BUL 5810 EXAM 1 REVIEW (CH 1-8) QUESTIONS
Which of the following is a special relationship giving rise to a duty to act to aid or
protect one in peril?
A. Hotel and guest
B. Cousin to cousin
C. School principal and student
D. Hotel and guest, and school principal and student - Answer -D
Sometimes the reasonable person standard of conduct may be established by
legislation. An unexcused violation of that statute which causes an injury to another is:
A. negligence per se.
B. supervening event.
C. res ipsa loquitur.
D. contributory negligence. - Answer -A
Which of the following is correct with respect to the reasonable person standard when
there is an emergency?
A. The court will not consider the fact that an emergency existed at the time.
B. The court will assume that the defendant's own negligent conduct created the
emergency.
C. The court will take into consideration the fact that he was at the time confronted with
a sudden and unexpected emergency.
D. All of these are correct. - Answer -C
The pure comparative negligence doctrine is applied by some states to:
A. eliminate recovery for plaintiffs that failed to exercise reasonable care.
B. encourage plaintiffs not to file suit if they made poor choices.
C. divide the damages between the parties according to their fault.
D. All of these are correct. - Answer -C
To prove a case of negligence against a defendant the plaintiff must prove:
A. negligence per se.
B. duty of care, breach of duty, factual cause, and harm within the scope of liability.
C. intentional infliction of injury.
D. malice aforethought. - Answer -B
Proximate Cause in negligence cases is also known as:
A. The matter-of-fact test.
B. The true-cause test.
C. The but-for test.
D. Foreseeability. - Answer -D
The reasonable person standard is:
A. external and subjective.
,B. external and objective.
C. internal and subjective.
D. internal and objective. - Answer -B
"Factual cause" in negligence cases is also known as:
A. The matter-of-fact test.
B. The true-cause test.
C. The but-for test.
D. The foreseeability test. - Answer -C
Which of the following is not required for the plaintiff to prove in an action for
negligence?
A. Breach of duty
B. Superseding event
C. Injury
D. Cause - Answer -B
What duty of care is owed by a possessor of land to adult trespassers?
A. The possessor of land must take reasonable care to keep adult trespassers safe.
B. The possessor of land is only responsible to keep himself safe.
C. The duty of the possessor of the land extends only to those who are on the land.
D. The possessor is not liable to adult trespassers for failure to maintain land in a
reasonably safe condition. - Answer -D
If an activity causes a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even
when reasonable care is exercised by all actors, and the activity is not one of common
usage, it is:
A. proximate cause.
B. abnormally dangerous.
C. res ipsa loquitur.
D. None of these are correct. - Answer -B
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would permit the court to infer negligence in which of
the following situations?
A. A chair broke when a customer sat down on it, but the customer wasn't injured.
B. A chandelier fell on a patron's head in the restaurant dining room.
C. A golfer on a golf course was hit in the head with a stray shot golfball.
D. The situations with a chandelier falling and the golfer are both correct. - Answer -D
What duty is owed to Maria while she is in Kowalski's (before entering the stockroom)?
A. Since she is a licensee, there is a duty to warn her about any dangers that the store
knew of or should have known about.
B. Since she is a trespasser, no duty is owed to her.
C. Since she is a business invitee, there is no duty owed to her.
D. Since she is a business invitee, there is a duty to warn her about any dangers that
the store knew of or should have known about. - Answer -D
,Once Maria enters the stockroom, which of the following is Kowalski's best argument
that it is not liable for Maria's injuries?
A. Maria assumed the risk of injury when she entered the stockroom.
B. The stockroom was an attractive nuisance.
C. Maria violated a dram shop act by entering the stockroom.
D. Entering the stockroom was a superseding cause. - Answer -A
Which of the following is not a valid argument that Kowalski's Grocery is not liable for
Maria's injury?
A. Vinny warned Maria the area was dangerous.
B. Kowalski's posted the "Employee's Only - No Admittance" sign, therefore Maria was
trespassing in the stockroom.
C. The boxes were stacked safely and therefore Maria's injury could only have been
due to her own negligence.
D. Maria assumed the risk of her injuries. - Answer -C
Jay intentionally pushed Bob into a fence negligently erected by Slade around Slade's
swimming pool. The fence caved in and Bob nearly drowned. Who is liable?
A. Slade because of his negligent conduct.
B. Slade because Jay's conduct would be foreseeable.
C. Jay because of his intentional intervening conduct.
D. Slade and Jay because they both contributed to the harm. - Answer -C
Paul and Sasha started a grill with charcoal for Sasha's backyard barbecue and left it
uncovered. Then Sasha went into the kitchen to tenderize the meat. While Sasha was
inside, Paul leaned over to pull a weed out of the grass and hit the grill, knocking the
coals onto his leg. In a pure comparative negligence state, who is liable?
A. Sasha is liable for Paul's injuries in proportion to the degree of fault or negligence
found against her.
B. Sasha is liable for ALL of Paul's injuries.
C. Paul's negligence bars any recovery from Sasha.
D. Sasha is liable for Paul's injuries because it is her house. - Answer -A
Find a dead mouse at the bottom of a freshly opened bottle of soda pop is an example
of when ____________ may be applied.
A. res ipsa loquitur .
B. battery.
C. assault.
D. ipso facto - Answer -A
Daniel has surgery on his stomach. A few weeks later, he has pain in his stomach.
Doctors find a scalpel in his stom-ach. If Daniel wants to sue the surgeon for his injuries:
A. he will lose, because it will be impossible for him to prove that the scalpel wasn't in
his stomach before the surgery.
B. he will lose, because the surgeon has no duty to him.
, C. he will probably win if the court allows him to use the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
D. he will win based on the last clear chance rule. - Answer -C
Sarah is having a new sidewalk installed in front of her home. She negligently leaves
the public sidewalk without a fence, sign, or other warning while under excavation.
During the evening, Zach falls into the hole in the sidewalk. The darkness of night is:
A. an intervening cause of harm to Zach.
B. a superseding cause of harm to Zach.
C. a risk that Zach assumes.
D. makes Zach contributorily negligent. - Answer -A
If Nina, while riding a motorcycle, carelessly runs into Allen, a pedestrian who is
crossing the street within the cross-walk, Nina is liable in negligence for:
A. offensive contact if her motorcycle touches Allen's coat, even if there is no damage to
the coat.
B. offensive contact if her side mirror brushes against Allen, even if there are no
physical injuries to him.
C. physical injuries Allen sustains from the collision because Nina's negligent conduct
proximately caused harm to a legally protected interest.
D. All of these are correct. - Answer -C
Nick is a crop-duster and sprayed pesticide on Ray's crops in a very careful manner on
a windless day. Nevertheless, some of the pesticide spray fell on Ray's neighbor's side
of the fence and contaminated the feed for the chickens. The chickens died and the
neighbor sues. What is the likely result?
A. Nick is not liable because he was not negligent in his spraying operation.
B. Nick is not liable because the neighbor assumed the risk of damage to the feed by
placing it so close to the fence.
C. Nick is liable because spraying pesticides is an abnormally dangerous activity.
D. Ray is not liable for the damage because of contributory negligence. - Answer -C
Rachel attends weekly major league baseball games with her boyfriend. One day, she
gets hit in the head by a foul ball. If Rachel sues the baseball stadium for negligence
related to the damages she sustained from the ball hitting her head, but the stadium
prevails, what would be the stadium's winning defense?
A. res ipsa loquitur
B. implied assumption of the risk.
C. no intent.
D. none of these are correct. - Answer -B
Rex was burning leaves in his backyard. One of the burning leaves was lifted by the
wind into Gary's yard next door. It landed on the lawn mower which exploded, setting
fire to the wooden lawn furniture. Rex's best argument against liability to Gary would be:
A. it was not foreseeable that the lawn mower would explode.
B. the damage was not caused by the leaf but by the gasoline.
C. the leaf was not a substantial factor in causing the damage.
Which of the following is a special relationship giving rise to a duty to act to aid or
protect one in peril?
A. Hotel and guest
B. Cousin to cousin
C. School principal and student
D. Hotel and guest, and school principal and student - Answer -D
Sometimes the reasonable person standard of conduct may be established by
legislation. An unexcused violation of that statute which causes an injury to another is:
A. negligence per se.
B. supervening event.
C. res ipsa loquitur.
D. contributory negligence. - Answer -A
Which of the following is correct with respect to the reasonable person standard when
there is an emergency?
A. The court will not consider the fact that an emergency existed at the time.
B. The court will assume that the defendant's own negligent conduct created the
emergency.
C. The court will take into consideration the fact that he was at the time confronted with
a sudden and unexpected emergency.
D. All of these are correct. - Answer -C
The pure comparative negligence doctrine is applied by some states to:
A. eliminate recovery for plaintiffs that failed to exercise reasonable care.
B. encourage plaintiffs not to file suit if they made poor choices.
C. divide the damages between the parties according to their fault.
D. All of these are correct. - Answer -C
To prove a case of negligence against a defendant the plaintiff must prove:
A. negligence per se.
B. duty of care, breach of duty, factual cause, and harm within the scope of liability.
C. intentional infliction of injury.
D. malice aforethought. - Answer -B
Proximate Cause in negligence cases is also known as:
A. The matter-of-fact test.
B. The true-cause test.
C. The but-for test.
D. Foreseeability. - Answer -D
The reasonable person standard is:
A. external and subjective.
,B. external and objective.
C. internal and subjective.
D. internal and objective. - Answer -B
"Factual cause" in negligence cases is also known as:
A. The matter-of-fact test.
B. The true-cause test.
C. The but-for test.
D. The foreseeability test. - Answer -C
Which of the following is not required for the plaintiff to prove in an action for
negligence?
A. Breach of duty
B. Superseding event
C. Injury
D. Cause - Answer -B
What duty of care is owed by a possessor of land to adult trespassers?
A. The possessor of land must take reasonable care to keep adult trespassers safe.
B. The possessor of land is only responsible to keep himself safe.
C. The duty of the possessor of the land extends only to those who are on the land.
D. The possessor is not liable to adult trespassers for failure to maintain land in a
reasonably safe condition. - Answer -D
If an activity causes a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even
when reasonable care is exercised by all actors, and the activity is not one of common
usage, it is:
A. proximate cause.
B. abnormally dangerous.
C. res ipsa loquitur.
D. None of these are correct. - Answer -B
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would permit the court to infer negligence in which of
the following situations?
A. A chair broke when a customer sat down on it, but the customer wasn't injured.
B. A chandelier fell on a patron's head in the restaurant dining room.
C. A golfer on a golf course was hit in the head with a stray shot golfball.
D. The situations with a chandelier falling and the golfer are both correct. - Answer -D
What duty is owed to Maria while she is in Kowalski's (before entering the stockroom)?
A. Since she is a licensee, there is a duty to warn her about any dangers that the store
knew of or should have known about.
B. Since she is a trespasser, no duty is owed to her.
C. Since she is a business invitee, there is no duty owed to her.
D. Since she is a business invitee, there is a duty to warn her about any dangers that
the store knew of or should have known about. - Answer -D
,Once Maria enters the stockroom, which of the following is Kowalski's best argument
that it is not liable for Maria's injuries?
A. Maria assumed the risk of injury when she entered the stockroom.
B. The stockroom was an attractive nuisance.
C. Maria violated a dram shop act by entering the stockroom.
D. Entering the stockroom was a superseding cause. - Answer -A
Which of the following is not a valid argument that Kowalski's Grocery is not liable for
Maria's injury?
A. Vinny warned Maria the area was dangerous.
B. Kowalski's posted the "Employee's Only - No Admittance" sign, therefore Maria was
trespassing in the stockroom.
C. The boxes were stacked safely and therefore Maria's injury could only have been
due to her own negligence.
D. Maria assumed the risk of her injuries. - Answer -C
Jay intentionally pushed Bob into a fence negligently erected by Slade around Slade's
swimming pool. The fence caved in and Bob nearly drowned. Who is liable?
A. Slade because of his negligent conduct.
B. Slade because Jay's conduct would be foreseeable.
C. Jay because of his intentional intervening conduct.
D. Slade and Jay because they both contributed to the harm. - Answer -C
Paul and Sasha started a grill with charcoal for Sasha's backyard barbecue and left it
uncovered. Then Sasha went into the kitchen to tenderize the meat. While Sasha was
inside, Paul leaned over to pull a weed out of the grass and hit the grill, knocking the
coals onto his leg. In a pure comparative negligence state, who is liable?
A. Sasha is liable for Paul's injuries in proportion to the degree of fault or negligence
found against her.
B. Sasha is liable for ALL of Paul's injuries.
C. Paul's negligence bars any recovery from Sasha.
D. Sasha is liable for Paul's injuries because it is her house. - Answer -A
Find a dead mouse at the bottom of a freshly opened bottle of soda pop is an example
of when ____________ may be applied.
A. res ipsa loquitur .
B. battery.
C. assault.
D. ipso facto - Answer -A
Daniel has surgery on his stomach. A few weeks later, he has pain in his stomach.
Doctors find a scalpel in his stom-ach. If Daniel wants to sue the surgeon for his injuries:
A. he will lose, because it will be impossible for him to prove that the scalpel wasn't in
his stomach before the surgery.
B. he will lose, because the surgeon has no duty to him.
, C. he will probably win if the court allows him to use the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
D. he will win based on the last clear chance rule. - Answer -C
Sarah is having a new sidewalk installed in front of her home. She negligently leaves
the public sidewalk without a fence, sign, or other warning while under excavation.
During the evening, Zach falls into the hole in the sidewalk. The darkness of night is:
A. an intervening cause of harm to Zach.
B. a superseding cause of harm to Zach.
C. a risk that Zach assumes.
D. makes Zach contributorily negligent. - Answer -A
If Nina, while riding a motorcycle, carelessly runs into Allen, a pedestrian who is
crossing the street within the cross-walk, Nina is liable in negligence for:
A. offensive contact if her motorcycle touches Allen's coat, even if there is no damage to
the coat.
B. offensive contact if her side mirror brushes against Allen, even if there are no
physical injuries to him.
C. physical injuries Allen sustains from the collision because Nina's negligent conduct
proximately caused harm to a legally protected interest.
D. All of these are correct. - Answer -C
Nick is a crop-duster and sprayed pesticide on Ray's crops in a very careful manner on
a windless day. Nevertheless, some of the pesticide spray fell on Ray's neighbor's side
of the fence and contaminated the feed for the chickens. The chickens died and the
neighbor sues. What is the likely result?
A. Nick is not liable because he was not negligent in his spraying operation.
B. Nick is not liable because the neighbor assumed the risk of damage to the feed by
placing it so close to the fence.
C. Nick is liable because spraying pesticides is an abnormally dangerous activity.
D. Ray is not liable for the damage because of contributory negligence. - Answer -C
Rachel attends weekly major league baseball games with her boyfriend. One day, she
gets hit in the head by a foul ball. If Rachel sues the baseball stadium for negligence
related to the damages she sustained from the ball hitting her head, but the stadium
prevails, what would be the stadium's winning defense?
A. res ipsa loquitur
B. implied assumption of the risk.
C. no intent.
D. none of these are correct. - Answer -B
Rex was burning leaves in his backyard. One of the burning leaves was lifted by the
wind into Gary's yard next door. It landed on the lawn mower which exploded, setting
fire to the wooden lawn furniture. Rex's best argument against liability to Gary would be:
A. it was not foreseeable that the lawn mower would explode.
B. the damage was not caused by the leaf but by the gasoline.
C. the leaf was not a substantial factor in causing the damage.
