miles per hour in a speed zone where the posted maximum speed limit was 60 mph

Miles per hour in a speed zone where the posted

This preview shows page 14 - 17 out of 17 pages.

(miles per hour) in a speed zone where the posted maximum speed limit was 60 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. Expert testimony was introduced that Fast Freddie would not have been able to stop in 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.
Image of page 14
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. Feedback D 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 out an 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 16 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Guests 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. Marther repeated 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.
Image of page 15
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 homosexual conduct repugnant.
Image of page 16
Image of page 17

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 17 pages?

  • Fall '06
  • WENDEL
  • Tort Law, Product liability

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture