BLAW 3310 COMPREHENSIVE EXAM
QUESTIONS AND CORRECT ANSWERS
STUDY GUIDE
●● 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
●● Self defense
Answer: A legal excuse for the use of force to resis an attack on one's
person or to defend another person who is under attack or properly that
is under attack. This defense may apply in common law cases and in
criminal cases
●● Consent
QUESTIONS AND CORRECT ANSWERS
STUDY GUIDE
●● 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
●● Self defense
Answer: A legal excuse for the use of force to resis an attack on one's
person or to defend another person who is under attack or properly that
is under attack. This defense may apply in common law cases and in
criminal cases
●● Consent
