Exam2BusinessLaw5NegligenceandStrictLiability

Exam2BusinessLaw5NegligenceandStrictLiability - Robert W...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Robert W Bartels Bartels 1 Business Law 5 \ 3073 Mr. Richard Mednick Monday 18:00 hrs to 22:00 hrs BUS3201 Exam #2 Questions \ Negligence and Strict Liability: NEGLIGENCE AND STRICT LIABILITY True-False--Circle T for true and F for false. T F 1. To say that a breach of duty is a but-for cause of the plaintiff’s injury is to say that if the breach had not happened, the injury would not have occurred either. T F 2. A breach of duty under the doctrine of negligence per se requires, among other things, that the defendant have violated a statute. T F 3. Under a pure system of comparative negligence, the defendant has no defense when the plaintiff’s percentage share of the negligence causing the injury is less than fifty percent. T F 4. As a general rule, plaintiffs with a preexisting physical susceptibility recover even if the injury they suffer is an unforeseeable consequence of the breach or otherwise is blocked by the state's normal proximate cause rules. T F 5. D builds a fire on a windy day. The wind is blowing before and during the time when D builds the fire. The wind is an intervening force or intervening cause. T F 6. Generally speaking, mental deficiencies do not change the reasonable person standard to which one is subject. T F 7. Traditionally, contributory negligence generally has not been a defense in strict liability cases involving abnormally dangerous activities. T F 8. The "tort reform" movement is aimed at eliminating all the loopholes through which tort defendants escape liability to deserving plaintiffs. T F 9. Today, landowners have some minimal duties to exercise reasonable care to protect trespassers who enter on the land. T F 10. Res Ipsa Loquitur means that negligence defendants take their victims as they find them. T F 11. Although the law allows recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress, there is no recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress. T F 12. Suppose that a state makes assumption of risk and last clear chance part of its "comparative negligence" system. This means that comparative negligence has effectively become comparative fault.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
T F 13. A delivery person who enters the defendant's land to make a delivery is an
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/07/2009 for the course MGT 3453 taught by Professor David during the Spring '09 term at Oklahoma State.

Page1 / 5

Exam2BusinessLaw5NegligenceandStrictLiability - Robert W...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online