BLAW 3310 EXAM 2 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Torts - Answers -An injury or wrong committed with or without force against another
person or his properly; a civil wrong that is a breach of a legal duty owed by the person
who commits the tort to the victim of the tort
Negligence Pg 147 - Answers -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 - Answers -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 - Answers -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 - Answers -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 - Answers -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 - Answers -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 - Answers -_____________________ 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 - Answers -The defense would be when the plaintiff had
knowledge of the danger, voluntarily exposed himself to the danger, and was injured.
, Assumption of Risk - Answers -States a plaintiff may not recover for the injuries or
damages that result from an activity in which the plaintiff willingly participated.
Exculpatory clause - Answers -A part of a contract that releases one of the parties from
liability for their wrongdoings; not favored at laws
Comparative negligence - Answers -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 - Answers -The plaintiff must contribute at least
51% of the negligence for no recovery to be allowed.
Intentional torts - Answers -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? - Answers -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 - Answers -Any word or action intended to cause another to be in fear of
immediate physical harm
Battery - Answers -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 - Answers -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 - Answers -A voluntary agreement, implied or expressed, to submit to a
proposition or act of another
False imprisonment - Answers -The intentional detnetion or restraint of an individual by
anotehr
Infliction of emotional distress - Answers -Emotional distress involves conduct so
outrageous that it creates severe mental or emotional distress in another person.
Floodgate argument - Answers -Type of argument based on policy considerations or
"the bigger picture" rather than the just result in an individual case. The "floodgates will
be opened". Ex. pedestrian was allowed to sue a car manufacturer after a drunk driver
with that car hit them/ The manufacturer would be obligated to incorporate a
breathalyzer into vehicles. That would lead to thousands of lawsuits again car
Torts - Answers -An injury or wrong committed with or without force against another
person or his properly; a civil wrong that is a breach of a legal duty owed by the person
who commits the tort to the victim of the tort
Negligence Pg 147 - Answers -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 - Answers -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 - Answers -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 - Answers -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 - Answers -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 - Answers -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 - Answers -_____________________ 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 - Answers -The defense would be when the plaintiff had
knowledge of the danger, voluntarily exposed himself to the danger, and was injured.
, Assumption of Risk - Answers -States a plaintiff may not recover for the injuries or
damages that result from an activity in which the plaintiff willingly participated.
Exculpatory clause - Answers -A part of a contract that releases one of the parties from
liability for their wrongdoings; not favored at laws
Comparative negligence - Answers -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 - Answers -The plaintiff must contribute at least
51% of the negligence for no recovery to be allowed.
Intentional torts - Answers -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? - Answers -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 - Answers -Any word or action intended to cause another to be in fear of
immediate physical harm
Battery - Answers -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 - Answers -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 - Answers -A voluntary agreement, implied or expressed, to submit to a
proposition or act of another
False imprisonment - Answers -The intentional detnetion or restraint of an individual by
anotehr
Infliction of emotional distress - Answers -Emotional distress involves conduct so
outrageous that it creates severe mental or emotional distress in another person.
Floodgate argument - Answers -Type of argument based on policy considerations or
"the bigger picture" rather than the just result in an individual case. The "floodgates will
be opened". Ex. pedestrian was allowed to sue a car manufacturer after a drunk driver
with that car hit them/ The manufacturer would be obligated to incorporate a
breathalyzer into vehicles. That would lead to thousands of lawsuits again car
