A) Miles's actions were negligent.
B) No tort has been committed.
C) Miles committed an intentional tort.
D) Miles is strictly liable.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Yes.The neighbor should have posted "thin ice" notices.
B) No.Kelley was a trespasser,and the neighbor can only be held liable for intentionally injuring her or for gross misconduct.
C) It may depend on Kelley's age.
D) Yes,the neighbor is strictly liable.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Joe sold fireworks from his Indiana store (a legal activity) to Steve,an Illinois resident (a state that has made owning fireworks illegal) .
B) June,while driving the speed limit,sideswiped the car next to her.
C) A retailer sold glue containing benzene to a 14-year-old boy in violation of state law.
D) Tammy accidentally dropped a heavy carton on Sasha's foot while at work.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) duty,strict liability,causation,and injury.
B) mens rea,breach,foreseeable harm,and injury.
C) duty,actus reus,foreseeable harm,and causation.
D) duty of due care,breach,factual cause,proximate cause,and damages.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) the plaintiff needs to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence.
B) the plaintiff must prove the case by clear and convincing evidence.
C) the defendant has the burden of proving he or she is not liable.
D) the defendant is strictly liable.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) a licensee;to warn of known dangers.
B) an invitee;of reasonable care.
C) a social guest;only to avoid intentionally injuring him.
D) a licensee;of strict liability
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) contributory negligence
B) comparative negligence
C) res ipsa loquitur
D) negligence per se
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) the value of the product
B) the gravity of the danger
C) the likelihood that danger will occur
D) All of these are correct.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Essay
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) win because the mechanic was negligent in overinflating the tire,which led to Phillip's injury.
B) win based on negligence per se.
C) lose because the court would apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
D) lose because,although the mechanic's conduct was negligent toward Marsha,it was not a wrong in relation to Phillip,who was far away.The mechanic could not have foreseen injury to Phillip and therefore had no duty to him.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) negligence per se.
B) strict liability.
C) res ipsa loquitur.
D) negligence.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) the incident was reasonably foreseeable.
B) the court views Tommie as a licensee or a trespassing child.
C) this is negligence per se.
D) this is an ultrahazardous activity.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Showing 1 - 20 of 45
Related Exams