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
Biff is driving down the street in his new car when he sees Lorraine walking down the street. Biff sticks his head out the window and starts making cat-calls at Lorraine. Unfortunately, while Biff is paying attention to Lorraine, he is not paying attention to where he is going and he ends up driving onto the curb and hitting Marty. Marty suffers a broken leg and is taken to the hospital. Marty is told that he needs surgery to repair the leg. However, Doc, the surgeon, gets his records mixed up and ends up amputating Marty's leg instead of setting it. In a suit against Biff for negligence, Marty can recover both for the initial injury and for the loss of the leg as well:
Correct Although Biff did not directly cause Marty to lose his leg, he indirectly caused it. Indirect causation exists when an intervening force has come into play after defendant has committed his negligent act, and this intervening force either extends plaintiff's injuries or combines with defendant's act to produce plaintiff's injuries. In this case, Doc was a dependant intervening force, which is an act of a third person that is a normal response to the situation created by the defendant's negligence. Since such forces arise directly because of defendant's negligence they are considered foreseeable and will not relieve defendant of liability. Medical treatment is considered a dependant intervening force. It is considered foreseeable that a defendant's negligence would result in a plaintiff having to go to the hospital. It is also considered foreseeable that the plaintiff might receive careless treatment at the hospital, thus exacerbating his injuries. That being the case, it was foreseeable that Biff's negligence would put Marty in the hospital and it is also foreseeable that Marty might receive inadequate or careless care at the hospital. Therefore, although Doc's carelessness was an intervening act, it is considered foreseeable, Biff can be held liable for the loss of Marty's leg and True is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Although Biff did not directly cause Marty to lose his leg, he indirectly caused it. Indirect causation exists when an intervening force has come into play after defendant has committed his negligent act, and this intervening force either extends plaintiff's injuries or combines with defendant's act to produce plaintiff's injuries. In this case, Doc was a dependant intervening force, which is an act of a third person that is a normal response to the situation created by the defendant's negligence. Since such forces arise directly because of defendant's negligence they are considered foreseeable and will not relieve defendant of liability. Medical treatment is considered a dependant intervening force. It is considered foreseeable that a defendant's negligence would result in a plaintiff having to go to the hospital. It is also considered foreseeable that the plaintiff might receive careless treatment at the hospital, thus exacerbating his injuries. That being the case, it was foreseeable that Biff's negligence would put Marty in the hospital and it is also foreseeable that Marty might receive inadequate or careless care at the hospital. Therefore, although Doc's carelessness was an intervening act, it is considered foreseeable, Biff can be held liable for the loss of Marty's leg and True is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 2
Biff is chasing Lorraine around the neighborhood. In trying to escape from Biff, Lorraine runs through the construction site for the new Lion's Gate Estates where she plans to hide among the construction equipment. However, Lorraine does not see a pit dug into the earth. She falls into the pit and breaks her leg. Marty, a construction worker, sees Lorraine fall and goes to her aid. Marty is as careful as possible in trying to help Lorraine out of the pit. However, while pulling her up, Marty accidentally dislocates one of Lorraine's shoulders. If Lorraine sues Biff for negligence, she will only be able to recover for her broken leg:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Rescue forces are considered dependant intervening forces. Because "danger invites rescue" it is reasonable to foresee that, if a defendant puts a plaintiff in a dangerous position, someone would come to the plaintiff's aid. It is also foreseeable that the rescue attempt could cause the plaintiff further harm. That being the case, it was foreseeable that someone would come to Lorraine's aid and it was also foreseeable that the rescue attempt would cause Lorraine further injury. Thus, in a suit against Biff, Lorraine could recover for both her leg and her shoulder, and False is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Rescue forces are considered dependant intervening forces. Because "danger invites rescue" it is reasonable to foresee that, if a defendant puts a plaintiff in a dangerous position, someone would come to the plaintiff's aid. It is also foreseeable that the rescue attempt could cause the plaintiff further harm. That being the case, it was foreseeable that someone would come to Lorraine's aid and it was also foreseeable that the rescue attempt would cause Lorraine further injury. Thus, in a suit against Biff, Lorraine could recover for both her leg and her shoulder, and False is the correct answer.
Question 3
Marty and Lorraine are spending the afternoon at Lorraine's apartment on the tenth floor of the Twin Pines apartment complex. Biff, knowing that Lorraine and Marty are upstairs, is in the lobby waiting for them. Biff is smoking a cigarette while he waits. When he is finished with the smoke Biff absentmindedly flicks the butt away. Unfortunately, the butt, still smoldering, lands on one of the couches in the lobby. The couch ignites and the fire spreads through the lobby very quickly. The alarm bells in the apartment building are sounded and the residents all begin to rush to the staircases leading down to the first floor. Lorraine and Marty make it to the stairwell and begin to descend. However, in the panic to get out of the building, someone pushes Lorraine and sends her tumbling down the stairs. Lorraine suffers a broken ankle and several broken ribs. If Lorraine were to sue Biff for her injuries, she would lose and recover nothing:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Escape forces are also considered dependent intervening forces. According to the law, it is foreseeable that individuals threatened with harm will try to escape. It is also foreseeable that those efforts to escape may endanger others. Therefore, a defendant who puts a plaintiff in danger is held liable for the injuries the plaintiff suffers while trying to escape the danger. In this case, Biff put Lorraine in danger when he negligently set fire to her building. Therefore, he will be held liable for her injuries even though they were caused by the escaping crowd. Thus, False is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Escape forces are also considered dependent intervening forces. According to the law, it is foreseeable that individuals threatened with harm will try to escape. It is also foreseeable that those efforts to escape may endanger others. Therefore, a defendant who puts a plaintiff in danger is held liable for the injuries the plaintiff suffers while trying to escape the danger. In this case, Biff put Lorraine in danger when he negligently set fire to her building. Therefore, he will be held liable for her injuries even though they were caused by the escaping crowd. Thus, False is the correct answer.
Question 4
Biff is driving down the street in his new car when he sees Lorraine walking down the street. Biff sticks his head out the window and starts making cat-calls at Lorraine. Unfortunately, while Biff is paying attention to Lorraine, he is not paying attention to where he is going and he ends up driving onto the curb and hitting Marty. Marty suffers a broken leg and is taken to the hospital. Marty is told that he needs surgery to repair the leg. The surgery goes well. However, two days later, the surgical incision becomes badly infected and the leg needs to be amputated. In a suit against Biff for negligence, Marty can recover both for the initial injury and for the loss of the leg as well:
Correct An independent intervening force is one that operates upon the situation created by the defendant's negligence, but which is not a direct response or reaction to the negligence. Such forces may be acts of third persons or acts of G-d. Where an independent intervening force occurs, the defendant will remain liable for the foreseeable results of his act. In this case, the infection was not a direct response to Biff's negligence. However, it was reasonably foreseeable that Marty's leg could get infected after the surgery so Biff will be held liable for both the initial injury and the amputation and True is the correct answer.
Incorrect! An independent intervening force is one that operates upon the situation created by the defendant's negligence, but which is not a direct response or reaction to the negligence. Such forces may be acts of third persons or acts of G-d. Where an independent intervening force occurs, the defendant will remain liable for the foreseeable results of his act. In this case, the infection was not a direct response to Biff's negligence. However, it was reasonably foreseeable that Marty's leg could get infected after the surgery so Biff will be held liable for both the initial injury and the amputation and True is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 5
Biff owns an apartment building in a high crime area of Hill Valley. The entrance to the building opens onto a dimly lit lobby. There are no security guards or security cameras monitoring the lobby. Biff has installed locks on the entry door but he has installed them in a negligent fashion and they do not work. One evening, Lorraine enters the lobby on her way up to her apartment. She is mugged by three men who have been hiding in the lobby. If Lorraine sues Biff for negligence, she will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Where independent intervening forces are concerned, a defendant will not be held liable if the force is an unforeseeable intentionally tortious or criminal act. However, if defendant's negligence has created a situation in which a reasonable person would have foreseen that negligent, intentional or even criminal acts might be committed by others, then those acts are considered foreseeable intervening forces and they will not excuse defendant from liability. In this case, the mugging was an intentionally criminal act. However, given the nature of the neighborhood, it was foreseeable that someone could have been attacked if the building was not properly secured. Therefore, Biff will be held liable for the attack on Lorraine and D is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Where independent intervening forces are concerned, a defendant will not be held liable if the force is an unforeseeable intentionally tortious or criminal act. However, if defendant's negligence has created a situation in which a reasonable person would have foreseen that negligent, intentional or even criminal acts might be committed by others, then those acts are considered foreseeable intervening forces and they will not excuse defendant from liability. In this case, the mugging was an intentionally criminal act. However, given the nature of the neighborhood, it was foreseeable that someone could have been attacked if the building was not properly secured. Therefore, Biff will be held liable for the attack on Lorraine and D is the correct answer.
Question 6
Charlie is an employee of PetroCorp., an oil and gas company. Charlie's job is to make deliveries of heating oil to PetroCorp's customers. Charlie's first stop one morning is at Lucy's house, where Charlie is supposed to fill the oil tank in Lucy's house. Charlie fills the tank but when he closes the tank after he has filled it, he does so negligently. As a result, gas fumes leak out of the tank. That night, a large thunderstorm passes through Lucy's area and Lucy's house is struck by lightning. Unfortunately, by this time Lucy's house is filled with gas fumes. When the lightning strikes the house, it triggers a massive explosion that destroys Lucy's house. In a suit against Charlie, Lucy will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct This is a situation where a foreseeable result was caused by an unforeseeable intervening force. The general rule is that, where a foreseeable result is produced by an unforeseeable intervening force, the fact that the intervening force was not foreseeable does not excuse the defendant from liability. In this case, the gas explosion was a foreseeable result of Charlie's negligently closing the gas tank. However, the explosion was caused by an unforeseeable bolt of lightening (which is considered an act of G-d). However, the fact that the cause of the explosion (the lightning) was unforeseeable will not protect Charlie from liability because explosion itself was a foreseeable result of Charlie's negligence. Therefore, C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! This is a situation where a foreseeable result was caused by an unforeseeable intervening force. The general rule is that, where a foreseeable result is produced by an unforeseeable intervening force, the fact that the intervening force was not foreseeable does not excuse the defendant from liability. In this case, the gas explosion was a foreseeable result of Charlie's negligently closing the gas tank. However, the explosion was caused by an unforeseeable bolt of lightening (which is considered an act of G-d). However, the fact that the cause of the explosion (the lightning) was unforeseeable will not protect Charlie from liability because explosion itself was a foreseeable result of Charlie's negligence. Therefore, C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 7
Charlie is an employee of PetroCorp., an oil and gas company. Charlie's job is to make deliveries of heating oil to PetroCorp's customers. Charlie's first stop one morning is at Lucy's house, where Charlie is supposed to fill the oil tank in Lucy's house. Charlie fills the tank but when he closes the tank after he has filled it, he does so negligently. As a result, gas fumes leak out of the tank. That night, Linus, a petty criminal and fire-bug, sets a fire in Lucy's yard. The fire quickly spreads and ignites Lucy's house. Unfortunately, by this time Lucy's house is filled with gas fumes. When the flames reach the house, it triggers a massive explosion that destroys Lucy's house. In a suit against Charlie, Lucy will probably:
Correct Where a third person's criminal or tortious conduct was not reasonably foreseeable and the defendant's conduct has not enhanced the risk that the criminal action will occur, he may be insulated from liability. However, if the ultimate harm caused was foreseeable, the defendant's liability may turn on the culpability of the intervening act. In our case, Linus's actions were unforeseeable and Charlie's negligence did not enhance the risk that Linus would commit his act of arson. Therefore, Charlie is not liable for the explosion, even though the explosion itself was a foreseeable result of his negligence (The idea is that Linus's guilt overshadows Charlie's negligence). Thus, A is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Where a third person's criminal or tortious conduct was not reasonably foreseeable and the defendant's conduct has not enhanced the risk that the criminal action will occur, he may be insulated from liability. However, if the ultimate harm caused was foreseeable, the defendant's liability may turn on the culpability of the intervening act. In our case, Linus's actions were unforeseeable and Charlie's negligence did not enhance the risk that Linus would commit his act of arson. Therefore, Charlie is not liable for the explosion, even though the explosion itself was a foreseeable result of his negligence (The idea is that Linus's guilt overshadows Charlie's negligence). Thus, A is the correct answer.