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
Chandler and Monica take a vacation to the Bahamas. After a few days of sitting on the beach, Monica and Chandler get bored and decide to cause a little trouble. They find a fireworks dealer, buy a bunch of firecrackers and bring them back to the beach. For the next few hours they amuse themselves by digging shallow holes, dropping the lit firecrackers into the holes and causing little "sand explosions". The exploding fireworks send sand and small rocks flying for twenty-five feet in every direction. On one occasion, the force of the explosion was so great that it knocked a coconut off of a palm tree one hundred feet away. Unfortunately, Ross is napping under the palm tree and the falling coconut hits him in the head. If Ross sues Chandler and Monica for negligence and Judge Cardozo is presiding over the case, Ross will most likely win:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct As we covered in the lesson, Judge Cardozo established the zone of danger doctrine which states that a defendant owes the duty of care only to those who are within the "zone of danger" and who suffer a forseeable type of harm. In this case, the zone of danger was twenty-five feet in each direction from the point where the firecracker exploded. For anybody standing within the zone of danger, it would be foreseeable that they could be hurt by flying sand or rocks. Ross was sleeping one hundred feet away from the point of the explosion. Therefore, he was well outside the zone of danger and any harm he suffered is not considered foreseeable according to Judge Cardozo. Therefore, Ross will lose his case.
Incorrect! As we covered in the lesson, Judge Cardozo established the zone of danger doctrine which states that a defendant owes the duty of care only to those who are within the "zone of danger" and who suffer a forseeable type of harm. In this case, the zone of danger was twenty-five feet in each direction from the point where the firecracker exploded. For anybody standing within the zone of danger, it would be foreseeable that they could be hurt by flying sand or rocks. Ross was sleeping one hundred feet away from the point of the explosion. Therefore, he was well outside the zone of danger and any harm he suffered is not considered foreseeable according to Judge Cardozo. Therefore, Ross will lose his case.
Question 2
Chandler and Monica take a vacation to the Bahamas. After a few days of sitting on the beach, Monica and Chandler get bored and decide to cause a little trouble. They find a fireworks dealer, buy a bunch of firecrackers and bring them back to the beach. For the next few hours they amuse themselves by digging shallow holes, dropping the lit firecrackers into the holes and causing little "sand explosions". The exploding fireworks send sand and small rocks flying for twenty-five feet in every direction. On one occasion, the force of the explosion was so great that it knocked a coconut off of a palm tree one hundred feet away. Unfortunately, Ross is napping under the palm tree and the falling coconut hits him in the head. If Ross sues Chandler and Monica for negligence and Judge Andrews is presiding over the case, Ross will most likely win:
Correct According to Judge Andrews, a defendant owes a duty of care to anyone who is injured as a proximate result of the defendant's actions. Here, the harm Ross suffered was being hit on the head by a coconut. If we work it backwards we will see that the coconut hit Ross when it fell out of a tree, the coconut fell out of the tree because the force of an explosion knocked it out of the tree, the explosion was caused by a firecracker and the firecracker was lit by Chandler and Monica. There is a causal link between Chandler and Monica's actions and Ross's harm. Therefore, according to Judge Andrews, Ross will win his case.
Incorrect! According to Judge Andrews, a defendant owes a duty of care to anyone who is injured as a proximate result of the defendant's actions. Here, the harm Ross suffered was being hit on the head by a coconut. If we work it backwards we will see that the coconut hit Ross when it fell out of a tree, the coconut fell out of the tree because the force of an explosion knocked it out of the tree, the explosion was caused by a firecracker and the firecracker was lit by Chandler and Monica. There is a causal link between Chandler and Monica's actions and Ross's harm. Therefore, according to Judge Andrews, Ross will win his case.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
Chandler and Monica are taking a walk along a pier overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Ross, a dare-devil bike rider, is doing tricks on his bicycle when he loses control of his bike, crashes into Monica and knocks her off of the pier and into the water. Monica cannot swim. Joey sees that Monica has fallen into the water and dives off the pier to save her. As Joey is pulling Monica to shore a large wave throws him against some rocks and Joey suffers a broken leg. If Joey sues Ross for negligence, Joey will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The general rule is that if a defendant owes a duty to anyone, he also owes that duty to anybody who goes to the rescue of the harmed plaintiff. Under the theory that "danger invites rescue" any rescuer that enters the zone of danger is owed the same duty as the plaintiff. The rationale is that a rescuer is as much a foreseeable plaintiff as the original plaintiff himself and thus is within the scope of the defendant's duty. Joey was as much a foreseeable plaintiff as Monica was, therefore, Ross owed Joey the same duty he owed Monica and Ross can be held liable for the injuries Joey sustains while trying to rescue Monica. Thus, C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! The general rule is that if a defendant owes a duty to anyone, he also owes that duty to anybody who goes to the rescue of the harmed plaintiff. Under the theory that "danger invites rescue" any rescuer that enters the zone of danger is owed the same duty as the plaintiff. The rationale is that a rescuer is as much a foreseeable plaintiff as the original plaintiff himself and thus is within the scope of the defendant's duty. Joey was as much a foreseeable plaintiff as Monica was, therefore, Ross owed Joey the same duty he owed Monica and Ross can be held liable for the injuries Joey sustains while trying to rescue Monica. Thus, C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 4
Chandler and Monica are taking a walk along a pier overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Ross, a dare-devil bike rider is doing tricks on his bicycle when he loses control of his bike, crashes into Monica and knocks her off of the pier and into the water. Monica cannot swim. Joey sees that Monica has fallen into the water and dives off the pier to save her. While Joey is pulling Monica to shore, he accidentally dislocates Monica's shoulder. If Monica sues Ross for the injury to her shoulder, she will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The general rule states that if a defendant owes a duty to anyone, he also owes that duty to anybody who goes to the rescue of a harmed plaintiff. Furthermore, the defendant will be held liable for any injuries that the rescuer causes to the original plaintiff. Therefore, Ross can be held liable for the injuries Joey inflicted on Monica and C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! The general rule states that if a defendant owes a duty to anyone, he also owes that duty to anybody who goes to the rescue of a harmed plaintiff. Furthermore, the defendant will be held liable for any injuries that the rescuer causes to the original plaintiff. Therefore, Ross can be held liable for the injuries Joey inflicted on Monica and C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 5
Chandler and Monica are taking a walk along a pier overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Ross, a dare-devil bike rider, is doing tricks on his bicycle when he loses control of his bike, crashes into Monica and knocks her off of the pier and into the water. Monica cannot swim. Joey, a professional lifeguard who is on duty at the pier, sees that Monica has fallen into the water and dives off the pier to save her. As Joey is pulling Monica to shore a large wave throws him against some rocks and Joey suffers a broken leg. If Joey sues Ross for negligence, Joey will probably:
Correct Where professional rescuers come to the aid of a plaintiff, it is generally held that the defendant is not liable for harm suffered by the rescuer. The rationale here is that it is the rescuers job to rescue a plaintiff and we do not want to discourage defendants from calling in professional help to remedy their negligent actions for fear of being held liable. Joey is a professional rescuer. Therefore, Ross will not be liable for injuries Joey suffers while trying to save Monica and A is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Where professional rescuers come to the aid of a plaintiff, it is generally held that the defendant is not liable for harm suffered by the rescuer. The rationale here is that it is the rescuers job to rescue a plaintiff and we do not want to discourage defendants from calling in professional help to remedy their negligent actions for fear of being held liable. Joey is a professional rescuer. Therefore, Ross will not be liable for injuries Joey suffers while trying to save Monica and A is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 6
Crusty is the only fireworks dealer in Springfield. One day, Bart, Nelson, Lisa and Millhouse, a group of local ten-year-olds, come into Crusty's store to buy firecrackers. Despite knowing that the kids were only ten years old, Crusty sells them the firecrackers. The kids take the firecrackers to the park where they begin to set them off. One of the firecrackers, a bottle-rocket, is defective and, instead of launching straight up into the air before exploding, flies at a low angle where it hits Maggie in the face and explodes. If Maggie sues Crusty for negligence, she will most likely:
Correct In addition to duties owed directly to plaintiff, there are situations when defendant is held liable for harm caused to plaintiff by a third party. One of those situations is when someone has control over or is in possession of dangerous substances. In such cases, that person owes a duty to exercise care to prevent foreseeable harm to others. Here, Crusty was in possession of a dangerous product, fireworks, and therefore, he had a duty to make sure that foreseeable harm to third parties did not come about. By selling the fireworks to young children, it was foreseeable that they could either hurt themselves or others. Crusty breached his duty. Therefore, Maggie, the injured third party, can sue Crusty for negligence and A is the correct answer.
Incorrect! In addition to duties owed directly to plaintiff, there are situations when defendant is held liable for harm caused to plaintiff by a third party. One of those situations is when someone has control over or is in possession of dangerous substances. In such cases, that person owes a duty to exercise care to prevent foreseeable harm to others. Here, Crusty was in possession of a dangerous product, fireworks, and therefore, he had a duty to make sure that foreseeable harm to third parties did not come about. By selling the fireworks to young children, it was foreseeable that they could either hurt themselves or others. Crusty breached his duty. Therefore, Maggie, the injured third party, can sue Crusty for negligence and A is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 7
In order to boost sales, Speedy's Pizza advertises that if you do not receive your pizza delivery within thirty minutes of your order, your whole order will be given to you for free. Mike is employed as a delivery boy for Speedy's and, the day after Speedy's begins their advertising campaign, Mike receives an order for four dozen pizzas for a birthday party. Speedy tells Mike that if the order is late and the pizza is given to the party for free, the money will come out of Mike's paycheck. Mike, not wanting to lose any money from his paycheck, drives significantly above the speed limit, runs several red lights and weaves in and out of traffic so that he can deliver the pizzas within thirty minutes of the order. While speeding around a curve, Mike loses control of his car and crashes into the front of Scottie's house. If Scottie sues Speedy for Mike's negligence, Scottie will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct A defendant has a duty to not create an unreasonable risk of harm from third parties. In other words, defendant has a duty to not encourage a third party to commit unreasonable acts. As a result of Speedy's advertisements and his threat to Mike, Mike drove recklessly so as to make sure he delivered the pizzas on time. Therefore, Speedy's can be held liable for the damage to Scottie's house because he had encouraged the unreasonable risk of harm, and C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! A defendant has a duty to not create an unreasonable risk of harm from third parties. In other words, defendant has a duty to not encourage a third party to commit unreasonable acts. As a result of Speedy's advertisements and his threat to Mike, Mike drove recklessly so as to make sure he delivered the pizzas on time. Therefore, Speedy's can be held liable for the damage to Scottie's house because he had encouraged the unreasonable risk of harm, and C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 8
Anna is a patient of Dr. Sammy Freud, a famous psychologist. During one of their sessions, Anna tells Dr. Freud that she is planning to kill her best friend, whom she suspects of stealing her boyfriend. Dr. Freud attempts to change Anna's mind but does not warn the friend or alert any authorities as to the threats Anna had made. A few days later, Anna stabs her friend in the hallway of the school, seriously injuring her. If the friend sues Dr. Freud for negligence, she will likely:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct If the defendant has a special relationship with the plaintiff or the third party, the defendant may have a duty to warn the plaintiff of possible harm from another.Dr. Freud and Anna had a special relationship by virtue of the fact that he was her psychologist. Here, because of Dr. Freud's special relationship with Anna, he had a duty to warn either the friend or the authorities of Anna's threat. Therefore, Dr. Freud breached his duty when he did not warn of the threat and D is the correct answer.
Incorrect! If the defendant has a special relationship with the plaintiff or the third party, the defendant may have a duty to warn the plaintiff of possible harm from another.Dr. Freud and Anna had a special relationship by virtue of the fact that he was her psychologist. Here, because of Dr. Freud's special relationship with Anna, he had a duty to warn either the friend or the authorities of Anna's threat. Therefore, Dr. Freud breached his duty when he did not warn of the threat and D is the correct answer.