A) But-for causation
B) Strict liability
C) Actual cause
D) Common law
E) Foreseeability
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Billy will lose because Rogerio had no duty to warn him of anything.
B) Billy will lose because he did not sustain physical injury.
C) Billy will win because Rogerio should have warned him about the occasional appearance of sharks.
D) Billy will win only if he can establish that he had a contract with Rogerio whereby Rogerio agreed to reveal harmful conditions.
E) Billy will win only if he can establish that he did not have insurance to cover the equipment.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Rogerio had a duty to come to their assistance only if no one else did so.
B) Rogerio had a duty to come to their assistance only if they were minors.
C) Rogerio had a duty to come to their assistance only if he had specifically agreed to do so prior to the dive.
D) Rogerio had a duty to come to their aid because he arranged the dive and was charging them.
E) Rogerio had no duty to provide any assistance to them.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Select negligence.
B) Allowable negligence.
C) Absolute wrongdoing.
D) Pure negligence.
E) Negligence in or of itself.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
B) Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
C) Implied assumption of the risk.
D) Assumption by incident.
E) Express assumption of the risk.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Actual cause is present because Teresa was the legal cause of the bank burning.
B) Actual cause is not present because Teresa is not the proximate cause of the bank burning.
C) Actual cause is present because as a matter of policy,it is believed that someone who rear-ends a vehicle should be responsible for damages.
D) Actual causation would exist because the bank would not have been burnt down if Teresa had fulfilled her duty to drive properly.
E) Actual cause is not present because Teresa is not the legal cause of the bank burning.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The court dismissed the case on the basis that through a click agreement the plaintiff expressly agreed not to sue for any injuries when ordering the tickets through the Internet.
B) The court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the defense on the basis that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury by hotdog because the tossing of the hotdogs was a customary event of which the plaintiff was or should have been aware before attending the game.
C) The court found that the jury was improperly instructed on the assumption of the risk defense and that the plaintiff did not assume the risk of injury by hotdog by attending the game.
D) The court affirmed a jury verdict finding for the defense on the basis that the plaintiff did not immediately report injuries to stadium officials.
E) The court dismissed the case on the basis that injuries at baseball games are an inherent part of the sport whether by baseball or by hotdog.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The activity is undertaken by a minor.
B) The activity is heavily regulated.
C) The activity involves trespassing in a way that reasonably leads to fright on the part of home owners.
D) The activity is so inherently dangerous that it cannot ever be safely undertaken.
E) The activity involves negligence pertaining to the preparation of food products.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Significant cause.
B) Legal cause.
C) Actual cause.
D) Constructive cause.
E) Proximate cause.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) A tort directly involving negligence per se
B) Gross negligence
C) Strict liability offense
D) Negligence
E) A res ipsa loquitur offense
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Legal cause.
B) Factual Cause.
C) Actual cause.
D) Significant cause.
E) Cause in fact.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Last-clear-chance.
B) Assumption of the risk.
C) Pure comparative negligence.
D) Modified comparative negligence.
E) Both modified comparative negligence and last-clear-chance.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) A relative cause
B) A superseding cause
C) A surprise event
D) Assumption of the risk
E) An unusual cause
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) It focuses only on unconscious negligence.
B) Courts distinguish between conscious and unconscious negligence with defendants who have engaged in only conscious negligence being found not guilty.
C) Both mental and physical capabilities are taken into account in determining whether a defendant is negligent.
D) It is the same as the law of negligence in the United States.
E) It focuses only on conscious negligence.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) A statute which allows the selling of beer but not hard liquor.
B) A statute which requires bar owners to post a bond before opening for business in a jurisdiction.
C) A statute which requires bar owners to have a license before operating a bar.
D) A statute that prohibits any bars on certain streets in the jurisdiction.
E) A statute which allows bartenders and bar owners to be held liable for injuries caused by individuals who become intoxicated at the bar.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Rescue statutes.
B) Freedom statutes.
C) All clear statutes.
D) Aid to others statutes.
E) Good Samaritan statutes.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Express assumption of the risk.
B) Implied assumption of the risk.
C) Assumption by incident.
D) Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
E) Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
Correct Answer
verified
Showing 41 - 60 of 90
Related Exams