View the step-by-step solution to:

Causation in fact, or actual cause, exists if an injury would not have occurred without the defendant's act True or False Q2:

Please help....


Q1: Causation in fact, or actual cause, exists if an injury would not have occurred without the defendant's act

True or False


Q2: Katy and Jake's child suffers from lead poisoning after inhaling old dust from chips of lead paint in their apartment. Katy and Jake may


a) Sue all lead paint manufacturers who manufactured paint from the date the house was built until lead paint was discontinued under the doctrine of market share liability

b) Sue only the lead paint company that they can prove manufactured the paint which injured their child

c) Sue the lead paint manufacturers with the deepest pockets under the doctrine of market share liability

d) Sue any lead paint manufacturer that they can show contributed to the lead paint under the doctrine of contributory negligence


Q3: Betty backs out of her parking space and collides with Mickey's car. Mickey may recover $7,500 to cover the cost of repairs if Betty failed to act as

a) A faultless person

b) A blameless person

c) A reliable person

d) A reasonable person


Q4: Paul is driving down Division Street when he slams on the brakes to stop for a red light he noticed just too late. His short stop spooks a cyclist who is pedaling through the intersection causing her to swerve. Another car swerves to avoid hitting her and runs off the road into a light pole, knocking it over, and the pole falls into a parking lot, where John is waiting in an idling car. John quickly backs up to avoid having the light land on his car and backs into Carol, a pedestrian. Carol sues Paul for negligence. Carol will


a) Win, because Paul breached his duty of care

b) Win, because Paul was the ultimate cause of her injury

c) Lose, because Paul was not the proximate cause of the accident

d) Lose, because Paul was driving like a reasonably prudent person


Q5: Garet, a produce distributor, follows Linda, his competitor, into a store and eavesdrops on Linda's negotiation with the store manager. After Linda and the manager strike a deal, Garet approaches the manager and undercuts Linda's deal. Garet is most likely liable for


a) Breach of contract

b) Product disparagement

c) Tortious interference

d) Conversion

Top Answer

1. True 2. A- Sue all lead paint manufacturers who manufactured paint from the date the... View the full answer

Sign up to view the full answer

Other Answers

Hello Hope You'll find... View the full answer

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.

-

Educational Resources
  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question
Ask a homework question - tutors are online