BLAW 3310 FINAL EXAM MILLER
CERTIFICATION EVALUATION SET 2026
ANSWERS GUARANTEED PASS
⫸ Negligence Pg 147 Answer: The failure to do something that a
reasonable person, guided by the ordinary considerations that regulate
human affairs, would do or the doing of something that a reasonable
person would not do
⫸ "Reasonable person" standard of care Answer: Represents how
persons in the relevant community ought to behave; a theoretical
concept It describes a hypothetical person who acts in a reasonable
manner under the circumstances. Perfection is not required but errors in
judgment must be reasonable or excusable under circumstances, or
negligence will be found
⫸ Professional standard e.g. breach called malpractice Answer: Medical
malpractice; The patient expects the doctor and his subordinates to
adhere to standards that would prevent undue harm and distress to
patients under his or her care
⫸ Causation in fact Answer: An act or omission without which an event
would not have occurred. Courts express this in the form of a rule
commonly referred to as the "but for" rule: the injury to a person would
not have happened but for the conduct of the wrongdoer
,⫸ Proximate cause Answer: In tort law, the action of the defendant that
produces the plaintiffs injuries, without which the injury/damage in
question would not have existed
⫸ Premises liability e.g. invitee Answer: An intentional tort, or a tort
based on negligence, when the owner or party with responsibility for
maintaining certain properly fails to provide adequate safely for vistors
to the properly against criminal attacks or accidents
⫸ Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railway Pg 145 Answer:
_____________________ was hit pretty bad on the head after a railroad
worker helped get a man onboard a train, but dropped a package full of
fireworks. The fireworks exploded caused some scales on the platform,
where she was standing, to fall, thus hitting her.
There was no negligence on the part of the railroad, and no proximate
cause in the entire situation. Long Island Railroad Company won the
case.
Case dealt with proximate cause.
⫸ Defenses to negligence Answer: The defense would be when the
plaintiff had knowledge of the danger, voluntarily exposed himself to the
danger, and was injured.
⫸ Assumption of Risk Answer: States a plaintiff may not recover for
the injuries or damages that result from an activity in which the plaintiff
willingly participated.
, ⫸ Exculpatory clause Answer: A part of a contract that releases one of
the parties from liability for their wrongdoings; not favored at laws
⫸ Comparative negligence Answer: A defense to negligence whereby
the plaintiffs damages are reduced by the proportion his fault bears to
the total injury he has suffered
⫸ 51% Rule for contributory negligence Answer: The plaintiff must
contribute at least 51% of the negligence for no recovery to be allowed.
⫸ Intentional torts Answer: Competition among various brands of a
particular product. Interference with business relationship a tort in which
a defendant commits an intentional and unjustified interference with a
plaintiffs valid business dealings that inflicts monetary damage
⫸ What is intent? Answer: First, the person knew what he was doing.
Second, the person knew, or should have known, the possible
consequences of his act. Third, knowing that certain results are likely to
occur.
⫸ Assault Answer: Any word or action intended to cause another to be
in fear of immediate physical harm
⫸ Battery Answer: The intentional unallowed touching of another. The
"touching" may involve a mere touch that is offensive or an act of
violence that causes serious injury
CERTIFICATION EVALUATION SET 2026
ANSWERS GUARANTEED PASS
⫸ Negligence Pg 147 Answer: The failure to do something that a
reasonable person, guided by the ordinary considerations that regulate
human affairs, would do or the doing of something that a reasonable
person would not do
⫸ "Reasonable person" standard of care Answer: Represents how
persons in the relevant community ought to behave; a theoretical
concept It describes a hypothetical person who acts in a reasonable
manner under the circumstances. Perfection is not required but errors in
judgment must be reasonable or excusable under circumstances, or
negligence will be found
⫸ Professional standard e.g. breach called malpractice Answer: Medical
malpractice; The patient expects the doctor and his subordinates to
adhere to standards that would prevent undue harm and distress to
patients under his or her care
⫸ Causation in fact Answer: An act or omission without which an event
would not have occurred. Courts express this in the form of a rule
commonly referred to as the "but for" rule: the injury to a person would
not have happened but for the conduct of the wrongdoer
,⫸ Proximate cause Answer: In tort law, the action of the defendant that
produces the plaintiffs injuries, without which the injury/damage in
question would not have existed
⫸ Premises liability e.g. invitee Answer: An intentional tort, or a tort
based on negligence, when the owner or party with responsibility for
maintaining certain properly fails to provide adequate safely for vistors
to the properly against criminal attacks or accidents
⫸ Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railway Pg 145 Answer:
_____________________ was hit pretty bad on the head after a railroad
worker helped get a man onboard a train, but dropped a package full of
fireworks. The fireworks exploded caused some scales on the platform,
where she was standing, to fall, thus hitting her.
There was no negligence on the part of the railroad, and no proximate
cause in the entire situation. Long Island Railroad Company won the
case.
Case dealt with proximate cause.
⫸ Defenses to negligence Answer: The defense would be when the
plaintiff had knowledge of the danger, voluntarily exposed himself to the
danger, and was injured.
⫸ Assumption of Risk Answer: States a plaintiff may not recover for
the injuries or damages that result from an activity in which the plaintiff
willingly participated.
, ⫸ Exculpatory clause Answer: A part of a contract that releases one of
the parties from liability for their wrongdoings; not favored at laws
⫸ Comparative negligence Answer: A defense to negligence whereby
the plaintiffs damages are reduced by the proportion his fault bears to
the total injury he has suffered
⫸ 51% Rule for contributory negligence Answer: The plaintiff must
contribute at least 51% of the negligence for no recovery to be allowed.
⫸ Intentional torts Answer: Competition among various brands of a
particular product. Interference with business relationship a tort in which
a defendant commits an intentional and unjustified interference with a
plaintiffs valid business dealings that inflicts monetary damage
⫸ What is intent? Answer: First, the person knew what he was doing.
Second, the person knew, or should have known, the possible
consequences of his act. Third, knowing that certain results are likely to
occur.
⫸ Assault Answer: Any word or action intended to cause another to be
in fear of immediate physical harm
⫸ Battery Answer: The intentional unallowed touching of another. The
"touching" may involve a mere touch that is offensive or an act of
violence that causes serious injury
