Torts Fire Drill

Amity is an island city just off the coast of Massachusetts. Because the weather is good all year round, the island is always crowded with surfers, beach goers and sun worshipers. Because so many people spend so much time in the water, the government has recently passed a statute making it a criminal offense for anybody to knowingly withhold help to anybody who is in distress in the water. Assume that, at common law, there is a duty of rescue. Person A is lounging in his rowboat when he hears Person B begin to scream. Person A looks out and sees that Person B is drowning. Person A does nothing. Luckily, Person C is also in a boat nearby and he rows over and saves Person B. After Person A is prosecuted criminally for violating the statute, Person B sues him civilly. During the civil trial, Person A claims that he didn't help Person B because one of his oars was broken and he doesn't know how to swim. Person B will most likely:
Lose, if Person A's excuses are valid and supported by the facts.
Lose, because Person A is a tourist and not a resident of Amity.
Win, if he can prove the four elements of negligence.
Win, because Person A violated the statute.
Clearbrook, Inc. Is a company that bottles and distributes spring water. Clearbrook has a network of pipelines that pump water into three giant water tanks that sit on top of the Clearbrook bottling plant. From the water tanks, the water is pumped into the plant, bottled and shipped out. Each tank holds one million gallons of water. One day, one of the water tanks ruptures, sending hundreds of thousands of gallons of water cascading down the side of the bottling plant and flooding the streets surrounding the plant. Person A, who has been walking his dog Dog a block away from the plant, gets swept away by the flood waters. Dog drowns and Person A is severely injured. If Person A tries to sue Clearwater, the argument that gives him the best chance of winning is:
He was severely injured in the flood
Clearwater was negligent for keeping water tanks in residential areas.
c. Accidents like this do not normally happen unless someone was negligent and that the water was under Clearbrook's exclusive control at the time of the accident.
Water, in large quantities, is a dangerous substance.
Person A is supposed to transport two hundred gallons of propane gas to his friend Person B's house for a barbeque party that Person B is hosting. Person A rents a four-by-four pick-up truck and goes to the propane filling station with two hundred one-gallon plastic milk cartons. Person A fills up the milk cartons, loads them onto the truck and begins his trip to Person B's house. Normally, special reinforced plastic containers are used to transport propane, but Person A uses the milk cartons because, even though they are not as safe, they are cheaper than the reinforced plastic containers. On the way to Person B's house, Person A loses control of the truck and crashes into a guard-rail in the middle of the road. The propane in the back of the truck spills out onto the street and ignites, causing a large explosion. Person C, who was in the car behind Person A, is seriously injured. In a suit against Person A, Person C will most likely:
Win, because the foreseeable risk of Person A's actions (a gas spill) outweighed the benefit Person A got (saving money).
Win, because propane is a dangerous substance.
Lose, because the foreseeable risk of Person A's actions (a gas spill) does not outweigh the benefit Person A got (saving money).
Lose, because Person B asked Person A to bring the propane.
Person A is supposed to bring two hundred gallons of water to his friend Person B's house for a barbeque party that Person B is hosting. Person A rents a four-by-four pick-up truck and goes to the garden hose in his backyard with two hundred one-gallon plastic milk cartons. Person A fills up the milk cartons, loads them onto the truck and begins his trip to Person B's house. However, Person A does not tie down the containers to keep them from moving because the effort would be too time-consuming. On the way to Person B's house, Person A loses control of the truck and crashes into a guard-rail in the middle of the road. The water in the back of the truck spills out onto the street. Person C's car which was behind Person A, gets splashed with water and the brand-new paint job begins to run. In a suit against Person A, Person C will most likely:
Win, because the foreseeable risk of Person A's actions (a spill) outweighed the benefit Person A got (saving time).
Win, because the spill damaged the paint job on Person C's car.
Lose, because the foreseeable risk of Person A's actions (a spill) does not outweigh the benefit Person A got (saving time).
Lose, because Person B asked Person A to bring the water.
True or false. If a person is following the custom of an industry, that person will never be liable for negligence.
True
False
The State of A has a law that requires all vehicles to drive at least 50 miles per hour on certain roads to keep traffic moving at a nearly uniform speed. Driver B was driving on one of those roads at 20 miles per hour. Another car failed to stop at a stoplight and plowed into the car driven by Driver B, injuring a passenger in that car. If Driver B would have been driving faster, he would not have been at that particular place on the road when the other driver drove through the stop sign. Which of the following is the best answer?
The passenger will be able to use negligence per se to conclusively establish a breach of duty by Driver B.
The passenger will likely be able to use negligence per se as evidence of breach of a duty.
It is unlikely the passenger will be able to use negligence per se.
None of the above.
True or false. Company A has violated a long-standing custom about when to install safety equipment. One of its customers is injured due to a lack of safety equipment. As a matter of law, the failure to follow the custom conclusively proves that Company A breached a duty.
True
False
True or false. A building has 50 apartments, owned by 50 different people. Pedestrian is walking down the street and a barrel rolls out of one of the windows, killing the pedestrian. No one saw the barrel fall from the window and there is no evidence about what caused it to fall. The pedestrian’s estate can use res ipsa loquitur.
True
False
True or false. A case involves potential negligence. Your first theory for the case should be res ipsa loquitur.
True
False
Which of the following situations is most likely to fall within res ipsa?
A person falling down stairs
An object coming unexpectedly out of a window
A car accident
A child hitting another child
Teen is a seventeen-year-old kid who lives in rural Springfield. Teen lives next door to Beer’s hops and barley farm. Having nothing to do one day, Teen goes to Firey's fireworks store and buys a bunch of bottle rockets. Teen brings the rockets home and begins setting them off in his backyard. One of the rockets flies out of control and lands in Beer's barn. The barn, which is full of freshly harvested hops, ignites and burns to the ground. If Beer sues Teen for negligence, what argument gives him the best chance of winning?
Teen is old enough to be held accountable for his actions.
Fireworks are inherently dangerous.
The harm that Beer suffered was foreseeable.
Had Teen not set off the bottle rocket, Beer's barn would not have burned down.
Firebuilder A builds a fire in the woods. Five hundred feet away from Firebuilder A, Firebuilder B builds a fire as well. Neither Firebuilder A nor Firebuilder B takes the necessary precautions to make sure that his fire does not spread out of control. The fires burn toward each other and eventually join. The new big fire proceeds to burn Homeowner's house to the ground. Each fire, individually, was not big enough to do any damage to Homeowner's property, but together, the fire was big enough. In a suit against Firebuilder A and Firebuilder B for negligence, what is the most likely outcome?
Homeowner will lose, because neither Firebuilder A's nor Firebuilder B's fires, alone, would have destroyed her house.
Homeowner will lose, because the harm that she suffered was not foreseeable.
Homeowner will win, because her home was destroyed.
Homeowner will win, because the law will consider both Firebuilder A and Firebuilder B to be the actual cause of her harm.
Person D lives in rural Colorado where he owns a dairy farm. The farm occupies three hundred acres of land and is home to two thousand head of cattle. Person B and Person A, two of Person D's friends, own a horse farm that is located next door to Person D's dairy farm. One day, Person B and Person A decide to play a joke on Person D. Person B and Person A each get on a horse, and they go riding onto Person D's land shouting and shooting rifles into the air. Unfortunately, the gun shots scare the cattle, who begin to stampede. By the time the stampede is over, several buildings on Person D's farm are damaged and thousands of dollars’ worth of milking equipment has been destroyed. In a suit against Person B and Person A for negligence, Person D will most likely:
Recover from whichever one of them fired the shots that actually scared the cattle.
Recover from both Person B and Person A, so long as each of their actions alone would have scared the cattle
Lose, because the damage was caused by Person D's own animals.
Lose, because a stampede was not a foreseeable result of Person B and Person A's actions.
Person B, Person A, Person C and Person D all go on a hunting trip together. Without telling the others, Person D goes off and hides in some bushes in order to jump out and scare the others when they walk by. Person B, Person A and Person C all see some rustling in the bushes and, thinking that the rustling is being caused by an animal, they all shoot their shotguns into the bushes. Some of the buckshot hits Person D, severely injuring him. In a suit against Person B, Person A and Person C, Person D will have to prove whose gun the buckshot that hit him came from and then he will only be allowed to recover from that person:
True
False
True or false. A plaintiff may establish causation by establishing either factual or proximate cause.
True
False
A reasonable boat captain that transports animals would keep animals in separate pens to avoid any communicable diseases from spreading among the animals. A boat captain puts multiple animals in a single pen. In a storm, the pen washes overboard. The only duty the captain breached was failing to put the animals in separate pens. Which of the following is the best answer?
The boat captain breached a duty and is liable for negligence.
The boat captain may have breached a duty but is unlikely to be liable for negligence.
The boat captain committed an intentional tort.
None of the above
Which of the following is the best response?
In Summers v. Tice, the court applied a res ipsa theory.
In Summers v. Tice, the court did not apply a res ipsa theory.
Summers v. Tice involves a causation issue.
Both 1 & 3
Both 2 & 3
Toddler is given a vaccine. Unknown to the doctor, the toddler had a pre-existing infection. The toddler dies. The evidence will show that the toddler would not have died if she did not have the infection at the time she received the vaccine. The evidence will show that the toddler would not have died if she had just had the infection. Which of the following is the best answer?
In a negligence action related to the vaccine, the toddler’s family could establish “but for” cause.
In a negligence action related to the vaccine, the toddler’s family cannot establish “but for” cause.
To prevail, the toddler’s family would need to prove that the vaccine was the sole cause of the outcome.
Both 2 & 3
Which of the following is the best answer?
The but for test is the only test used to establish proximate cause.
The but for test is the only test used to establish factual causation.
In any circumstance, it would be proper for a court to use either the but for test or the substantial factor test to determine factual causation.
In any circumstance, it would be proper for a court to use either the but for test or the substantial factor test to determine proximate cause.
None of the above
Which of the following is a correct enunciation of the effect of Summers v. Tice?
The case relieves plaintiffs from being required to prove causation in any case where there is more than one tortfeasor.
The case relieves plaintiffs from being required to prove causation when two tortfeasors cause an indivisible injury.
The case relieves plaintiffs from being required to prove causation in cases involving multiple, sufficient causes.
None of these
Donald owns a high-rise tower in the middle of New Jersey. The New Jersey state legislature has recently passed a law requiring the railings in all high-rise stairwells to be a minimum of three feet high. Donald immediately has three-foot railings installed in his high-rise. Soon afterwards, Ivana is walking down a staircase in the high-rise when she trips, topples over the railing, falls fifteen feet and breaks her leg. In a suit against Donald for negligence, Ivana will:
Win, if the railings were too short.
Win, if a reasonable person would have gone beyond the requirements of the statute and installed taller railings.
Lose, because Donald complied with the statute.
Lose, because Ivana could have taken the elevator.
True or false? Every time a person is injured, tort law provides a remedy.
True
False
Which of the following is a correct recitation of the elements of negligence?
Breach, duty, causation, damages
Intentional conduct that breaches the norm of a reasonable person
Breach of a duty, even if that breach results in no damages
Sam is walking by a house and notices the house is burning. He sees a woman struggling to open the front door. Without any danger to himself, Sam could open the door and rescue the woman. Instead, Sam keeps walking. Sam does not even call the fire department. Which of the following is the correct response?
Sam faces tort liability for his failure to rescue the woman.
Sam does not face tort liability for his failure to rescue the woman.
Sam was negligent because he failed to act as a reasonable person would act.
Both 2 and 3
The defendant in a case has a mental disability that does not permit that person to reason through problems at the level that a person without the disability could. In determining the standard of care in a negligence case, which of the following represents the current majority rule?
The standard of care would be of a reasonable person with the defendant’s mental disability.
The standard of care would be of a reasonable person without consideration of the mental disability.
The answer always depends on what the mental disability is and how it played a role in the outcome.
None of the above
True or false. A person with a physical disability is held to a lower standard of care than a person without a physical disability.
True
False
A child over the age of 5 is playing on a playground and sliding down a slide. The child sees other children on the slide, but goes down the slide anyway. The child kicks another child in the back causing a serious injury. Which of the following is correct?
The child will be held to the same standard of care as an adult.
In many jurisdictions, the child would be held to the standard of care of a reasonable child of similar age, intelligence, and experience.
In some jurisdictions, the specific age of the child will be an important factor in analyzing this problem.
Both 2 & 3
True or false. A person who rescues another person may not seek recovery from the person or entity who negligently created the situation necessitating the rescue.
True
False
Tom agrees to babysit Anna, a baby. About halfway through his day-long babysitting job, Tom gets bored and leaves without notifying anyone. Anna is severely injured. Which of the following is the best answer?
Tom can be liable for negligence.
Tom cannot be liable because he has no affirmative duty.
Tom cannot be liable for negligence, but he might be liable for an intentional tort.
None
The State of A has a law that requires all vehicles to drive at least 50 miles per hour on certain roads to keep traffic moving at a nearly uniform speed. Driver B was driving on one of those roads at 20 miles per hour. Another car failed to stop at a stoplight and plowed into the car driven by Driver B, injuring a passenger in that car. If Driver B would have been driving faster, he would not have been at that particular place on the road when the other driver drove through the stop sign. Which of the following is the best answer?
The passenger will be able to use negligence per se to conclusively establish a breach of duty by Driver B.
The passenger will likely be able to use negligence per se as evidence of breach of a duty.
It is unlikely the passenger will be able to use negligence per se.
{"name":"Torts Fire Drill", "url":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/QPREVIEW","txt":"Amity is an island city just off the coast of Massachusetts. Because the weather is good all year round, the island is always crowded with surfers, beach goers and sun worshipers. Because so many people spend so much time in the water, the government has recently passed a statute making it a criminal offense for anybody to knowingly withhold help to anybody who is in distress in the water. Assume that, at common law, there is a duty of rescue. Person A is lounging in his rowboat when he hears Person B begin to scream. Person A looks out and sees that Person B is drowning. Person A does nothing. Luckily, Person C is also in a boat nearby and he rows over and saves Person B. After Person A is prosecuted criminally for violating the statute, Person B sues him civilly. During the civil trial, Person A claims that he didn't help Person B because one of his oars was broken and he doesn't know how to swim. Person B will most likely:, Clearbrook, Inc. is a company that bottles and distributes spring water. Clearbrook has a network of pipelines that pump water into three giant water tanks that sit on top of the Clearbrook bottling plant. From the water tanks, the water is pumped into the plant, bottled and shipped out. Each tank holds one million gallons of water. One day, one of the water tanks ruptures, sending hundreds of thousands of gallons of water cascading down the side of the bottling plant and flooding the streets surrounding the plant. Person A, who has been walking his dog Dog a block away from the plant, gets swept away by the flood waters. Dog drowns and Person A is severely injured. If Person A tries to sue Clearwater, the argument that gives him the best chance of winning is:, Person A is supposed to transport two hundred gallons of propane gas to his friend Person B's house for a barbeque party that Person B is hosting. Person A rents a four-by-four pick-up truck and goes to the propane filling station with two hundred one-gallon plastic milk cartons. Person A fills up the milk cartons, loads them onto the truck and begins his trip to Person B's house. Normally, special reinforced plastic containers are used to transport propane, but Person A uses the milk cartons because, even though they are not as safe, they are cheaper than the reinforced plastic containers. On the way to Person B's house, Person A loses control of the truck and crashes into a guard-rail in the middle of the road. The propane in the back of the truck spills out onto the street and ignites, causing a large explosion. Person C, who was in the car behind Person A, is seriously injured. In a suit against Person A, Person C will most likely:","img":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/3012/images/ogquiz.png"}
Powered by: Quiz Maker