Chapter 6 Negligence and Strict Liability 65

Practice Test

True/False Questions

Circle true or false:

1. T F There are five elements in a negligence case, and a plaintiff wins who proves at least three of them.

3. T F Some states are comparative negligence states but the majority are contributory negligence states.

5. T F A defendant can be liable for negligence even if he never intended to cause harm.

Multiple-Choice Questions

7. In which case is a plaintiff most likely to sue based on strict liability?

(a) Defamation.

(b) Injury caused on the job.

(c) Injury caused by a tiger that escapes from a zoo.

(d) Injury caused by defendant’s careless driving.

(e) Injury caused partially by plaintiff and partially by defendant.

9. Dolly, an architect, lives in Pennsylvania, which is a comparative negligence state. While she is inspecting a construction site for a large building she designed, she is injured when a worker drops a hammer from two stories up. Dolly was not wearing a safety helmet at the time. Dolly sues the construction company. The jury concludes that Dolly has suffered $100,000 in damages. The jury also believes that Dolly was 30% liable for the accident, and the construction company was 70% liable. Outcome?

(a) Dolly wins nothing.

(b) Dolly wins $30,000.

(c) Dolly wins $50,000.

(d) Dolly wins $70,000.

(e) Dolly wins $100,000.

Short-Answer Questions

11. Harris was a trespasser and as a result the railroad had no duty of due care to him. The railroad would be liable only if it caused Harris's death by reckless or intentional conduct. There was no evidence of either. The widow was not permitted to introduce evidence of negligence, because even if the railroad had been negligent, it would be not be liable. Harris v. Mass. Bay Transit Authority (D. Mass. 1994), Mass. Lawyer's Weekly, Feb. 7, 1994, p.15.

13. The AIDS phobia claims were dismissed. They were judged to be too speculative, without a showing that there was any real basis for the fear. Hare v. State, 143 Misc. 2d 281, 539 N.Y.S.2d 1018 (Ct. Claims 1989), aff'd, 173 A.D.2d 523 (2d Dep't 1991), app. den. 78 N.Y.2d 859 (1991).

15. Whether there is a duty is a question of law for the trial court. But the court must consider the relevant factors. Those factors are the risk involved, the foreseeability of injury, the social utility of the defendant's conduct, and the burden of guarding against the harm. The ethics of the decision made by FastFood is questionable to say the least. The values involved include employee/employer relationship; extent to which a 16 year old employee should be required to work long shifts despite the needs the business owner may have, and the social policy and legal requirements concerning juveniles working to name a few. Student responses will vary, but they should in all cases cover a number of the issues to earn full credit for response.