Transcript 1. Jack had taken his girlfriend Jenny on a long drive

1. Jack had taken his girlfriend Jenny on a long drive.
While driving on the highway, he suddenly had a
severe headache and lost control of the car. They got
hit by a passing car. The doctor had earlier warned
Jack that he has a brain tumor, due to which he will
suffer occasional pains. Jenny sued Jack for negligence.
Will she succeed?
A. Yes, because Jack could reasonably foresee that he
could have severe pain any time and may cause an
accident.
B. No, because Jack never knew he was going to have
that pain and cause an accident.
C. Yes, because Jack caused the accident.
D. No, because she should have sued the driver of the
passing car which hit them.
2. State X has a "Sunday Closing Law" making it a crime to operate a
retail business on Sundays. The law's legislative history reveals that it
was enacted to promote respect for the Sabbath by all the people of
the state, and thus to promote public decency and morality. One
Sunday, Judy Smith slips on a puddle of spilled soft drink at Joe's
Hamburger joint (which is operating in violation of the statute), and
suffers an injury to her spine. The soft drink would not have been
spilled if the store had not been open on Sunday. Judy sues Joe in
negligence. One part of her complaint relies on the doctrine of
negligence per se. Under the doctrine of negligence per se:
A. Judy will recover because the spilled drink posed a reasonably
foreseeable risk of harm, and Joe failed to eliminate that risk.
B. Judy will recover because Joe violated the Sunday Closing Law.
C. Judy will not recover because she was not within the class of
persons intended to be protected by the statute.
D. Judy will not recover because she did not suffer harm of a sort that
the statute was intended to protect against.
3. Negligence "per se" is a legal rule that
established a defendant's negligence when:
A. a statute that was intended to protect
persons like the plaintiff has been violated.
B. the defendant intended to harm the plaintiff.
C. the plaintiff intended to harm the defendant.
D. both the defendant and the plaintiff intended
to harm each other.
4. Catherine decided to have lunch at Heathcliff's, one of the
most popular restaurants in town. She ordered for soup
before her main course as usual. The soup served to Catherine
contained a maggot floating about in it. Fortunately, she
noticed this before she ate the soup. She sued Heathcliff's for
negligence. The most likely result will be:
A. Catherine will not win since she did not sustain any
damages.
B. Catherine will not win, as bones in clam chowder are
foreseeable.
C. Catherine will win if she proves that it is possible to prevent
the maggot from being in the soup.
D. Catherine will win because the restaurant failed to use due
care.
5. A defendant who is negligent is not liable for
the unlikely or unforeseeable harm that results.
This rule is called:
A. the proximate cause.
B. the distal cause.
C. the just cause.
D. the "causation in fact", also known as the
"but for" rule.
6. The owner of a theatre negligently failed to install the requisite
number of emergency exit. During the show of Shakespeare's
Macbeth, one of the intoxicated viewers got carried away and burned
himself. The entire hall was ablaze. There was only one emergency
exit. Thus many people were killed in the stampede. Will the theatre
owner be liable for negligence?
A. No, because the intervening cause of an intoxicated viewer burning
himself absolves the theatre owner's liability.
B. No, because the viewer's reaction was completely unforeseeable by
any reasonable man of ordinary prudence.
C. Yes, because the harm was foreseeable and the owner cannot
escape his liability.
D. Yes, because though the harm was unforeseeable, the owner still
cannot escape his breach of duty.
7. P sues D in negligence. At the trial, it is
determined that P's negligence was 40%
responsible for P's injury, and D's negligence was
60% responsible. P's losses total $10,000. Under
a pure comparative negligence system, P will
recover:
A. nothing.
B. $4000.
C. $6000.
D. $10,000.
8. A legal theory that imposes liability even if
the defendant acts with all reasonable care and
caution is called:
A. assumption of risk.
B. strict liability.
C. superseding event.
D. contributory negligence.