100%(5)5 out of 5 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 14 - 17 out of 17 pages.
(miles per hour) in a speed zone where the posted maximum speed limit was60 m.p.h. Sally Sidestreet pulled out on the northbound entrance and immediately went into the middle lane. Fast Freddie was in the middle lane and could not stop in time to avoid running into the rear of Sally's car. Experttestimony was introduced that Fast Freddie would not have been able to stopin time even if he was only going 60 m.p.h. If Sally brings suit against Fast Freddie for her damages, the likely outcome of the lawsuit is:Select one:A. Prevail, since Fast Freddie's violation of law was negligence per se.
B. Prevail, because Fast Freddie's driving was criminal. C. Not prevail, because she pulled out on the freeway in front of Fast Freddie.D. Not prevail, because the violation of the law was not the cause "in fact" of Sally's damages. FeedbackD is correct. The defendant's negligent act must be the cause in fact of the plaintiff's injuries in order to impose liability. If a showing can be made that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the defendant's negligent act, the act is the cause in fact of the injury. Since the testimony of the expert testified that even if Fast Freddie was going the speed limit, 60 M.P.H.,he would not have been able to stop in time to avoid running into Sally, Fast Freddie was not the cause in fact of Sally's injuries. A is incorrect even if you establish negligence per se; Fast Freddie was not the cause in fact. B is an incorrect statement of law. C is not the best answer since it goes to a defense, contributory negligence. If you can find an answer that knocks outan element of the plaintiff's prima facie case that is a better answer choice, than a viable defense. The correct answer is: Not prevail, because the violation of the law was not the cause "in fact" of Sally's damages.Question 16CorrectMark 1.00 out of 1.00Flag questionQuestion textGuests of innkeeper Stewart Marther would be surprised to learn that inside the head- boards of their antique king-sized beds are embedded recording devices. Marther, who has owned the inn for ten years, enjoys sitting at a console in the front office, tuning in to the private conversations of guests in the rooms. Once his devices picked up the words of a married man named Jeff. Marther heard Jeff confess to his wife, in response to her questioning, that he, Jeff, had had homosexual experiences before their marriage. Martherrepeated this gossip to mutual acquaintances, causing injury to Jeff. Can Marther be liable to Jeff?Select one:A. No, because the information that Marther repeated was truthful.
B. No, because the inn belongs to Marther and Marther has a privilege to enter the rooms of his property. C. Yes, because a reasonable person would find the disclosure of homosexualconduct repugnant.