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
Dennis, an avid baseball fan, is practicing his pitching in front of Mr. Wilson's house. Dennis is pitching his baseball at a tree in front of Mr. Wilson's house. The tree stands directly in front of Mr. Wilson's large living room window. One pitch gets away from Dennis, sails past the tree and right through the living room windows. Mr. Wilson sues Dennis for negligence for breaking his window. If Dennis argues that he did not mean to break the window, he will:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The laws of negligence allow plaintiff to sue defendant for harm defendant caused unintentionally. Please note that "unintentionally" does not mean that defendant was faultless. In any negligence action plaintiff must show that defendant was, in fact, at fault in breaching a duty owed to plaintiff. Here, Dennis breached a duty so, while his breaking the window was unintentional, he is still at fault and D is the correct answer.
Incorrect! The laws of negligence allow plaintiff to sue defendant for harm defendant caused unintentionally. Please note that "unintentionally" does not mean that defendant was faultless. In any negligence action plaintiff must show that defendant was, in fact, at fault in breaching a duty owed to plaintiff. Here, Dennis breached a duty so, while his breaking the window was unintentional, he is still at fault and D is the correct answer.
Question 2
Tony is a truck driver for PetroCorp, a large oil and gas company. Tony's last assignment was to transport five thousand ten-gallon tanks of propane gas from New York to Boston. After the truck was loaded, Tony used hemp rope to tie the load down and secure it to the truck. While on Route 95, the rope securing the tanks snaps and several of the propane filled tanks fall from the truck and explode. In a suit for negligence against Tony, his best defense is that:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Tony has a duty of care to make sure the tanks were secured properly. The case against him will hinge on whether or not he breached his duty of care. This will be determined by figuring out what the reasonable man would have done in Tony's position. If the reasonable man would have secured the tanks with rope, Tony has not breached his duty and has not been negligent. Therefore, Tony's best defense is that the reasonable man would have used rope to secure the tanks and, therefore, C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Tony has a duty of care to make sure the tanks were secured properly. The case against him will hinge on whether or not he breached his duty of care. This will be determined by figuring out what the reasonable man would have done in Tony's position. If the reasonable man would have secured the tanks with rope, Tony has not breached his duty and has not been negligent. Therefore, Tony's best defense is that the reasonable man would have used rope to secure the tanks and, therefore, C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
Woody owns a saw mill that produces lumber. Cut trees are floated into the mill by a network of man-made canals (think of them as conveyer belts that use water instead of belts) and then loaded onto conveyer belts which take them away to be processed. Occasionally, one of the canals gets log-jammed and, when that happens, the log-jam has to be cleared manually. Although Woody could halt the flow of trees in the canals while a log-jam is being cleared, he usually doesn't because the trees are moving too slowly to create any safety risk to the worker who is clearing the log-jam. One day, Sylvester is clearing a log-jam when his hand is crushed by an oncoming tree. Had Woody stopped the flow of trees in the canal while Sylvester was working, the injury could have been avoided. In a suit for negligence against Woody, Woody's best defense is that:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Custom is admissible as evidence of the standard of care but it is never conclusive. In other words, the fact that defendant acted according to or against community or industry customs may provide evidence as to whether or not he acted in a reasonable or unreasonable manner. As far as industry custom goes, if defendant can show that he acted within accepted common practice for the industry, it may help him because a court, knowing that defendant acted within common industry custom, might be hesitant to rule against defendant and force an entire industry to change the way it practices. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Custom is admissible as evidence of the standard of care but it is never conclusive. In other words, the fact that defendant acted according to or against community or industry customs may provide evidence as to whether or not he acted in a reasonable or unreasonable manner. As far as industry custom goes, if defendant can show that he acted within accepted common practice for the industry, it may help him because a court, knowing that defendant acted within common industry custom, might be hesitant to rule against defendant and force an entire industry to change the way it practices. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 4
Donald owns a high-rise tower in the middle of New Jersey. The New Jersey state legislature has recently passed a law requiring the railings in all high-rise stairwells to be a minimum of three feet high. Donald immediately has three foot railings installed in his high-rise. Soon afterwards, Ivana is walking down a staircase in the high-rise when she trips, topples over the railing, falls fifteen feet and breaks her leg. In a suit against Donald for negligence, Ivana will:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Proof that a defendant acted in compliance with, or in violation of, a state statute can be used as evidence of negligence but it is not conclusive. The standard used in such a case is still the reasonable man standard. However, it is possible that defendant can be found liable for negligence even if he acted in compliance with a statute. For example, certain statutes may set minimum guidelines for appropriate safety precautions or behavior and, although defendant might have complied with those minimum requirements, a jury could decide that a reasonable person would have taken greater measures. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Proof that a defendant acted in compliance with, or in violation of, a state statute can be used as evidence of negligence but it is not conclusive. The standard used in such a case is still the reasonable man standard. However, it is possible that defendant can be found liable for negligence even if he acted in compliance with a statute. For example, certain statutes may set minimum guidelines for appropriate safety precautions or behavior and, although defendant might have complied with those minimum requirements, a jury could decide that a reasonable person would have taken greater measures. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 5
In order to determine if a child has committed negligence, we look to see what a reasonable man in the child's position would have done.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The statement is false. In order to establish negligence for a child, we look to see what a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence and experience would have done.
Incorrect! The statement is false. In order to establish negligence for a child, we look to see what a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence and experience would have done.
Question 6
Inigo and Fezik, two three-year-old twins are playing a game on the sidewalk in front of their house. The game involves both of them closing their eyes and spinning around until they are dizzy. Once they are dizzy, they have to try and walk in a straight line. Inigo spins around and is trying to walk in a straight line when, because he is too dizzy, falls down. Unfortunately, Inigo falls right in front of Wesley, who is walking home from work. Wesley doesn't see Inigo and ends up tripping over him, falling to the ground and breaking his wrist. If Wesley sues Inigo for negligence, Wesley will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The reasonable man test is flexible enough that it can apply to anyone. Minors are held to a reasonable person standard as well. However, when we ask what a reasonable child would have done in similar circumstances, we are asking what a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence and experiences as the actual child would have done in a similar situation. That being said there are certain age requirements that the laws of negligence do take into consideration. The general rule is that children under the age of four cannot be held liable for negligence. Therefore, C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! The reasonable man test is flexible enough that it can apply to anyone. Minors are held to a reasonable person standard as well. However, when we ask what a reasonable child would have done in similar circumstances, we are asking what a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence and experiences as the actual child would have done in a similar situation. That being said there are certain age requirements that the laws of negligence do take into consideration. The general rule is that children under the age of four cannot be held liable for negligence. Therefore, C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 7
After a heavy snow storm, Inigo and Fezik, two twelve-year-old classmates, decide to climb onto the roof of Inigo's house and build a snow fort. Unfortunately, they do not build the fort very well and the fort collapses, sending a cascade of hard-packed snow falling down onto the street. Wesley, who is walking home from work, happens to be passing by Inigo's house when the fort collapses and is hit on the head by the falling snow. Wesley is seriously injured by the falling snow. In a suit against Inigo and Fezik for negligence, Wesley will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The reasonable man test is flexible enough that it can apply to anyone. Minors are held to a reasonable person standard as well. However, when we ask what a reasonable child would have done in similar circumstances, we are asking what a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence and experiences as the actual child would have done in a similar situation. That being said there are certain age requirements that the laws of negligence do take into consideration. For children between the ages of four and fourteen there is a rebuttable presumption that they are incapable of negligence. That is to say, the courts will assume that a child cannot be held liable for acts of negligence but enough evidence showing that the child acted negligently can result in a finding of liability. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! The reasonable man test is flexible enough that it can apply to anyone. Minors are held to a reasonable person standard as well. However, when we ask what a reasonable child would have done in similar circumstances, we are asking what a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence and experiences as the actual child would have done in a similar situation. That being said there are certain age requirements that the laws of negligence do take into consideration. For children between the ages of four and fourteen there is a rebuttable presumption that they are incapable of negligence. That is to say, the courts will assume that a child cannot be held liable for acts of negligence but enough evidence showing that the child acted negligently can result in a finding of liability. Therefore, B is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 8
Inigo and Fezik, two twelve-year-old classmates, have nothing to do one Sunday afternoon. Inigo finds the keys to his father's car and they decide to take the car out for a drive. Neither Inigo nor Fezik know how to drive and Inigo ends up veering into oncoming traffic and crashing into Wesley's car. In a suit against Inigo and Fezik for negligence, Wesley will probably:
Correct The reasonable man test is flexible enough that it can apply to anyone. Minors are held to a reasonable person standard as well. However, when we ask what a reasonable child would have done in similar circumstances, we are asking what a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence and experiences as the actual child would have done in a similar situation. That being said there are certain age requirements that the laws of negligence do take into consideration. The general rule is that children under the age of four cannot be held liable for negligence. For children between the ages of four and fourteen there is a rebuttable presumption that they are incapable of negligence. The exception to this rule is where children engage in adult activities. In such situations, children are held to the same standard as adults. Case law has determined that activities like driving cars and snow mobiles, operating tractors and owning property are adult activities under which the child will be held to the ordinary reasonable man standard that is usually reserved for adults. Therefore, A is the correct answer
Incorrect! The reasonable man test is flexible enough that it can apply to anyone. Minors are held to a reasonable person standard as well. However, when we ask what a reasonable child would have done in similar circumstances, we are asking what a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence and experiences as the actual child would have done in a similar situation. That being said there are certain age requirements that the laws of negligence do take into consideration. The general rule is that children under the age of four cannot be held liable for negligence. For children between the ages of four and fourteen there is a rebuttable presumption that they are incapable of negligence. The exception to this rule is where children engage in adult activities. In such situations, children are held to the same standard as adults. Case law has determined that activities like driving cars and snow mobiles, operating tractors and owning property are adult activities under which the child will be held to the ordinary reasonable man standard that is usually reserved for adults. Therefore, A is the correct answer
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 9
Rip Van Winkle suffers from narcolepsy, a disorder in which people suddenly and randomly fall asleep. Rip knows he has this disorder. One day, Rip decides to take a drive over to the mall to buy some sneakers. While he is driving to the mall, he suddenly falls asleep at the wheel and his car careens into a crowd of people, injuring several people. In a suit against Rip for negligence, he will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct People with disabilities are held to the reasonable man standard, although their particular disabilities are included in one of the circumstances. In such a case the test asks what the reasonable person with the same kind of disability would have done in a similar situation. People with disabilities are charged with knowledge of their disabilities and can be found negligent for engaging in behavior that a reasonable person with the same disabilities would have refrained from. Assuming that reasonable people with narcolepsy would not drive a car, Rip will lose this case and D is the correct answer.
Incorrect! People with disabilities are held to the reasonable man standard, although their particular disabilities are included in one of the circumstances. In such a case the test asks what the reasonable person with the same kind of disability would have done in a similar situation. People with disabilities are charged with knowledge of their disabilities and can be found negligent for engaging in behavior that a reasonable person with the same disabilities would have refrained from. Assuming that reasonable people with narcolepsy would not drive a car, Rip will lose this case and D is the correct answer.
Question 10
After graduating from Paralegal School, Inigo goes to celebrate at his favorite bar. Over the course of the next few hours, Inigo has several beers and cocktails. By the end of the evening, Inigo is visibly drunk but he decides to get into his car and drive over to his friend Fezik's house to tell Fezik the good news. On the way, Inigo loses control of his car and crashed through the front window of Wesley's burger joint. In a suit against Inigo for negligence, Inigo will probably:
Correct People with disabilities are held to the reasonable man standard, although their particular disabilities are included in one of the circumstances. In such a case the test asks what the reasonable person with the same kind of disability would have done in a similar situation. People with disabilities are charged with knowledge of their disabilities and can be found negligent for engaging in behavior that a reasonable person with the same disabilities would have refrained from. However, voluntary intoxication does not count as a physical handicap. Therefore, someone who gets intoxicated and acts in a manner that could be considered negligent does not have the benefit of using his intoxication as a circumstance for the reasonable man test.
Incorrect! People with disabilities are held to the reasonable man standard, although their particular disabilities are included in one of the circumstances. In such a case the test asks what the reasonable person with the same kind of disability would have done in a similar situation. People with disabilities are charged with knowledge of their disabilities and can be found negligent for engaging in behavior that a reasonable person with the same disabilities would have refrained from. However, voluntary intoxication does not count as a physical handicap. Therefore, someone who gets intoxicated and acts in a manner that could be considered negligent does not have the benefit of using his intoxication as a circumstance for the reasonable man test.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 11
After a lifetime of eating doughnuts and candy bars, Homer's doctor tells him that he will have to have a heart bypass operation. Homer has inherited a fortune from his uncle, Mr. Burns, and he decides to hire the very best surgeon to do the operation. Dr. Flanders is a renowned heart surgeon and he advertises himself as the very best bypass surgeon in the world. Homer hires Dr. Flanders immediately. The operation goes well but two weeks afterwards, Homer is still in a lot of pain. An X-ray shows that Dr. Flanders accidentally left a surgical sponge inside Homer's chest cavity. In an action for negligence against Dr. Flanders, Homer will:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct There are minimum standards that all people are held to when determining if there can be a finding of negligence. However, people who have acquired special skills or special talents are held to a standard that takes into account those special skills and talents. For example, if a defendant represents himself as a qualified surgeon, his special skills will be factored into the reasonable man test and he will be held to the standard of care that all qualified surgeons are held to. Here, Dr. Flanders represented himself as a surgeon with certain special skills. Therefore, the reasonable man test used in determining negligence in Homer's case will factor in Dr. Flanders specialized skills and to win his case, Homer has to show that a reasonable doctor with Dr. Flanders' skills would not have left a sponge in Homer's chest. Thus, C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! There are minimum standards that all people are held to when determining if there can be a finding of negligence. However, people who have acquired special skills or special talents are held to a standard that takes into account those special skills and talents. For example, if a defendant represents himself as a qualified surgeon, his special skills will be factored into the reasonable man test and he will be held to the standard of care that all qualified surgeons are held to. Here, Dr. Flanders represented himself as a surgeon with certain special skills. Therefore, the reasonable man test used in determining negligence in Homer's case will factor in Dr. Flanders specialized skills and to win his case, Homer has to show that a reasonable doctor with Dr. Flanders' skills would not have left a sponge in Homer's chest. Thus, C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 12
After a lifetime of eating doughnuts and candy bars, Homer's doctor, Dr. Flanders, tells him that he will have to have a heart bypass operation. Dr. Flanders tells Homer that the possible temporary side effects to the surgery are infection, loss of appetite, shortness of breath and inability to sleep. What Dr. Flanders does not tell Homer is that the other possible side effects are blood clots and internal bleeding, both of which could cause sudden death. Dr. Flanders also does not tell Homer that an operation would not be necessary if Homer were to stick to a strict diet and exercise plan. After the surgery, Homer suffers internal bleeding and, although he survives, the loss of blood leaves him partially brain damaged. In a suit for negligence against Dr. Flanders, Homer will probably:
Correct Typically doctors have a duty to disclose relevant information about both the benefits and the risks involved in any course of treatment. That is to say, a doctor must inform the patient as to both the upside and the downside of the treatment, including side effects, chances of death, chances of success, alternative courses of treatment and what would likely happen to the patient if he decided to forgo treatment altogether. Today, the law requires doctors to disclose everything that would be material to the patient's decision. Because when Dr. Flanders did not inform Homer as to certain side effects that would have been material to his decision, Dr. Flanders violated a duty that he owed to Homer. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Typically doctors have a duty to disclose relevant information about both the benefits and the risks involved in any course of treatment. That is to say, a doctor must inform the patient as to both the upside and the downside of the treatment, including side effects, chances of death, chances of success, alternative courses of treatment and what would likely happen to the patient if he decided to forgo treatment altogether. Today, the law requires doctors to disclose everything that would be material to the patient's decision. Because when Dr. Flanders did not inform Homer as to certain side effects that would have been material to his decision, Dr. Flanders violated a duty that he owed to Homer. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 13
While sitting on his couch watching television, Homer suffers a major heart attack. By the time he is brought to the hospital, Homer is unconscious. Dr. Flanders, a heart specialist, knows that a heart operation is the only way to save Homer's life. The possible side effects to the surgery are infection, loss of appetite, shortness of breath, inability to sleep, and blood clots and internal bleeding, both of which could cause sudden death. Dr. Flanders immediately brings Homer to the operating room and performs the surgery. When Homer wakes up after the surgery and is told that he was operated on, Homer sues Dr. Flanders, claiming that he never would have consented to the surgery had he known what the side effects of the surgery could have been. If Dr. Flanders argues that he had no duty to disclose the side effects to Homer, Dr. Flanders will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Typically doctors have a duty to disclose relevant information about both the benefits and the risks involved in any course of treatment. That is to say, a doctor must inform the patient as to both the upside and the downside of the treatment, including side effects, chances of death, chances of success, alternative courses of treatment and what would likely happen to the patient if he decided to forego treatment altogether. However, there are three exceptions where the doctor has no duty to disclose: There is no duty to disclose in 1) an emergency situation, 2) where the patient is so upset or mentally unstable that the physician reasonably believes that disclosure would be detrimental to the patient's well being, and 3) an inexperienced physician has no duty to disclose to a patient that he has no experience in administering the course of treatment he is recommending. Thus, if a patient is unconscious or unable to comprehend what the doctor is saying and prompt medical attention is required, there is no duty to disclose. Therefore, Dr. Flanders was under no duty to disclose anything to Homer and D is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Typically doctors have a duty to disclose relevant information about both the benefits and the risks involved in any course of treatment. That is to say, a doctor must inform the patient as to both the upside and the downside of the treatment, including side effects, chances of death, chances of success, alternative courses of treatment and what would likely happen to the patient if he decided to forego treatment altogether. However, there are three exceptions where the doctor has no duty to disclose: There is no duty to disclose in 1) an emergency situation, 2) where the patient is so upset or mentally unstable that the physician reasonably believes that disclosure would be detrimental to the patient's well being, and 3) an inexperienced physician has no duty to disclose to a patient that he has no experience in administering the course of treatment he is recommending. Thus, if a patient is unconscious or unable to comprehend what the doctor is saying and prompt medical attention is required, there is no duty to disclose. Therefore, Dr. Flanders was under no duty to disclose anything to Homer and D is the correct answer.
Question 14
After a lifetime of eating doughnuts and candy bars, Homer's doctor, Dr. Flanders, tells him that he will have to have a heart bypass operation. Dr. Flanders tells Homer that the possible side effects to the surgery are infection, loss of appetite, shortness of breath and inability to sleep, and blood clots and internal bleeding, both of which could cause sudden death. What Dr. Flanders does not tell Homer is that Homer's surgery will be the first heart bypass operation that Dr. Flanders will have ever performed. The surgery goes well and Dr. Flanders tells Homer that "considering that this was my first ever bypass operation, things went pretty smoothly." Homer is enraged and sues Dr. Flanders, claiming that he would never have consented to the surgery had he known that Dr. Flanders was so inexperienced. If Dr. Flanders claims that he was under no duty to disclose, he will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Typically doctors have a duty to disclose relevant information about both the benefits and the risks involved in any course of treatment. That is to say, a doctor must inform the patient as to both the upside and the downside of the treatment, including side effects, chances of death, chances of success, alternative courses of treatment and what would likely happen to the patient if he decided to forego treatment altogether. However, there are three exceptions where the doctor has no duty to disclose: There is no duty to disclose in 1) an emergency situation, 2) where the patient is so upset or mentally unstable that the physician reasonably believes that disclosure would be detrimental to the patient's well being, and 3) an inexperienced physician has no duty to disclose to a patient that he has no experience in administering the course of treatment he is recommending. Thus, Dr. Flanders was under no duty to disclose his level of experience to Homer and D is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Typically doctors have a duty to disclose relevant information about both the benefits and the risks involved in any course of treatment. That is to say, a doctor must inform the patient as to both the upside and the downside of the treatment, including side effects, chances of death, chances of success, alternative courses of treatment and what would likely happen to the patient if he decided to forego treatment altogether. However, there are three exceptions where the doctor has no duty to disclose: There is no duty to disclose in 1) an emergency situation, 2) where the patient is so upset or mentally unstable that the physician reasonably believes that disclosure would be detrimental to the patient's well being, and 3) an inexperienced physician has no duty to disclose to a patient that he has no experience in administering the course of treatment he is recommending. Thus, Dr. Flanders was under no duty to disclose his level of experience to Homer and D is the correct answer.
Question 15
After the first snowfall of the winter, Rudolf and his friend Frosty go out to the park to go sledding and build a snow fort. They decide that the perfect place for their snow fort is at the bottom of the sledding hill. Rudolf and Frosty begin digging through the snow to make bricks for their fort. However, because there is so much snow on the hill, their digging destabilizes the snow and triggers a small avalanche. Blitzer, who has been playing nearby, gets hit by the sliding snow and is severely injured. In a suit against Rudolf and Frosty for negligence, Blitzer will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The general rule is that if a reasonable person would not have foreseen injury to anyone through his conduct, there is no duty owed to anyone who was unexpectedly hurt by defendant's actions. It is safe to say that no reasonable person would have foreseen that Rudolph and Frosty's actions would have resulted in an avalanche. Therefore, they owed no duty to Blitzer and Blitzer will lose his negligence case. B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! The general rule is that if a reasonable person would not have foreseen injury to anyone through his conduct, there is no duty owed to anyone who was unexpectedly hurt by defendant's actions. It is safe to say that no reasonable person would have foreseen that Rudolph and Frosty's actions would have resulted in an avalanche. Therefore, they owed no duty to Blitzer and Blitzer will lose his negligence case. B is the correct answer.