Purchase a course multi-pack for yourself or a friend and save up to 50%!
5-COURSE MULTI-PACK $180
10-COURSE MULTI-PACK $300
Accelerated 1-year bachelor's program
Question 1
Bart is a seventeen-year-old kid who lives in rural Springfield. Bart lives next door to Moe's hops and barley farm. Having nothing to do one day, Bart goes to Krusty's fireworks store and buys a bunch of bottle rockets. Bart brings the rockets home and begins setting them off in his backyard. One of the rockets flies out of control and lands in Moe's barn. The barn, which is full of freshly harvested hops, ignites and burns to the ground. If Moe sues Bart for negligence, what argument gives him the best chance of winning?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct In determining the actual cause of a plaintiff's harm, you must use the "but for" rule in your analysis. That is to say, in every fact pattern look at the defendant's actions and look at plaintiff's harm and ask this question: but for defendant's actions, would plaintiff have been injured. In other words, if defendant had not done what he did, would plaintiff have suffered harm. If the answer is no (plaintiff would not have suffered the harm) then you have established actual cause. If however, plaintiff would have suffered the harm regardless of what defendant did, then, obviously, defendant's actions did not cause plaintiff's harm. Here, Moe's best chance at winning his suit is by establishing that Bart's actions caused the harm that Moe suffered. To do this, he must argue that his barn would not have burned down had Bart not set off the bottle rocket. D most closely reflects this and so it is the correct answer.
Incorrect! In determining the actual cause of a plaintiff's harm, you must use the "but for" rule in your analysis. That is to say, in every fact pattern look at the defendant's actions and look at plaintiff's harm and ask this question: but for defendant's actions, would plaintiff have been injured. In other words, if defendant had not done what he did, would plaintiff have suffered harm. If the answer is no (plaintiff would not have suffered the harm) then you have established actual cause. If however, plaintiff would have suffered the harm regardless of what defendant did, then, obviously, defendant's actions did not cause plaintiff's harm. Here, Moe's best chance at winning his suit is by establishing that Bart's actions caused the harm that Moe suffered. To do this, he must argue that his barn would not have burned down had Bart not set off the bottle rocket. D most closely reflects this and so it is the correct answer.
Question 2
Jacko builds a fire in the woods. Five hundred feet away from Jacko, Wacko builds a fire as well. Neither Jacko nor Wacko takes the necessary precautions to make sure that his fire does not spread out of control. The fires burn toward each other and eventually join. The new big fire proceeds to burn Dot's house to the ground. Each fire, individually, was not big enough to do any damage to Dot's property, but together, the fire was big enough. In a suit against Jacko and Wacko for negligence, what is the most likely outcome?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct In order to allow a plaintiff to recover in a case like this, the "Concurrent Liability Rule" states that, where the separate negligent acts of more than one defendant concur to cause a single injury, and it appears that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the concurrence, then both defendants are actual causes of plaintiff's injury. Thus, in our example, Jacko and Wacko can both be held liable. It is true that, individually, their actions did not cause Dot's harm, but, according to the Concurrent Liability Rule, since Dot would not have been injured but for the concurrence of their actions (the joining of their fires), then both Jacko and Wacko are considered the actual causes of Dot's harm.
Incorrect! In order to allow a plaintiff to recover in a case like this, the "Concurrent Liability Rule" states that, where the separate negligent acts of more than one defendant concur to cause a single injury, and it appears that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the concurrence, then both defendants are actual causes of plaintiff's injury. Thus, in our example, Jacko and Wacko can both be held liable. It is true that, individually, their actions did not cause Dot's harm, but, according to the Concurrent Liability Rule, since Dot would not have been injured but for the concurrence of their actions (the joining of their fires), then both Jacko and Wacko are considered the actual causes of Dot's harm.
Question 3
Stan and Kyle challenge Kenny and Cartman to a drag race. Stan drives one car with Kyle in the passenger seat, and Cartman drives the other car with Kenny in the passenger seat. During the race, Stan loses control of his car and crashes into the front porch of Butters's house. In a suit for negligence, against whom can Butters recover?
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The general rule in situations like this is that where an injury is inflicted by one of several defendants jointly engaged in a course of negligent conduct, each defendant is liable even though only one of them actually inflicted the injury. Here, Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman were all jointly engaged in a negligent action (the drag race). Therefore, even though Stan was the one who harmed Butters, all four of them can be held liable and C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! The general rule in situations like this is that where an injury is inflicted by one of several defendants jointly engaged in a course of negligent conduct, each defendant is liable even though only one of them actually inflicted the injury. Here, Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman were all jointly engaged in a negligent action (the drag race). Therefore, even though Stan was the one who harmed Butters, all four of them can be held liable and C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 4
Cartman lives in rural Colorado where he owns a dairy farm. The farm occupies three hundred acres of land and is home to two thousand head of cattle. Kyle and Stan, two of Cartman's friends, own a horse farm that is located next door to Cartman's dairy farm. One day, Kyle and Stan decide to play a joke on Cartman. Kyle and Stan each get on a horse, and they go riding onto Cartman's land shouting and shooting rifles into the air. Unfortunately, the gun shots scare the cattle, who begin to stampede. By the time the stampede is over, several buildings on Cartman's farm are damaged and thousands of dollars worth of milking equipment has been destroyed. In a suit against Kyle and Stan for negligence, Cartman will most likely:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The"substantial factor" rule states that if plaintiff sustains an injury as a result of the negligent conduct of two tortfeasors and it appears that the conduct of either one alone would have been sufficient to cause the injury, both defendants are held liable if each of their acts were a substantial factor in causing the injury. Here, Cartman suffered injury because of Stan and Kyle's negligent conduct. Therefore, Cartman will be able to recover from both of them if he can show that the stampede would have been caused even if Kyle or Stan had been acting alone. Thus, B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! The"substantial factor" rule states that if plaintiff sustains an injury as a result of the negligent conduct of two tortfeasors and it appears that the conduct of either one alone would have been sufficient to cause the injury, both defendants are held liable if each of their acts were a substantial factor in causing the injury. Here, Cartman suffered injury because of Stan and Kyle's negligent conduct. Therefore, Cartman will be able to recover from both of them if he can show that the stampede would have been caused even if Kyle or Stan had been acting alone. Thus, B is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 5
Kyle, Stan, Kenny and Cartman all go on a hunting trip together. Without telling the others, Cartman goes off and hides in some bushes in order to jump out and scare the others when they walk by. Kyle, Stan and Kenny all see some rustling in the bushes and, thinking that the rustling is being caused by an animal, they all shoot their shotguns into the bushes. Some of the buckshot hits Cartman, severely injuring him. In a suit against Kyle, Stan and Kenny, Cartman will have to prove whose gun the buckshot that hit him came from and then he will only be allowed to recover from that person:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The problem of alternative liability basically lies in a situation where plaintiff has been injured through the negligence of several possible defendants and it is not clear which ones caused the injury. In such a situation the "but for" rule would not work to establish liability since it cannot be shown which defendant actually caused the plaintiff's harm. In order to allow the plaintiff to recover the courts have determined that where the plaintiff cannot show which defendant's negligence was the actual cause of the plaintiff's injury the burden of proof shifts to defendants to show that their negligence was not the actual cause. Therefore, Cartman does not have to prove anything in order to recover. Rather, Kyle, Stan and Kenny each have to prove that they were not the ones who harmed Cartman. Thus, the statement is False.
Incorrect! The problem of alternative liability basically lies in a situation where plaintiff has been injured through the negligence of several possible defendants and it is not clear which ones caused the injury. In such a situation the "but for" rule would not work to establish liability since it cannot be shown which defendant actually caused the plaintiff's harm. In order to allow the plaintiff to recover the courts have determined that where the plaintiff cannot show which defendant's negligence was the actual cause of the plaintiff's injury the burden of proof shifts to defendants to show that their negligence was not the actual cause. Therefore, Cartman does not have to prove anything in order to recover. Rather, Kyle, Stan and Kenny each have to prove that they were not the ones who harmed Cartman. Thus, the statement is False.