BLAW 3310 EXAM 2 UPDATED ACTUAL QUESTIONS
AND CORRECT ANSWERS
Question:
1. Torts
Answer:
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
Question:
2. 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
Question:
3. "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
Question:
4. 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
Question:
5. 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
,Question:
6. 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
Question:
7. 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
Question:
8. 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.
Question:
9. 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.
Question:
10. 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.
Question:
11. Exculpatory clause
Answer:
A part of a contract that releases one of the parties from liability for their
wrongdoings; not favored at laws
, Question:
12. 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
Question:
13. 51% Rule for contributory negligence
Answer:
The plaintiff must contribute at least 51% of the negligence for no recovery to be
allowed.
Question:
14. 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
Question:
15. 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.
Question:
16. Assault
Answer:
Any word or action intended to cause another to be in fear of immediate physical
harm
Question:
17. 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
AND CORRECT ANSWERS
Question:
1. Torts
Answer:
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
Question:
2. 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
Question:
3. "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
Question:
4. 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
Question:
5. 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
,Question:
6. 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
Question:
7. 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
Question:
8. 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.
Question:
9. 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.
Question:
10. 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.
Question:
11. Exculpatory clause
Answer:
A part of a contract that releases one of the parties from liability for their
wrongdoings; not favored at laws
, Question:
12. 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
Question:
13. 51% Rule for contributory negligence
Answer:
The plaintiff must contribute at least 51% of the negligence for no recovery to be
allowed.
Question:
14. 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
Question:
15. 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.
Question:
16. Assault
Answer:
Any word or action intended to cause another to be in fear of immediate physical
harm
Question:
17. 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
