1

Interactive Quiz for ALT-12e, Chapter 7

Chapter 7 – Negligence and Strict Liability

1.Luisa, in a hurry to get to her business law class on time, backs out of her driveway without taking the usual care and accidentally runs into Tony’s 2009 Toyota Camry, causing $3,500 worth of damage to Tony’s car. Luisa has committed which tort?

  1. Invasion of privacy.
  2. Negligence.
  3. Conversion.
  4. Slander.

Answers:

  1. Incorrect. Luisa may have violated Tony’s space, but she hasn’t committed an invasion of privacy.
  2. Correct. By damaging Tony’s personal property through her careless action, Luisa has committed the tort of negligence.
  3. Incorrect. Luisa hasn’t taken or wrongfully retained possession of the Camry, so she hasn’t committed the tort of conversion.
  4. Incorrect. Luisa hasn’t said something to harm Tony’s reputation, so she hasn’t committed slander.

2.If your actions harm someone else but you never intended to cause that harm, you may be liable for the tort of:

  1. conversion.
  2. nuisance.
  3. negligence.
  4. infliction of emotional distress.

Answers:

  1. Incorrect. Conversion involves the wrongful appropriation and retention of another’s personal property.
  2. Incorrect. Nuisance involves using one’s land in a manner that interferes with another’s use and enjoyment of his or her own land.
  3. Correct. As long as you owed a duty of reasonable care to the person you harmed and that person suffered a legally recognizable injury, you may be liable for negligence.
  4. Incorrect. To prove this tort you must have intended harm.

3.The duty of care requires you to:

  1. help all strangers you run across.
  2. help only those strangers who are suffering from some injury.
  3. help only those strangers who are experiencing an emergency.
  4. act as a reasonable person would act in the same circumstances.

Answers:

  1. Incorrect. Such a standard would impose a tremendous burden on people.
  2. Incorrect. There is no legal duty (in the vast majority of states) to be a “good Samaritan.”
  3. Incorrect. You have no legal duty to help people in emergencies, though you may have a moral duty to do so.
  4. Correct. As a member of civil society, this level of care is legally required of you.

4.The landmark case that established the “foreseeability” test for proximate cause was:

  1. Wickard v. Filburn.
  2. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
  3. Mathis v. Liu.
  4. Martin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Answers:

  1. Incorrect. This case involved the commerce clause.
  2. Correct. This famous decision established that legal rule that a harm must be foreseeable in order for it be considered the proximate cause of an injury.
  3. Incorrect. This case involved a wrongful interference with a contractual relationship.
  4. Incorrect. This case involved a store’s liability to a customer.

5.Which of the following is a defense to a negligence claim?

  1. Self-defense.
  2. Defense of property.
  3. Assumption of risk.
  4. Truth.

Answers:

  1. Incorrect. In tort law, self-defense is a defense to assault and battery.
  2. Incorrect. In tort law, defense of property is a defense to assault and battery or to trespass.
  3. Correct. If you knowingly assume the risk of engaging in a certain action, you may not sue for negligence if you are hurt while engaging in the risky behavior.
  4. Incorrect. Truth is a defense to defamation.

6.In a state that has adopted the comparative negligence doctrine with a “50 percent rule,” a jury finds that Bill is 35 percent liable for his own injuries in a negligence suit Bill brings against Tina. In this situation, Bill will recover:

  1. nothing at all from Tina.
  2. 50 percent of the damages he seeks from Tina.
  3. 65 percent of the damages he seeks from Tina.
  4. 100 percent of the damages he seeks from Tina.

Answers:

  1. Incorrect. Because Bill was less than 50 percent liable for his harms, he will recover in proportion to his own negligence.
  2. Incorrect. In this case, Bill will recover 65 percent, not 50 percent, of the damages he seeks.
  3. Correct. Bill will recover 100 percent minus 35 percent (his share of the negligence), or 65 percent of the damages he seeks from Tina.
  4. Incorrect. Because Bill was partly responsible for his injuries, Tina is not fully liable for the damages he suffers.

7.Res ipsa loquitur means:

  1. you’re on your own.
  2. buyer beware.
  3. ignorance is no excuse.
  4. the facts speak for themselves.

Answers:

  1. Incorrect. The phrase does not mean “you’re on your own.”
  2. Incorrect. Caveat emptor is Latin for “buyer beware.”
  3. Incorrect. The phrase does not mean “ignorance is no excuse.”
  4. Correct. Res ipsa loquitur means “the facts speak for themselves.”

8.Under the tort doctrine of strict liability, liability is:

  1. based on fault.
  2. based on negligence.
  3. not based on fault.
  4. imposed only for intended wrongful acts.

Answers:

  1. Incorrect. Strict liability is not concerned with fault.
  2. Incorrect. Strict liability is not concerned with negligence.
  3. Correct. Under the doctrine of strict liability, liability is imposed for public policy reasons, not because of fault.
  4. Incorrect. Strict liability is not concerned with intent.

9.The modern concept of strict liability traces its origins, in part, to what famous English case?

  1. Ramona v. Rex.
  2. Rylands v. Fletcher.
  3. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
  4. Yorkshire Pudding Co. v. Thompkins.

Answers:

  1. Incorrect. The doctrine of strict liability did not originate with this case.
  2. Correct. The modern concept of strict liability traces its origins, in part, to this case, which involved the flooding of an abandoned mine.
  3. Incorrect. This is an American case about proximate cause.
  4. Incorrect. This case is not the basis of the modern doctrine of strict liability.

10.Which of the following IS NOT a characteristic of abnormally dangerous activities?

  1. The activity is not commonly performed in the area or community.
  2. The activity involves a high degree of risk that cannot completely be guarded against by the exercise of reasonable care.
  3. The activity is one that involves a low degree of risk but that may be extremely dangerous if not performed with reasonable care.
  4. The activity involves potential serious harm to people or property.

Answers:

  1. Incorrect. This is a characteristic of abnormally dangerous activities.
  2. Incorrect. This is also a characteristic of abnormally dangerous activities.
  3. Correct. An abnormally dangerous activity involves a high degree of risk that cannot completely be guarded against by the exercise of reasonable care.
  4. Incorrect. This is a characteristic of abnormally dangerous activities.