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
Kyle and Stan are taking turns with a go-cart at Stan's uncle's horse farm. Kyle is driving the go-kart when he takes his eyes away from where he is going. When he pays attention again, he realizes that he is headed straight for Stan. Kyle swerves to avoid hitting Stan and instead crashes into one of the horses that are grazing nearby. The horse, startled and in pain, begins to buck and while it is bucking, it kicks Stan in the chest and breaks several of Stan's ribs. In a suit for negligence against Kyle, Stan will most likely:
Correct In order to establish liability, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's actions were both the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's harm. Actual cause is established by the "but for" test. Whether the defendant's actions are the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury turns on the foreseeability of the results of defendant's action. Usually, a foreseeable injury presents a clear enough case of liability that proximate cause is rarely in doubt. However, there are certain foreseeable results for which liability does not attach. Some courts will not impose liability on defendant where the result, although foreseeable, has come about in a highly extraordinary manner. In this case, it was foreseeable that Stan would suffer harm (after all it is certainly foreseeable that if you drive recklessly you might hit someone and cause him broken bones). However, the harm came around in such a strange manner that Kyle will most likely be insulated from liability. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Incorrect! In order to establish liability, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's actions were both the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's harm. Actual cause is established by the "but for" test. Whether the defendant's actions are the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury turns on the foreseeability of the results of defendant's action. Usually, a foreseeable injury presents a clear enough case of liability that proximate cause is rarely in doubt. However, there are certain foreseeable results for which liability does not attach. Some courts will not impose liability on defendant where the result, although foreseeable, has come about in a highly extraordinary manner. In this case, it was foreseeable that Stan would suffer harm (after all it is certainly foreseeable that if you drive recklessly you might hit someone and cause him broken bones). However, the harm came around in such a strange manner that Kyle will most likely be insulated from liability. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 2
Kyle and Stan are playing with BB guns at Stan's uncle's horse farm. As a joke, Kyle points his gun at Stan and fires a BB pellet at him. However, Kyle misses Stan and instead hits one of the horses that are grazing nearby. The horse, startled and in pain, begins to buck and while it is bucking, it kicks up a rock that hits Stan in the head and fractures his skull. In a suit for negligence against Kyle, Stan will most likely:
Correct In order to establish liability, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's actions were both the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's harm. Actual cause is established by the "but for" test. Whether the defendant's actions are the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury turns on the foreseeability of the results of defendant's action. Where the injury suffered was unforeseeable (where one type of injury was foreseeable but an entirely different unforeseeable injury actually occurred), most courts hold that it is unfair to hold the defendant liable even if his actions actually caused plaintiffs harm. Here, the foreseeable injury would have been an injury caused by the BB pellet striking Stan. Getting hit by a rock that was kicked by a horse was unforeseeable and Stan suffering a fractured skull was also unforeseeable. Therefore, Kyle's actions are not the proximate cause of Stan's injuries and A is the correct answer.
Incorrect! In order to establish liability, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's actions were both the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's harm. Actual cause is established by the "but for" test. Whether the defendant's actions are the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury turns on the foreseeability of the results of defendant's action. Where the injury suffered was unforeseeable (where one type of injury was foreseeable but an entirely different unforeseeable injury actually occurred), most courts hold that it is unfair to hold the defendant liable even if his actions actually caused plaintiffs harm. Here, the foreseeable injury would have been an injury caused by the BB pellet striking Stan. Getting hit by a rock that was kicked by a horse was unforeseeable and Stan suffering a fractured skull was also unforeseeable. Therefore, Kyle's actions are not the proximate cause of Stan's injuries and A is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
Kyle and Stan are good friends. Stan is deathly afraid of the dark. However, Kyle does not know this. One day, as a joke, Kyle locks Stan in a storage room and shuts the lights. After letting Stan scream for a few minutes, Kyle unlocks the door. Stan staggers out of the room but, because of the stress he has just endured, suffers a heart attack. In a suit against Kyle, Stan will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The most common cases involving the unforeseen extent of injuries involve "eggshell plaintiffs". An "eggshell plaintiff" is someone who has some sort of physical ailment that has been exacerbated unexpectedly by defendant's negligence or who simply has a very low tolerance for whatever negligent action defendant undertook. In such instances, all courts will hold defendant liable for the full extent of plaintiff's injuries. In this case, Stan has a fear of the dark and, even though Kyle did not know of Stan's fear, he can be held liable for the harm Stan suffered when Kyle locked him in a dark room (even though the harm, a heart attack, was unforeseeable).
Incorrect! The most common cases involving the unforeseen extent of injuries involve "eggshell plaintiffs". An "eggshell plaintiff" is someone who has some sort of physical ailment that has been exacerbated unexpectedly by defendant's negligence or who simply has a very low tolerance for whatever negligent action defendant undertook. In such instances, all courts will hold defendant liable for the full extent of plaintiff's injuries. In this case, Stan has a fear of the dark and, even though Kyle did not know of Stan's fear, he can be held liable for the harm Stan suffered when Kyle locked him in a dark room (even though the harm, a heart attack, was unforeseeable).