TORTS_MCQS_11-20 - GOULDS MCQs in the MORNING Multiple Choice Program TORTS QUESTIONS 11-20 2012 GOULDS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 11 A safety statute

TORTS_MCQS_11-20 - GOULDS MCQs in the MORNING Multiple...

This preview shows page 1 - 5 out of 22 pages.

GOULD’S “MCQ’s in the MORNING”Multiple Choice Program:TORTS QUESTIONS, 11-20© 2012 GOULD’S, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
© 2012 GOULD’S, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.11. A safety statute prohibited skateboarding in the public square, in order to cut down on the number of skateboarders who received injuries, such as broken bones. Nevertheless, Jeremy skateboarded in the town square, in violation of the safety statute. He wiped out several times, and incurred some bodily injury. The last time he wiped out, one of the wheels on his skateboard broke off. Jeremy left the wheel in the public square. Mary, who walked by six hours later on her way home from work, tripped over the wheel and broke her arm. When Jeremy heard of Mary’s accident, he asserted that he should be excused from liability, because three different people had kicked the wheel after Jeremy had left the public square. If Mary asserts only that Jeremy breached a duty of care to her through violation of a safety statute, will she succeed in a claim of negligence?A. No, because there were three intervening events, that would break Jeremy’s causal chain. B. Yes, because Mary’s injury was of the type that the safety statute was intended to protect against. C. No, because Mary did not establish that Jeremy breached a duty of care. D. Yes, because Jeremy’s asserted “excuse” is not viable.
© 2012 GOULD’S, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.11.CORRECT ANSWER:C.Under negligenceper se, a plaintiff may establish breach ofduty under a safety statute, if the harm they encounter isthe type of harm a safety statute was meant to protectagainst, and they are part of the class meant to be protectedunder the statute.Here, Mary suffered a broken arm,which is the type of injury the safety statute was meant toprotect against. However, the statute was meant to protectthe class of persons of skateboarders, and there are no factsindicating that Mary was a skateboarder. Therefore, Marywould not be able to establish that Jeremy breached hisduty of duty of care under negligenceper se, and hernegligence claim would fail.
© 2012 GOULD’S, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.12. Dr. Mary was a “Jacqueline of all trades.” She was an osteopathic surgeon, a psychiatrist, a licensed social worker, a physical therapist, she had a Ph.D. in prosthetic design for artificial limbs, and on occasion, she would mop the floor in the mornings at her osteopathic practice, if the night cleaning crew did not do a “ship-shape” job. On Monday, she mopped the floor, and one of her patients that she had just treated for a broken leg, Henry, slipped, and more severely injured his leg. If Henry sues Mary,

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture