangers.
… that the plaintiff’s conduct did not conform to the standard of what a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and experience would do under the circumstances.
Virginia is a ___ negligence jurisdiction.
This means that …
… pure contributory … a plaintiff is not entitled to recover from another for an injury proximately caused by any negligence committed by the plaintiff.
