89%(9)8 out of 9 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 4 out of 4 pages.
show that the “but for” test has been met (Marion would not have been injured if D had been riding his bicycle in a reasonably careful manner), D’s liability will be limited to Marion’s hip injury under the “foreseeability” test (a plane crashing and injuring Marion was not reasonably foreseeable/within the realm of risks created by D’s carelessness and, therefore, D is not the proximate cause of Marion’s severe burns). Correct answer to #4: (b)The statute was enacted to prevent death due to fire, not to protect against economic loss caused by flooding. Tim’s “negligence per se” argument will fail because he has not suffered the type of injury that the statute is designed to address. To prove the second element of his negligence lawsuit, Tim must show that his landlord failed to do what a reasonably careful landlord would have done under similar circumstances. Correct answer to #5: (a)D did not have a legal duty to help Jack or otherwise act as a Good Samaritan. There is no indication of a special relationship between D and Jack that would give rise to such a duty. Correct answer to #6: (a)
P cannot win on a strict liability theory because there is no evidence of physical injury. Nor can he win based on a breach of implied warranty because any implied warranty was effectively disclaimed (car sold “as is”). However, P can win on an express warranty theory because D misrepresented a material fact (this was not a one-owner car, as represented), P would be justified in relying on D’s statement, and P lost his job. Correct answer to #7: (c)D’s sales representative knew that P wanted a computer with enough speed to run a particular software program, and that P was relying on the sales representative to select a suitable computer. P relied on D to furnish a computer that would fulfill this purpose. Because D did not do so, the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose was breached.