Business Law Chapter 7
Showing posts with label Business Law Chapter 7. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Business Law Chapter 7. Show all posts

Conner was driving his truck when a board fell out of the truck bed and onto the road. Krista, who was driving behind Conner's truck, tried to avoid the board, swerved and struck a telephone pole, causing her severe injuries. Which of the following is correct?

Add Comment

Conner was driving his truck when a board fell out of the truck bed and onto the road. Krista, who was driving behind Conner's truck, tried to avoid the board, swerved and struck a telephone pole, causing her severe injuries. Which of the following is correct?



a. Conner is strictly liable to Krista for her injuries.
b. Conner was not negligent in allowing the board to fall out of his truck.
c. Conner is engaging in ultrahazardous activity.
d. In a comparative negligence state, the actions of Conner and Krista will be weighed to determine liability.







Answer: D

A contractor used dynamite to loosen a rocky hillside. The blast from the dynamite caused a house foundation to crack. The house was located over a half-mile away from the dynamite site. The contractor was careful when using the dynamite and no allegation of negligence is made. However, the house owner claims the contractor is liable for damage to the foundation. Which statement regarding this situation is correct?

Add Comment

A contractor used dynamite to loosen a rocky hillside. The blast from the dynamite caused a house foundation to crack. The house was located over a half-mile away from the dynamite site. The contractor was careful when using the dynamite and no allegation of negligence is made. However, the house owner claims the contractor is liable for damage to the foundation. Which statement regarding this situation is correct?



a. The contractor is not liable because the damage was unforeseeable.
b. The contractor is liable under the concept of strict liability.
c. The contractor is liable under the concept of contributory negligence.
d. The contractor is not liable because he was not trespassing.







Answer: B

Lita, a brain surgeon, committed a negligent act when she ran a red light and injured Joey, a pedestrian crossing the street. Joey was a mentally impaired adult. Which of the following is correct?

Add Comment

Lita, a brain surgeon, committed a negligent act when she ran a red light and injured Joey, a pedestrian crossing the street. Joey was a mentally impaired adult. Which of the following is correct?



a. The "reasonable person" standard does not apply to Lita since she is an extraordinary person.
b. The "reasonable person" standard does not apply to Joey since he is mentally impaired.
c. The "reasonable person" standard does not apply to Lita or Joey given their respective degrees of extreme intelligence (one high and one low).
d. Both Lita's and Joey's conduct will be based on the "reasonable person" standard.






Answer: D

Who is the "reasonable person" when referred to in negligence cases?

Add Comment

Who is the "reasonable person" when referred to in negligence cases?



a. The reasonable person is the plaintiff.
b. The reasonable person is the judge.
c. The reasonable person is used to establish the standard of conduct of an average person under the same circumstances.
d. The reasonable person is the defendant.






Answer: C

Raymond was waiting for a bus at a bus stop. Across the street and down the block, a mechanic negligently overinflated a tire he was intending to put onto Jan's pickup truck. The exploding tire injured Jan and frightened a neighborhood dog, which ran down the street and knocked Raymond down, injuring his knee. Raymond sued the mechanic. In applying the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. decision to this case, Raymond would:

Add Comment

Raymond was waiting for a bus at a bus stop. Across the street and down the block, a mechanic negligently overinflated a tire he was intending to put onto Jan's pickup truck. The exploding tire injured Jan and frightened a neighborhood dog, which ran down the street and knocked Raymond down, injuring his knee. Raymond sued the mechanic. In applying the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. decision to this case, Raymond would:



a. win because the mechanic was negligent in overinflating the tire, which led to Raymond's injury.
b. win because the court would apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
c. lose because, although the mechanic's conduct was negligent toward Jan, it was not a wrong in relation to Raymond, who was far away. The mechanic could not have foreseen injury to Raymond and therefore had no duty to him.
d. win based on negligence per se.








Answer: C

Punitive damages are awarded:

Add Comment

Punitive damages are awarded:



a. for past and future medical and economic expenses.
b. to punish the defendant.
c. for past and future pain and suffering.
d. for past and future job loss.








Answer: B

Brady, a six-year-old child, was seriously injured when he stuck a fork into an electrical outlet. His parents sued the restaurant where the incident occurred, claiming it should have had child protective guards on the outlets. Whether the restaurant is liable will be dependent upon whether:

Add Comment

Brady, a six-year-old child, was seriously injured when he stuck a fork into an electrical outlet. His parents sued the restaurant where the incident occurred, claiming it should have had child protective guards on the outlets. Whether the restaurant is liable will be dependent upon whether:






a. the incident was reasonably foreseeable.
b. this is negligence per se.
c. this is an ultrahazardous activity.
d. the parents exercised enough supervision of their child.








Answer: A

Darius worked in an office. He had no criminal record, had never had a complaint made against him about his work or his conduct, and had been a faithful employee for nearly 20 years. One day, Darius followed his supervisor to his home and fatally shot him. The estate of the supervisor sued the company, claiming it should have been aware of Darius' growing frustration with work. The company's best defense will be:

Add Comment

Darius worked in an office. He had no criminal record, had never had a complaint made against him about his work or his conduct, and had been a faithful employee for nearly 20 years. One day, Darius followed his supervisor to his home and fatally shot him. The estate of the supervisor sued the company, claiming it should have been aware of Darius' growing frustration with work. The company's best defense will be:



a. that there was no way to foresee that the incident would happen.
b. that the killing was the result of a personal conflict between Darius and the supervisor.
c. that even if the company had been aware of Darius' difficulty with his supervisor, Darius did not have any criminal history.
d. that the incident occurred away from the office.





Answer: A

Jessie climbed a fence and went ice skating on a neighbor's recently dug pond, but she fell through a thin area into icy waters. Jessie did not have permission to be on the property, and the neighbor did not even know that she was there. Is the neighbor liable for Jessie's injuries?

Add Comment

Jessie climbed a fence and went ice skating on a neighbor's recently dug pond, but she fell through a thin area into icy waters. Jessie did not have permission to be on the property, and the neighbor did not even know that she was there. Is the neighbor liable for Jessie's injuries?



a. Yes. The neighbor should have posted "thin ice" notices.
b. It may depend on Jessie's age.
c. Yes, the neighbor is strictly liable.
d. No. Jessie was a trespasser and the neighbor could only be held liable for intentionally injuring her or for gross misconduct.






Answer: B

Tony, a weak swimmer, ignored warning signs in a recreational swimming area and went into deep water. He soon tired and realized that he could not make it back to shore. Seeing Katrina, he cried out for help. Katrina, however, ignored the pleas. Tony was finally saved by someone else, but suffered partial brain damage by being submerged without oxygen for a number of minutes. Tony now sues Katrina for negligence for failing to save him. Tony will:

Add Comment

Tony, a weak swimmer, ignored warning signs in a recreational swimming area and went into deep water. He soon tired and realized that he could not make it back to shore. Seeing Katrina, he cried out for help. Katrina, however, ignored the pleas. Tony was finally saved by someone else, but suffered partial brain damage by being submerged without oxygen for a number of minutes. Tony now sues Katrina for negligence for failing to save him. Tony will:



a. prevail because society places a duty on people to help each other and Katrina breached this duty, resulting in Tony's suffering injury.
b. lose even though Katrina had a legal duty to save him, since Tony will not be able to prove that Katrina's failure to act was the proximate cause of his injuries.
c. lose because a reasonable person could not have foreseen that someone in a recreation area could not swim well.
d. lose because Katrina had no legal duty to rescue him.






Answer: D

One morning, Travis placed a thumbtack on the chair of the office manager where he worked. He had no quarrel with the office manager, but thought this would be funny. Two days after sitting on the tack, the office manager was hospitalized with an infection caused by the tack. Which of the following is correct?

Add Comment

One morning, Travis placed a thumbtack on the chair of the office manager where he worked. He had no quarrel with the office manager, but thought this would be funny. Two days after sitting on the tack, the office manager was hospitalized with an infection caused by the tack. Which of the following is correct?



a. Travis actions were negligent.
b. Travis committed an intentional tort.
c. Travis is strictly liable.
d. No tort has been committed.





Answer: B
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)