Miles per hour in a speed zone where the posted

(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.

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.

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.