Chapter 6Practice Exam

Matching Questions

Match the following terms with their definitions:

(3)A.Breach.

(5)B.Strict liability.

(1)C.Compensatory damages.

1.Money awarded to an injured plaintiff.

3.A defendant’s failure to perform a legal duty.

5.Legal responsibility that comes from performing ultrahazardous acts.

True/False Questions

Circle true or false:

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

3.TFSome states are comparative negligence states but the majority are contributory negligence states.

5.TFA 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 partially by plaintiff and partially by defendant.

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

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 percent liable for the accident, and the construction company was 70 percent 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.At approximately 7:50 p.m. bells at the train station rang and red lights flashed, signaling an express train’s approach. David Harris walked onto the tracks, ignoring a yellow line painted on the platform instructing people to stand back. Two men shouted to Harris, warning him to get off the tracks. The train’s engineer saw him too late to stop the train, which was traveling at approximately 99 mph. The train struck and killed Harris as it passed through the station. Harris’s widow sued the railroad, arguing that the railroad’s negligence caused her husband’s death. Evaluate her argument.

Answer: 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.A prison inmate bit a hospital employee. The employee sued the state for negligence and lack of supervision, claiming a fear of AIDS. The plaintiff had tested negative for the AIDS virus three times, and there was no proof that the inmate had the virus. Comment on the probable outcome.

Answer: 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.ROLE REVERSAL: Create a short-answer question that focuses on either factual cause, foreseeable type of harm, or res ipsa loquitur.