38 terms


Bette backs out of City Parking Garage, colliding with Dill's car. Dill may recover $7,500 to cover the cost of the repairs if Bette failed to act as
a reasonable person.
Amber shops in a Breezy Bargains store, whose employee Connor recently mopped the floor. Amber slips, falls, and suffers an injury. Breezy is liable to Amber on a negligence theory if there was a "Wet Floor" warning sign and
Connor did not place the sign near the wet floor.
Sam, an engineer, supervises the construction of a new bridge. When the bridge col¬lapses due to faulty construction, Sam is sued by those injured in the collapse. As a professional, Sam is held to the same standard of care as
other engineers.
Leon files a suit against Moira, a medical doctor, alleging negligence. As a physician, Moira is held to the standard of
a reasonable physician.
Nick sees Opal, a stranger, in peril, but does not attempt to rescue her. Opal could successfully sue Nick for
Driving his sport utility vehicle negligently, Bart crashes into a streetlight. The streetlight falls, smashing through the roof of a house, killing Chris. But for Bart's negligence, Chris would not have died. Regarding the death, the crash is the
cause in fact.
cause in fact.
John sees that Kris is about to step into the path of an oncoming bus. If John does not warn Kris of the danger, John is liable
under no circumstances.
Ralph, a van driver for Standard Delivery Company, causes a multi-vehicle accident on a city street. Ralph and Standard are liable to
only those whose injuries could have been reasonably foreseen.
Edie is injured when she is struck by debris from an explosion at Finest Fireworks Factory. The rule that harm must be foreseeable to constitute the proximate cause of an injury under a negligence theory was established in
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
Caleb is driving a car in which Dona is a passenger when an accident occurs. Caleb and Dona are emotionally rattled, but neither is physically hurt. Caleb is not liable to Dona on a negligence theory because
Dona was not injured.
Kay carelessly bumps into Lyle, knocking him to the ground. Kay has committed the tort of negligence
only if Lyle is injured.
Clyde enters Desert Decathlon, an athletic competition in which Clyde has often competed. Regarding the risk of injury, Clyde assumes the risks
normally associated with the Decathlon.
Nadine is a spectator at the Metro City Softball Tournament, an athletic competition. Regarding the risk of injury, Nadine assumes the risks
normally associated with the tournament.
Beth is injured in a car accident and sues Cash, alleging negligence. Cash claims that Beth was driving more carelessly than he was. Comparative negligence may reduce Beth's recovery
even if Beth was only slightly at fault.
An Illinois state statute requires commercial vehicle drivers to "fully attend to the operation of the vehicle." Jerry, a driver for Crosstown Taxi Company, is driving and talking on his cell phone when his cab collides with Kayla's car, injuring her. Kayla's best theory for recovery against Jerry and Crosstown is
negligence per se.
In an emergency situation, Milena, an emergency medical technician, renders aid to Lothar, who needs help. Lothar would most likely be prohibited from suing Milena for negligence under
a Good Samaritan statute.
Earth Movers, Inc., uses dynamite to prepare land for highway pro¬jects. Strict liability is imposed on this activity because
the activity is of a dangerous nature.
Eva owns Fast-Rate Salvage, a demolition company. A demolition by a Fast-Rate crew injures Glen, a passerby. Under the theory of strict li¬abil¬ity, Eva must pay for Glen's injury
whether or not the Fast-Rate crew was at fault.
Kelly is injured when she slips and falls on Lee's sidewalk. To determine whether Lee owed a duty of care to Kelly, Lee is subject to the standard of
a reasonable person.
Pier shops in a Rowdy Ranch & Farm Store store. Enticed by a display, Pier takes an item to examine it and, when she is done, places it on the floor. Tanner, a consumer enticed by the same display, does not see the item on the floor, trips over it, falls, and suffers an injury. With respect to the danger, Rowdy had
a duty to discover and remove the hazard.
Molly shoots Norm with Opal's pistol. The proximate cause of Norm be¬ing shot is most likely attributable to
Molly only.
Dirk is driving a sport utility vehicle in which Elin is a passenger when they are involved in a traffic accident, and Elin is injured. Liability may be imposed on Dirk for Elin's injury if Dirk's driving is
the causation in fact and the proximate cause of the injury.
Joe sees Karo floundering in Lake Rough Waters. Joe is liable on the ground of negligence
under no circumstances
Marie, a driver for Northern States Transport Company, causes a five-car acci¬dent on an interstate highway. Marie and Northern States are liable to
only those whose injuries could reasonably have been foreseen.
Lana hires Mike, an architect, to design a warehouse. Lana is dissatis¬fied with the look of the new building and sues Mike, alleging negligence. Mike can successfully defend against the suit by proving that
Lana was not injured in any way.
Pam files a successful suit against Quality Market based on Quality's neg¬ligence. Normally, an award in such a suit consists of
compensatory damages.
Nico is a passenger in a car driven by Owen, whose negligence causes an accident, injuring himself. Nico, uninjured, accompanies Owen to Parkside Hospital in an ambulance. The ambulance is hit by a car driven by Quin, injuring Nico. Nico files a suit against Owen, whose best defense is
superseding cause.
Leo slips and falls in Mornin' Breakfast Café and is injured. Leo files a suit against Mornin' for $50,000. If Leo is 20 percent at fault and Mornin' is 80 percent, under a contributory negligence doctrine, Leo would recover
Super Tool Company makes tools for consumers and construction professionals. While using a Super tool to replace an electrical outlet, Tom neglects to shut off the power and is electrocuted. Against a suit filed by Tom's heirs, Super's best defense is
contributory negligence.
Frank slips and falls on Gail's Harbor Tour Boat and is injured. Frank files a suit against Gail's for $500,000. If Frank is 20 percent at fault and Gail's is 80 percent, under the "50 percent rule" comparative neg¬ligence principles, Frank would recover
Taylor slips and falls in Urban Mall and is injured. She files a suit against the mall for $500,000. Under a "pure" comparative negligence rule, Taylor could recover damages
under any circumstances.
George has a badly infected right foot. Herb, George's physician, prescribes amputation. George agrees. During the operation, Herb amputates the left foot. In George's suit against Herb, George's best theory for recovery is
res ipsa loquitur.
A Rhode Island state statute imposes fines on tire repair businesses whose pneumatic equipment does not include automatic shut-off switches to protect employees. Bob's Brakes & Tires, Inc., does not have the switches on its equipment. Carter, a Bob's employee, suffers an injury that a shut-off switch would have prevented. Carter's best theory for recovery is
negligence per se.
Drake pushes Evon into the path of an oncoming car driven by Flip. Gina tries to rescue Evon, but the car hits both of them. Drake is liable for the injuries of
Evon and Gina.
Lyn is injured when she is struck by debris floating on her property flooded by a breach of Mining Company's reservoir. The rule that a person who engages in certain activities may be liable under the doctrine of strict liability for any harm that results was established in
Rylands v. Fletcher.
Resources Recovery, Inc., uses dynamite in its remote mining operations. Sabrina stores household cleaners in his suburban garage. Most likely liable under the doctrine of strict liability for any injury caused by an abnormally dangerous activ¬ity is
Resources Recovery only.
Jean is playing a computer game on a bad disk that melts in her drive, starting a fire that injures her hands. Jean files a suit against K-Tech, Inc., the game's manufacturer. K-Tech is held liable under the doctrine of strict liability. A significant appli¬cation of this doctrine is in the area of
product liability.
Breakfast Foods Corporation markets waffle irons, one of which proves defective and injures Chelsea. Breakfast Foods's strict liability to Chelsea for the harm caused by the defective waffle iron is based in part on the fact that
Breakfast Foods profits from the sale of its waffle irons.