MGMT 311 EXAM 2 - COMPLETE QUESTIONS AND DETAILED SOLUTIONS
LATEST UPDATE THIS YEAR JUST RELEASED
Question 1: While Jessica, Ashley, and Bryan are snowboarding,
they ignore warning signs indicating that they have left the marked
trail and are entering dangerous territory. They become lost, and a
rescue effort begins. Climbing the mountain, a snowplow
accidentally cuts a nearby town's main electrical cable. Due to the
loss of her electric heat, Ethel, an elderly woman, dies of
hypothermia. The boarders' negligence in ignoring the warning
signs is:
A. The proximate cause of Ethel's death.
B. Not the cause of Ethel's death.
C. The superseding cause of Ethel's death.
D. The causation in fact, but not the proximate cause, of Ethel's
death.
Answer:
d. The causation in fact, but not the proximate cause, of Ethel's death.
Question 2: Injury Requirement and Damages
Answer:
To recover, plaintiff must show legally recognizable injury
Question 3: Good Samaritan Law
Answer:
Protect individuals from liability who aid voluntarily
- protect medical professional who volunteer in emergency situations
,Question 4: Dram Shop Acts
Answer:
Bar owners and bartenders liable when intoxicated individuals cause injuries
- Sellers can be held liable if reasonable care is breeched (Has to be foreseeable)
Question 5: Superseding Cause
Answer:
An unforeseeable, intervening act that breaks the causal link between defendant's
act and plaintiff's injury, relieving defendant of liability.
ex.) Just after libelous statement is published plaintiff dies
Question 6: Contributory Negligence
Answer:
Individuals must exercise a duty of care to themselves
Question 7: Chapter 7
Answer:
Regardless if duty of care is applied if there is an extreme risk there may be
_________
- Plaintiff must not show how/why the product was defective, just that it was
defective when sold, and the defect made it unreasonably dangerous to the user.
Question 8: Strict Liability to Product Liability
Answer:
Strict Liability may apply to manufactures and sellers of harmful and defective
products.
,Question 9: MIND TAP QUESTION Emily, while driving a car
manufactured by Toyosan, suffered a side impact collision from
another driver. When Toyosan's air bag deployed, it caused
damage to Emily's face and teeth as she hit her head against the
steering wheel. If Emily sued Toyosan for strict product liability, the
court would likely conclude that:
A. Emily misused the product in driving the car.
B. Emily was comparatively negligent for her own injuries.
C. Toyosan's air bag was defective because of the
consumer-expectations test.
D. Toyosan's air bag did not have a defective product design.
Answer:
c. Toyosan's air bag was defective because of the consumer-expectations test.
Question 10: MIND TAP QUESTION John purchases a blender from
JuiceMart. A crack in the plastic casing causes the blade to swing
out of control and nearly injure John's arm. John is shaken up by
the incident but otherwise uninjured. John's strict product liability
suit will most likely:
A. Fail, because John did not incur physical harm to self or property.
B. Succeed, because JuiceMart was in the business of selling that
product.
C. Fail, because the blender was not in a defective condition.
D. Succeed, because the blender was not substantially changed from
the time the product was sold to the time the injury was sustained.
Answer:
a. Fail becase John did not incur physical harm to self or property
, Question 11: MIND TAP QUESTION Fred sued Document Security
Company, alleging he had suffered injuries to his hands as a result
of attempting to fix a jam in one of Document Security's paper
shredders. Fred alleged the shredder was defective because it
failed to contain warnings regarding the dangers to fingers and
hands while attempting to fix jams. To succeed on a strict liability
claim, Fred will have to show:
A. All risk of harm could have been reduced or avoided by the
provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller.
B. The injuries would not have occurred but for the absence of the
warnings.
C. Paper shredders are inherently dangerous products.
D. Foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided by
the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller.
Answer:
d. Foreseeable risks of harm have been reduced or avoided by the provision of
reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller.
Question 12: Product Liability
Answer:
Individuals/Corporations who make, sell, or lease goods can be held liable for harm
caused by their products to consumers, users, or bystanders.
Question 13: Negligence
Answer:
The failure to exercise a reasonable degree of care
LATEST UPDATE THIS YEAR JUST RELEASED
Question 1: While Jessica, Ashley, and Bryan are snowboarding,
they ignore warning signs indicating that they have left the marked
trail and are entering dangerous territory. They become lost, and a
rescue effort begins. Climbing the mountain, a snowplow
accidentally cuts a nearby town's main electrical cable. Due to the
loss of her electric heat, Ethel, an elderly woman, dies of
hypothermia. The boarders' negligence in ignoring the warning
signs is:
A. The proximate cause of Ethel's death.
B. Not the cause of Ethel's death.
C. The superseding cause of Ethel's death.
D. The causation in fact, but not the proximate cause, of Ethel's
death.
Answer:
d. The causation in fact, but not the proximate cause, of Ethel's death.
Question 2: Injury Requirement and Damages
Answer:
To recover, plaintiff must show legally recognizable injury
Question 3: Good Samaritan Law
Answer:
Protect individuals from liability who aid voluntarily
- protect medical professional who volunteer in emergency situations
,Question 4: Dram Shop Acts
Answer:
Bar owners and bartenders liable when intoxicated individuals cause injuries
- Sellers can be held liable if reasonable care is breeched (Has to be foreseeable)
Question 5: Superseding Cause
Answer:
An unforeseeable, intervening act that breaks the causal link between defendant's
act and plaintiff's injury, relieving defendant of liability.
ex.) Just after libelous statement is published plaintiff dies
Question 6: Contributory Negligence
Answer:
Individuals must exercise a duty of care to themselves
Question 7: Chapter 7
Answer:
Regardless if duty of care is applied if there is an extreme risk there may be
_________
- Plaintiff must not show how/why the product was defective, just that it was
defective when sold, and the defect made it unreasonably dangerous to the user.
Question 8: Strict Liability to Product Liability
Answer:
Strict Liability may apply to manufactures and sellers of harmful and defective
products.
,Question 9: MIND TAP QUESTION Emily, while driving a car
manufactured by Toyosan, suffered a side impact collision from
another driver. When Toyosan's air bag deployed, it caused
damage to Emily's face and teeth as she hit her head against the
steering wheel. If Emily sued Toyosan for strict product liability, the
court would likely conclude that:
A. Emily misused the product in driving the car.
B. Emily was comparatively negligent for her own injuries.
C. Toyosan's air bag was defective because of the
consumer-expectations test.
D. Toyosan's air bag did not have a defective product design.
Answer:
c. Toyosan's air bag was defective because of the consumer-expectations test.
Question 10: MIND TAP QUESTION John purchases a blender from
JuiceMart. A crack in the plastic casing causes the blade to swing
out of control and nearly injure John's arm. John is shaken up by
the incident but otherwise uninjured. John's strict product liability
suit will most likely:
A. Fail, because John did not incur physical harm to self or property.
B. Succeed, because JuiceMart was in the business of selling that
product.
C. Fail, because the blender was not in a defective condition.
D. Succeed, because the blender was not substantially changed from
the time the product was sold to the time the injury was sustained.
Answer:
a. Fail becase John did not incur physical harm to self or property
, Question 11: MIND TAP QUESTION Fred sued Document Security
Company, alleging he had suffered injuries to his hands as a result
of attempting to fix a jam in one of Document Security's paper
shredders. Fred alleged the shredder was defective because it
failed to contain warnings regarding the dangers to fingers and
hands while attempting to fix jams. To succeed on a strict liability
claim, Fred will have to show:
A. All risk of harm could have been reduced or avoided by the
provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller.
B. The injuries would not have occurred but for the absence of the
warnings.
C. Paper shredders are inherently dangerous products.
D. Foreseeable risks of harm could have been reduced or avoided by
the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller.
Answer:
d. Foreseeable risks of harm have been reduced or avoided by the provision of
reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller.
Question 12: Product Liability
Answer:
Individuals/Corporations who make, sell, or lease goods can be held liable for harm
caused by their products to consumers, users, or bystanders.
Question 13: Negligence
Answer:
The failure to exercise a reasonable degree of care
