A) 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.
B) 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.
C) 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.
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 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.
G) A) and C)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
In most situations,the law hol...View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
A) Negligence per se
B) Res ipsa loquitur
C) Stare decisis
D) A fortiori
E) Actus reus
G) A) and D)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) In order to assist a defendant in defending against unfounded claims.
B) In order to assist a plaintiff in avoiding the assumption of the risk doctrine.
C) In order to assist a defendant in avoiding the assumption of the risk doctrine.
D) Because of situations in which a plaintiff is barred from recovery due to minimal contributory negligence.
E) Because of situations in which a defendant is released from liability based on the last clear chance doctrine when equity requires that the defendant bear at least some responsibility.
G) A) and B)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Actual causation would exist because the bank would not have been burnt down if Holly had fulfilled her duty to drive properly.
B) 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.
C) Actual cause is present because Holly was the legal cause of the bank burning.
D) Actual cause is not present because Holly is not the legal cause of the bank burning.
E) Actual cause is not present because Holly is not the proximate cause of the bank burning.
G) A) and C)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied.
B) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because there was insufficient proof that the type of accident at issue would not normally happen in the absence of negligence.
C) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because there was insufficient proof that the dock at issue was in the exclusive control of the defendants.
D) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because it only applies in contractual cases.
E) That whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied should be decided by the jury.
G) A) and B)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Mike had no duty to provide any assistance to them.
B) Mike had a duty to come to their aid because he arranged the dive and was charging them.
C) Mike had a duty to come to their assistance only if he had specifically agreed to do so prior to the dive.
D) Mike had a duty to come to their assistance only if they were minors.
E) Mike had a duty to come to their assistance only if no one else did so.
G) B) and D)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Assumption of the risk.
B) Last-clear-chance.
C) Modified comparative negligence.
D) Pure comparative negligence.
E) Both modified comparative negligence and last-clear-chance.
G) A) and C)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
B) False
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Neither Wendy nor Sam had a duty to go to the aid of the divers who were in peril.
B) Wendy and Sam had a duty to go to the aid of the divers in peril only if Mike refused to do so.
C) Wendy and Sam did not have a duty to go to the aid of the divers in peril unless they were the first to see the problem.
D) Wendy and Sam had a duty to assist the divers in peril only if they were acquainted prior to the dive with the divers who were in peril. They had no duty to help strangers.
E) Sam and Wendy had a duty to help the divers who were in peril if personal safety was involved but not if the only issue was damage to property.
G) C) and D)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
B) False
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) A business owes no duty to its customers other than to sell safe products.
B) A business owes an absolute duty to keep its customers safe and is strictly liable for any harm.
C) A business only owes a minimal duty toward customers.
D) A business owes a negligence per se duty toward customers.
E) A business has a duty of care to protect their customers against foreseeable risks about which the owner knew or reasonably should have known.
G) All of the above
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Proximate cause.
B) Actual cause.
C) Cause in fact.
D) Significant cause.
E) Legal cause.
G) A) and C)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) A statute which requires bar owners to have a license before operating a bar.
B) A statute which allows bartenders and bar owners to be held liable for injuries caused by individuals who become intoxicated at the bar.
C) A statute that prohibits any bars on certain streets in the jurisdiction.
D) A statute which allows the selling of beer but not hard liquor.
E) A statute which requires bar owners to post a bond before opening for business in a jurisdiction.
G) A) and B)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) To allow the judge and jury to infer that more likely than not, the defendant's negligence was the cause of the plaintiff's harm, even though no direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due care existed.
B) To allow the judge and jury to infer that more likely than not, the defendant's negligence was not the cause of the plaintiff's harm.
C) To allow the judge and jury to presume the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence.
D) To allow the judge and jury to presume the plaintiff destroyed evidence.
E) To allow the judge to hold the defendant liable under a strict liability theory.
G) A) and E)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
B) False
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Showing that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the actual harm suffered.
B) Showing that the defendant was aware that the plaintiff assumed the risk.
C) Showing that the plaintiff was aware of applicable law.
D) Showing that the plaintiff signed the contract assuming the risk without duress.
E) Showing a lack of contributory conduct on the part of other defendants.
G) None of the above
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Last-clear-chance doctrine.
B) Assumption of the risk doctrine.
C) Contributory negligence doctrine.
D) Res ipsa loquitur.
E) Negligence per se.
G) A) and C)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Only res ipsa loquitur
B) Only negligence per se
C) Only assumption of risk
D) Res ipsa loquitur and negligence per se
E) Res ipsa loquitur, negligence per se, and assumption of risk
G) A) and D)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
The two elements of causation are actual...View Answer
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
Showing 41 - 60 of 71
Related Exams