JURI 560 Quiz 3
JURI 560 Quiz 3 Negligence
- Reckless behavior is:
- Jimmy carelessly failed to clear ice from the sidewalk in front of her house despite a city ordinance that required her to do so. Harry, was operating a motor vehicle on the street in front of Jimmy’s house while intoxicated. Harry swerved off the road, onto the icy sidewalk, and into a nearby tree, causing him injuries. At trial, the finder of fact found that Harry’s negligence was 70% responsible for his own injury and that Jimmy was 30% at fault.
- A person is liable for any and all harms that result from a negligent act.
- The town of Greenville, North Carolina has enacted an ordinance prohibiting any business from offering an item for sale on a Sunday. Thomas runs a retail store in the town. In violation of the local ordinance, Thomas keeps his store open on Sunday and sells a bow and arrow set to Junior. The next day, Junior takes the bow and arrow set out and is injured while playing with it. Which of the following is true?
- Briefly explain and discuss the differences between “proximate cause” and “cause-in-fact.”
- Jeff is walking down a busy street in New York City. Suddenly, and without warning, a large 2×4 falls on Jeff as he is walking past a building that is undergoing renovation work. Jeff is seriously injured. Which of the following is true?
- Gross negligence is synonymous with reckless behavior.
- Susan was traveling down a dark stretch of roadway one evening. As she approached a four-way intersection, she failed to stop for the stop sign at the intersection and struck another vehicle that was crossing the road at the time. Which of the following is true?
- A criminal statute can never substitute for the common law standard of care.
- John is walking in a grocery store. He slips on a banana peel that is in the middle of an aisle. The doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur will allow John to move forward on a claim of negligence, even if John cannot prove who dropped the banana peel.
- In which of the following cases did Justice Cardozo formulate a rule related to proximate cause.
- There are times where a judge may be required to determine the “reasonably prudent conduct” by which a particular defendant may be judged.
- A Plaintiff bears the burden to show that an affirmative defense asserted by a defendant is inapplicable.
- Which of the following literally means “the thing speaks for itself”.
- Tom is driving a cement mixer in a negligent manner. Tom collides with a semi-trailer hauling a Load of artillery shells to a local army base. The collision causes a terrible explosion. The explosion sends several shells into the air, one of which lands a mile away, knocking a tree into a house. Which of the following is true?
- Briefly explain the distinction between the burden of persuasion and the burden of production in a civil case.
- If two negligent acts are committed, either of which, on their own, would have been sufficient to cause a harm, each act may be a cause-in-fact.
- Driving his mini-van negligently, Winnie crashes into a telephone pole. The pole snaps in half and falls, smashing through the roof of a house, killing Rabbit instantly. But for Winnie’s negligence, Rabbit would not have died. Regarding the death, the crash is the:
- Which of the following is NOT an element of Res ipsa loquitur.
- A court is more likely to award pain and suffering and emotional damages in a medical malpractice case than other cases of professional liability.
- Legal malpractice injuries tend to be primarily economic in nature.
- Briefly explain the differences between the “but for test” and the “substantial factor” test as each relate to causation.
- Joy, while negligently operating her motor vehicle, caused a serious injury to Bobby. While Bobby was recovering in the hospital, a thief saw that Bobby’s house was vacant and stole his laptop computer. Bobby sued Joy for causing the theft of his laptop.
- Most jurisdictions have not adopted the Ybarra rule.
- The Third Restatement of Torts limits liability to the harm that results from risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious.