Torts II Flashcards
Final
The town of Coopersville wants to build a little league baseball field and has two possible locations in mind. One location would be very secluded but would require some expensive tree cutting and excavation. The other location would be far less expensive but would be adjacent to a moderately busy road. If this second location were chosen, the town could position the field such that a batted baseball would have to travel 500 feet on the fly in order to present a danger to traffic, which is farther than most professional players can hit a baseball.
Louis, the town manager, consults Marsha, a lawyer, for advice. Louis asks Marsha whether the town is required to choose the more expensive, secluded location, since doing so would eliminate any risk of a ball landing in the road. Which of the following answers to Louis’s question would be legally accurate?
A. The town may choose the busier location if it positions the field and takes other precautions that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that baseball games conducted at that location would not be unsafe for drivers on the adjacent road; but the town assumes the risk of, and will be liable for, any injuries resulting from a ball landing in the road.
B. The town is required to choose the more secluded location, because the cost of eliminating a known risk of injury is not relevant to the determination of whether an actor has a duty to do so.
C. The town is required to choose the more secluded location as long as there is a risk, no matter how small, that a batted baseball at the busier location could travel 500 feet and land in the road.
D. The town may choose the busier location if it positions the field and takes other precautions that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that baseball games conducted at that location would not pose an unreasonable risk for drivers on the adjacent road.
D. The town may choose the busier location if it positions the field and takes other precautions that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that baseball games conducted at that location would not pose an unreasonable risk for drivers on the adjacent road.
There are numerous examples of duties of care. Which one of the following is NOT a situation where the courts have established that a duty of care exists?
A. Motorists owe a duty of care to nearby pedestrians.
B. Manufacturers of products owe a duty of care to the ultimate users of those products.
C. An auditor of a company’s accounts owes a duty to care to anyone who might read his report based on those accounts.
D. Employers owe a duty of care to their employees to take reasonable care for their safety.
C. An auditor of a company’s accounts owes a duty to care to anyone who might read his report based on those accounts.
In order to succeed in an action for negligence it is necessary for a claimant to establish whether:
A. The defendant was careless and as a result caused damage to the claimant.
B. The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, breached that duty of care and the claimant suffered a loss.
C. The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, breached that duty of care, was the proximate and actual causes for the injury, and the damages were reasonably foreseeable by the breach of the duty.
D. The defendant caused reasonably foreseeable damage to the claimant. It is up to the defendant to prove that he did not owe the claimant a duty of case and he did not breach that duty.
C. The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, breached that duty of care, was the proximate and actual causes for the injury, and the damages were reasonably foreseeable by the breach of the duty.
Jenny, age thirteen, was driving an all-terrain vehicle with Rashad riding on the back. An inexperienced rider, she went too fast over a large bump in the trail and threw Rashad off, injuring him. Rashad’s lawyer, Darrow, knows that courts have used different formulations of the standard of care for children. Which of the standards of care below would be both legally supportable and most favorable to Rashad’s case?
A. The adult standard of care because Jenny was engaging in an inherently dangerous activity.
B. A standard that compares Jenny’s conduct to that of a child of thirteen years of age.
C. A standard that compares Jenny’s conduct to that of a child of like age, experience, maturity and intelligence.
D. The adult standard of care, because Jenny was engaging in an activity generally engaged in only by adults.
A. The adult standard of care because Jenny was engaging in an inherently dangerous activity.
Maria is walking down the sidewalk, texting on her phone and not paying attention to her surroundings. Meanwhile, John, a delivery truck driver, is approaching in his vehicle. John is exceeding the speed limit in the residential area. At a certain point, Maria suddenly steps into the street without looking and is hit by John’s truck.
Which of the following statements accurately assesses the comparative fault in this situation?
A. John is solely at fault because he was speeding in a residential area, creating an unsafe condition.
B. Both Maria and John share some degree of fault for the accident.
C. Maria is solely at fault because she was not paying attention while walking and texting.
D. Neither Maria nor John is at fault; accidents happen randomly.
B. Both Maria and John share some degree of fault for the accident.
Mark owns a bakery located in a busy commercial area. One day, he notices a leak from his bakery’s roof that is dripping onto the public sidewalk. Despite being aware of the leak, Mark does not take any immediate action to fix it. Jane, a passerby, slips on the wet sidewalk and sustains injuries. Which of the following statements accurately assesses the duty of care in this situation?
A. Mark is automatically liable for any injuries that occur on the sidewalk adjacent to his bakery, regardless of his knowledge of the leak.
B. Mark is not liable because he may not have known that the leak could cause harm.
C. Mark may be liable if it is determined that he failed to take reasonable steps to address the leak and prevent harm to pedestrians.
D. Mark is not liable because he did not intentionally cause the leak.
C. Mark may be liable if it is determined that he failed to take reasonable steps to address the leak and prevent harm to pedestrians.
In a state where there is a statute requiring all drivers to have functioning brake lights, a driver is involved in a rear-end collision at a busy intersection during rush hour. It is discovered that the driver’s brake lights were not working at the time of the accident. The driver admits to being aware of the malfunction but had not yet gotten around to fixing it. In this situation, the driver:
A. Can only be found negligent if the statute explicitly mentions liability for accidents due to brake light malfunctions.
B. Is not liable for negligence because brake light malfunctions are common and unforeseeable.
C. Cannot be found negligent because there is no evidence of intent to harm.
D. May be found negligent per se for violating the statute requiring functioning brake lights.
D. May be found negligent per se for violating the statute requiring functioning brake lights.
While riding a bicycle in a public park, the defendant cyclist strikes the plaintiff, who suddenly stops to tie their shoe without warning. The park is known to be frequented by both pedestrians and cyclists, with clearly marked paths for each. There are also signs throughout the park indicating that cyclists should yield to pedestrians and use caution. In this scenario, did the defendant cyclist owe a duty of care to the plaintiff?
A. No, because the plaintiff suddenly stopped without warning.
B. Yes, because the park is known to be frequented by pedestrians.
C. No, because the park is a public space.
D. Yes, because the park has clearly marked paths and signs indicating that cyclists should yield to pedestrians.
D. Yes, because the park has clearly marked paths and signs indicating that cyclists should yield to pedestrians.
A friend is invited into another friend’s house for a gathering. While in the kitchen, the friend steps on a broken tile and injures their foot. The homeowner was aware of the broken tile but did not warn the friend about it. In this scenario, did the homeowner owe a duty to the friend who entered the house to make them aware of the danger in the home?
A. No, because the friend should have been aware of the broken tile.
B. Yes, because the homeowner had a duty to make the friend aware of the danger in the home.
C. Yes, but only if the friend specifically asked about potential hazards in the house.
D. No, because the homeowner’s duty of care only applies to paying guests, not friends.
B. Yes, because the homeowner had a duty to make the friend aware of the danger in the home.
In a state where the speed limit is 55 mph, a driver is involved in a single-vehicle accident on a highway where the driver was driving at 80 mph. The driver loses control of the vehicle and crashes. Under negligence per se, the driver:
A. Is not negligent because the driver did not intend to cause the accident.
B. Is only negligent if the accident involved another vehicle.
C. Is not negligent because accidents can happen even when driving within the speed limit.
D. Is negligent for violating the state’s speed limit law.
D. Is negligent for violating the state’s speed limit law.
An employer had an explicit rule that employees could use company vehicles only during the workday, not to commute to and from work. A company employee nonetheless drove a company vehicle home at the end of the workday. The next morning, the employee negligently struck a pedestrian while driving the company vehicle back to work. The pedestrian sued both the employee and employer.
Is the court likely to hold the employer vicariously liable for the accident?
A. No, because the employee was outside the scope of employment at the time of the accident.
B. Yes, because the employee was commuting to work.
C. Yes, because the employee was driving a company vehicle.
D. No, because the employer had an explicit rule that employees could not use company vehicles to commute to and from work.
A. No, because the employee was outside the scope of employment at the time of the accident.
A company hired an analyst using a job description that clearly stated the position was for an independent contractor, not an employee. The company selected and provided all materials used in the analyst’s work, as well as a handbook and rigorous training on the specific methods and procedures the analyst should use. The analyst worked full-time in the company’s corporate office. The company closely supervised the analyst and did not allow the analyst to deviate from the company’s policies and procedures. The analyst understood that the position was as an independent contractor and invoiced the company monthly based on an hourly rate, instead of receiving a salary.
Is the analyst an employee of the company for purposes of respondeat superior?
A. Yes, because the analyst works at the corporate office.
B. No, because the job description clearly stated that the position was for an independent contractor, not an employee.
C. Yes, because the company controls the manner of the analyst’s performance.
D. No, because the parties both understood the analyst was hired as an independent contractor.
C. Yes, because the company controls the manner of the analyst’s performance.
A florist’s employee and a city crossing guard were both found negligent after the employee got into a car accident with another motorist while the employee was out delivering an order. In this several liability jurisdiction, the proportionate liability attributed to each defendant was 35 percent to the crossing guard and 65 percent to the florist’s employee. The total award was $5,500.
If the florist is vicariously liable for his employee’s tort, what is the maximum amount that the plaintiff can recover from the florist?
A. $3,575 (65 percent of the total damages).
B. $1,925 (35 percent of the total damages).
C. Nothing.
D. $5,500 (the full amount of damages).
A. $3,575 (65 percent of the total damages).
Clarence is a doctor, specializing in endocrinology. One day, a patient comes in to Clarence’s office complaining of vague and mild symptoms. Assume that Clarence (along with 95% of doctors and 49% of endocrinologists) does not know that these symptoms indicate a serious endocrine problem that requires immediate treatment. Clarence does not prescribe that immediate treatment, the patient suffers as a result, and Clarence gets sued. Which of the following statements about Clarence’s liability is most accurate?
A. Clarence is held to the standard of the ordinary endocrinologist.
B. Clarence is held to the standard of the average endocrinologist.
C. Clarence is held to the standard of care of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances.
D. Clarence is held to the standard of the ordinary doctor.
A. Clarence is held to the standard of the ordinary endocrinologist.
A doctor who was an aspiring race car driver was speeding down Interstate 49. He bobbed in an out of the lanes, barely missing cares. Coming upon a sharp curve, he “flattened” out the turn, crossing into the inner lane. This technique was taught to him at the Jeff Gordon Driving Experience. Alas, the doctor was still going too fast for the curve and flipped his car, slamming into the unfortunate Griswold Family. This accident totaled their car and postponed their visit to Wally World.
When the Griswold’s sue the doctor, what will the standard of care be?
A. The standard of a reasonable person in similar circumstances.
B. A lower standard of care because “flattening” the curve was in response to an emergency.
C. The standard of an ordinary race car driver, exercising that level of skill & knowledge common to the profession.
D. The standard of an ordinary doctor exercising that level of skill & knowledge common to the profession.
A. The standard of a reasonable person in similar circumstances.
