Essentials of Business Law 6th Edition

Beatty Test Bank

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankdeal.com/dow
nload/essentials-of-business-law-6th-edition-beatty-test-bank/
Name: Class: Date:

CH09: Negligence, Strict Liability, and Product Liability

1. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad addressed the issue of furnishing alcohol to minors.
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: False

2. A landowner's highest duty is owed to licensees.

a. True
b. False
ANSWER: False

3. Tort issues are firmly ingrained in law and do not change.

a. True
b. False
ANSWER: False

4. A defendant set off fireworks at a fully licensed Fourth of July show. The result of the activity caused harm to the
plaintiff. In order for the plaintiff to win a case of negligence, he or she need only prove that it was foreseeable that the
defendant's conduct might cause harm.
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: False

5. Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant.
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: True

6. The doctrine of contributory negligence is followed in most states.

a. True
b. False
ANSWER: False

7. While hunting, Roger enters Adele’s property without permission and is injured by falling into a ditch that was
obscured by the underbrush. Under the common law, Adele is liable for Roger’s injuries.
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: False

8. Most states recognize some form of comparative negligence.

a. True
b. False
ANSWER: True

9. Kenneth was exposed to radiation on his job in an environmental cleanup. In a lawsuit against his employer, the court
must decide the full extent of both present and future damages rather than allowing Kenneth to return to court years later

Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 1

Name: Class: Date:

CH09: Negligence, Strict Liability, and Product Liability

if medical problems develop at that time.
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: True

10. A sports fan, injured by a hockey puck that flew into the stands during an NHL game, would be subject to the defense
of assumption of the risk in a suit to recover for her injuries.
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: True

11. In strict liability, if a company sells a beverage in a can that has sharp edges and injures several consumers, it will be
held liable even if it didn't know about the problem.
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: True

12. In a strict liability case, the courts still consider if the defendant acted in a reasonable and prudent manner.
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: False

13. Silas asks his friend Shelby to come to his property to go fishing at his pond. If he fails to warn her that the pier has a
rotten spot and she falls through and is injured, Silas would be held liable in most states.
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: True

14. A defendant engaging in an ultrahazardous activity is almost always liable for any harm that results.
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: True

15. The duty of care that each of us must follow is to behave as a reasonable person.
a. True
b. False
ANSWER: True

16. In a negligence case, the plaintiff must establish

a. duty, strict liability, causation, and injury.
b. mens rea, breach, foreseeable harm, and injury.
c. duty, actus reus, foreseeable harm, and causation.
d. duty of due care, breach, factual cause, proximate cause, and damages.
ANSWER: d

Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 2

Name: Class: Date:

CH09: Negligence, Strict Liability, and Product Liability

17. For the defendant to be liable in a negligence case, it must be proven that the defendant's conduct actually caused the
injury. This is referred to as
a. factual cause.
b. duty of due care.
c. proximate cause.
d. breach.
ANSWER: a

18. Annette drove through an intersection without looking and hit Vincent's car that he had driven into the intersection
without obeying a stop sign. Annette sued Vincent. The jury found that Annette’s fault contributed 20 percent to the
collision and determined that her total loss was $100,000. Under comparative negligence, the jury should award Annette
a. $20,000.
b. $80,000.
c. $100,000.
d. nothing.
ANSWER: b

19. Negligence concerns harm that

a. is unforeseeable.
b. arises intentionally.
c. arises by accident.
d. is always substantial.
ANSWER: c

20. Evaluate the following scenarios and determine which represents Micha's highest liability?
a. Rose is lost and pulls her car into Micha's driveway for a moment to get her bearings.
b. Oscar is a twelve-year-old neighbor of Micha's who has snuck into Micha's backyard to swim in his pool.
c. Juanita is a customer having a latte in the coffee shop Micha owns and operates.
d. Ron is Micha's friend whom Micha has invited to his home to watch the Super Bowl.
ANSWER: c

21. Bob, a weak swimmer, ignored warning signs in a recreational swimming area and went into deep water. He soon
grew tired and realized that he could not make it back to shore. Seeing Kelly, he cried out for help. Kelly, however,
ignored the pleas. Bob was finally saved by Dorothy but suffered brain damage from being submerged during the ordeal.
Bob now sues Kelly for negligence for failing to try to save him. Bob will
a. prevail because society places a duty on people to help each other and Kelly breached this duty, resulting in
Bob's injury.
b. lose because Kelly had no legal duty to rescue him.
c. lose even though Kelly had a legal duty to save him, since Bob will not be able to prove that Kelly's failure to
act was the proximate cause of his injuries.
d. lose because a reasonable person could not have foreseen that someone in a recreation area could not swim
well.
ANSWER: b

22. One morning, Miles accidentally dropped a thumbtack on the chair of the office manager where he worked. The office
Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 3
Name: Class: Date:

CH09: Negligence, Strict Liability, and Product Liability

manager sat on the tack and, two days later, was hospitalized with an infection caused by the tack. Which of the following
is correct?
a. Miles's actions were negligent.
b. No tort has been committed.
c. Miles committed an intentional tort.
d. Miles is strictly liable.
ANSWER: a

23. A plaintiff sues in negligence but has no direct proof that the defendant behaved unreasonably. Which of the following
is most likely to help the plaintiff?
a. Res judicata
b. Stare decisis
c. Res ipsa loquitur
d. Mens rea
ANSWER: c

24. Wayne worked in an office. He had no criminal record, had never had a complaint made against him about his work or
his conduct, and had been a faithful employee for nearly 20 years. One day, Wayne followed his supervisor to his home
and fatally shot him. The estate of the supervisor sued the company, claiming it should have been aware of Wayne's
growing frustration with work. The company's best defense will be that
a. there was no way to foresee that the incident would happen.
b. the incident occurred away from the office.
c. the killing was the result of a personal conflict between Wayne and the supervisor.
d. even if the company had been aware of Wayne's difficulty with his supervisor, Wayne did not have any
criminal history.
ANSWER: a

25. Which of the following acts resulting in injury would be negligence per se?
a. Joe sold fireworks from his Indiana store (a legal activity) to Steve, an Illinois resident (a state that has made
owning fireworks illegal).
b. June, while driving the speed limit, sideswiped the car next to her.
c. A retailer sold glue containing benzene to a 14-year-old boy in violation of state law.
d. Tammy accidentally dropped a heavy carton on Sasha's foot while at work.
ANSWER: c

26. To establish res ipsa loquitur in most states, the plaintiff must demonstrate all but which of the following?
a. direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due care
b. the harm ordinarily would not occur in the absence of negligence
c. the plaintiff had no role in causing the harm
d. the defendant had exclusive control of the thing that caused the harm
ANSWER: a

27. Under a state law, a dog owner is absolutely liable to any person who is injured by the dog. This is an example of
a. negligence per se.
b. strict liability.
Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 4
Name: Class: Date:

CH09: Negligence, Strict Liability, and Product Liability

c. res ipsa loquitur.
d. negligence.
ANSWER: b

28. If a court applies res ipsa loquitur

a. the plaintiff needs to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence.
b. the plaintiff must prove the case by clear and convincing evidence.
c. the defendant has the burden of proving he or she is not liable.
d. the defendant is strictly liable.
ANSWER: c

29. Kelley went ice skating on a neighbor’s pond, but she fell through a thin area into icy waters. Kelley did not have
permission to be on the property, and the neighbor did not even know that she was there. Is the neighbor liable for
Kelley’s injuries?
a. Yes. The neighbor should have posted “thin ice” notices.
b. No. Kelley was a trespasser, and the neighbor can only be held liable for intentionally injuring her or for gross
misconduct.
c. It may depend on Kelley’s age.
d. Yes, the neighbor is strictly liable.
ANSWER: c

30. Kyle was eating clam chowder soup in a restaurant when a very small piece of bone lodged in his throat. Fortunately,
he was able to remove the bone with his fingers. However, he was upset by the incident and sued the restaurant for
negligence. What is the most likely result in this case?
a. Kyle will not collect any damages since he did not sustain any damages.
b. Kyle will collect damages because the restaurant committed negligence per se.
c. Kyle will collect damages if he proves it was possible to prevent tiny fish bones from being present in clam
chowder.
d. Kyle will collect damages, as res ipsa loquitur applies.
ANSWER: a

31. Phillip was waiting for a bus at a bus stop. Across the street and down the block, a mechanic negligently overinflated a
tire he was intending to put onto Marsha’s pickup truck. The exploding tire injured Marsha and frightened a neighborhood
dog, which ran down the street and knocked Phillip down, injuring his knee. Phillip sued the mechanic. In applying the
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad decision to this case, Phillip would
a. win because the mechanic was negligent in overinflating the tire, which led to Phillip’s injury.
b. win based on negligence per se.
c. lose because the court would apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
d. lose because, although the mechanic’s conduct was negligent toward Marsha, it was not a wrong in relation to
Phillip, who was far away. The mechanic could not have foreseen injury to Phillip and therefore had no duty
to him.
ANSWER: d

32. If the defendant successfully proves __________, no matter how slight the plaintiff's negligence, the plaintiff will be
denied any recovery of damages.
a. contributory negligence
Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 5
Name: Class: Date:

CH09: Negligence, Strict Liability, and Product Liability

b. comparative negligence
c. res ipsa loquitur
d. negligence per se
ANSWER: a

33. As it applies to landowners, which of the following statements regarding liability to a licensee is correct?
a. Whether the landowner is responsible for injury depends on whether the licensee is an adult or a child.
b. The landowner is liable to a licensee for injuries caused by hidden dangers only.
c. Since the licensee is a trespasser on the landowner's property, the landowner is not responsible for injury.
d. Since a licensee has permission to be on the landowner's property, the landowner is responsible for all injury
whether hidden or obvious.
ANSWER: b

34. A customer in a restaurant would be considered ________ to whom the restaurant owner owes a duty ________.
a. a licensee; to warn of known dangers.
b. an invitee; of reasonable care.
c. a social guest; only to avoid intentionally injuring him.
d. a licensee; of strict liability
ANSWER: b

35. Tommie, a six-year-old child, was seriously injured when he stuck a fork into an electrical outlet at a restaurant. His
parents sued the restaurant where the incident occurred, claiming it should have had child protective guards on the outlets
even though no law required the restaurant to do so. Whether the restaurant is liable will be dependent upon whether
a. the incident was reasonably foreseeable.
b. the court views Tommie as a licensee or a trespassing child.
c. this is negligence per se.
d. this is an ultrahazardous activity.
ANSWER: a

36. A branch of tort law that imposes a much higher level of liability when harm results from ultrahazardous acts or
defective products is referred to as
a. res ipsa loquitur.
b. strict liability.
c. heightened liability.
d. strict negligence.
ANSWER: b

37. Anders suffered a shock when his electric radio dropped into the bathtub--while Anders was taking a bath. Anders
argued that he did not realize it was dangerous to operate an electric radio near his bathtub. If he sues the radio
manufacturer for damages, which claim is he most likely to make?
a. res ipsa loquitur
b. negligent manufacture
c. failure to warn
d. negligent design

Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 6

Name: Class: Date:

CH09: Negligence, Strict Liability, and Product Liability

ANSWER: c

38. The test of “foreseeability” is generally used to determine the existence of which element of a negligence case?
a. Duty of due care
b. Breach
c. Factual cause
d. negligence per se
ANSWER: a

39. Don was driving his truck when a board fell out of the truck bed and onto the road. Alice, who was driving closely
behind Don's truck, tried to avoid the board, swerved, and struck a telephone pole, causing her severe injuries. Which of
the following is correct?
a. Don is strictly liable to Alice for her injuries.
b. In a comparative negligence state, the actions of Don and Alice will be weighed to determine liability.
c. Don was not negligent in allowing the board to fall out of his truck.
d. Don is engaging in ultrahazardous activity.
ANSWER: b

40. What is a principal factor in the risk-utility test?

a. the value of the product
b. the gravity of the danger
c. the likelihood that danger will occur
d. All of these are correct.
ANSWER: d

41. Discuss the concepts of contributory negligence and comparative negligence.

ANSWER: Contributory negligence is a defense that can be used by a defendant to avoid liability. Most states have
discarded this concept; however, if allowed, even if the plaintiff were 1 percent responsible for an accident,
she cannot recover from the defendant. Comparative negligence is used to pro rate each party's fault in a
negligence case. So, if the plaintiff is 50 percent or less responsible, she is allowed to collect relative to her
degree of fault. Thus, if the plaintiff were 30 percent responsible for her accident and sustained $100,000
worth of injuries, she could recover $70,000 (70 percent) from the defendant.

42. List and discuss the elements necessary to establish negligence.

ANSWER: For there to be a successful lawsuit for negligence, five elements must be established: duty of due care, breach,
factual cause, proximate cause, and damages. Duty is the responsibility to use reasonable care not to injure
others around you. If the defendant could foresee that his misconduct would injure a certain person, he has a
duty to that person. Normally, there is no duty to avoid the injury of others through nonconduct, unless there is
a special relationship. Breach is conduct that fails to meet the standard of reasonable care imposed if there is a
duty to the injured party. Factual cause requires that the defendant's conduct, at least in part, actually caused
the injury. Proximate cause requires that the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable and not so remote or
bizarre that a reasonable person would never have expected it to happen. And finally, Damages: the plaintiff
must have actually been hurt or has actually suffered a measurable loss. The injury must be genuine, not
speculative.

43. Mavrex, Inc. received an application from Larry, and since his written qualifications seemed to meet a pressing
current need, they hired him without checking his references or prior records. Actually, Larry had been in prison for
Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 7
Name: Class: Date:

CH09: Negligence, Strict Liability, and Product Liability

murder several years earlier. Tom, a long-time Mavrex employee, angered Larry when Tom tried to tell Larry how to do
his job. Larry attacked and injured Tom. If Tom sues Mavrex, what would his cause of action be, and what elements
would Tom need to prove to win his case?
ANSWER: Tom’s cause of action would be negligent hiring. Companies can be liable for hiring or retaining violent
employees. The company should check records, including criminal records, and contact personal references
before hiring employees. To win a case in negligence, Tom would need to prove five elements: a duty of care
on the part of Mavrex to Tom, a breach of this duty, factual cause, foreseeable harm, and injury. The test for a
duty of care is generally “foreseeability.” If the defendant could have foreseen injury to a particular person,
there is a duty to him. To prove the second element of negligence, breach of duty, courts apply a reasonable
person standard. The third element, factual cause, means that Mavrex’s conduct actually caused Tom’s injury.
The fourth element, foreseeable harm, means it was foreseeable that conduct like Mavrex’s might cause the
type of harm that did result. The fifth element, injury, means that Tom actually has been hurt.

44. A contractor used dynamite to loosen a rocky hillside. The blast from the dynamite caused a house foundation to
crack. The house was located over a half-mile away from the dynamite site. The contractor was careful when using the
dynamite, and no allegation of negligence is made. However, the house owner claims the contractor is liable for damage
to the foundation. Is the house owner correct? Explain.
ANSWER: Yes. The contractor is liable under the concept of strict liability. Generally speaking, strict liability, also
known as liability without fault, applies if a person engages in dangerous activity that results in damage to
property or personal injury. The homeowner does not have to prove duty, breach, or foreseeable harm. The
fact that a person was very careful in carrying out the dangerous activity is not relevant. The only issue is
whether the dangerous activity was the direct cause of the property damage or personal injury. In essence,
strict liability is a trade-off, allowing for people to engage in dangerous activity but at the same time requiring
them to be totally responsible if a person sustains damages as a result of that activity. It is incumbent on the
person to obtain sufficient liability insurance if he is going to engage in dangerous activity so he will be able
to provide proper compensation to any person damaged by the activity.

45. On Monday, Travis took his four-wheeler to Reppart’s Equipment & Service for repair because the steering was not
working properly. On Friday, he called Reppart’s to see if his four-wheeler was ready because he wanted it for a weekend
trip. Reppart’s said they had done the major repairs but that the steering system still needed some work and they needed
another few days to finish the repairs. Travis told them he would pick the four-wheeler up and use it for the weekend and
then bring it back to have them finish their work. While riding with friends on the weekend, Travis ran into someone
because the steering stuck and he couldn’t swerve to avoid them. Discuss how a court would determine causation in a
negligence suit against Travis.
ANSWER: Courts look at two issues to determine causation: Was the defendant’s behavior the factual cause of the harm?
Was this type of harm foreseeable?
If Travis’s breach of duty physically led to the ultimate harm, it is the factual cause. Since Travis knew the
repairs were not completed, his unreasonable behavior in using the four-wheeler was the factual cause of the
harm to the plaintiff.
For Travis to be liable, the type of harm must have been reasonably foreseeable. Travis could easily foresee
that a bad steering system could cause an accident while he was riding. He need not have foreseen the exact
results, but he could foresee the general type of harm involving defective steering. Therefore, in this case the
factual cause and foreseeable harm elements of a negligence suit against Travis would have been met.

Copyright Cengage Learning. Powered by Cognero. Page 8