Full download Dynamic Business Law 3rd Edition Kubasek Test Bank all chapter 2024 pdf

Dynamic Business Law 3rd Edition
Kubasek Test Bank

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankfan.com/product/dynamic-business-law-3rd-edition-kubasek-test-bank/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Dynamic Business Law 3rd Edition Kubasek Solutions

Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/dynamic-business-law-3rd-edition-
kubasek-solutions-manual/
Dynamic Business Law The Essentials 3rd Edition Kubasek

Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/dynamic-business-law-the-
essentials-3rd-edition-kubasek-test-bank/
Dynamic Business Law 4th Edition Kubasek Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/dynamic-business-law-4th-edition-
kubasek-test-bank/
Dynamic Business Law The Essentials 3rd Edition Kubasek

Solutions Manual
essentials-3rd-edition-kubasek-solutions-manual/
Dynamic Business Law 4th Edition Kubasek Solutions
Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/dynamic-business-law-4th-edition-
kubasek-solutions-manual/
Dynamic Business Law The Essentials 4th Edition Kubasek

Test Bank
essentials-4th-edition-kubasek-test-bank/
Dynamic Business Law The Essentials 2nd Edition Kubasek

Test Bank
essentials-2nd-edition-kubasek-test-bank/
Dynamic Business Law The Essentials 4th Edition Kubasek

Solutions Manual
essentials-4th-edition-kubasek-solutions-manual/
Environmental Law 8th Edition Kubasek Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/environmental-law-8th-edition-
kubasek-test-bank/
Chapter 09
Negligence and Strict Liability
True / False Questions
1. In some situations, the law specifies the duty of care one individual owes to another.
True False
2. The courts generally hold that landowners have a duty to protect individuals on their property.
True False
3. When negligence per se applies, the plaintiff is required to show that a reasonable person would
exercise a heightened duty of care toward the plaintiff.
True False
4. A plaintiff in a negligence suit may choose whether the plaintiff wishes pure comparative
negligence or modified comparative negligence to be applied by the court.
True False
5. According to the pure comparative negligence defense, a defendant must be more than 50% at
fault before the plaintiff can recover.
True False
6. Assumption of the risk is a doctrine which makes it easier for a plaintiff to prevail in a lawsuit.
True False
7. More than half the states remain contributory negligence states.
True False
8. To use the assumption of the risk defense successfully, a defendant must prove that the plaintiff
voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm the defendant caused.
True False
9. Implied assumption of the risk occurs when the plaintiff expressly agrees, usually in a written
contract, to assume the risk posed by the defendant's behavior.
True False
10. Good Samaritan statutes impose liability upon people for refusing to stop at accident scenes.
True False
9-1
Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of
McGraw-Hill Education.
11. Strict liability is liability without fault.
True False
12. In District of Columbia v. Wayne Singleton, the case in the text involving the single-vehicle bus
accident, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because a single-vehicle accident is a
type that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence.
True False
Multiple Choice Questions
13. Which of the following was the result on appeal in John Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball
Team, the case in the text in which the plaintiff sued after being hit in the eye by a hotdog thrown
into the stands by a team mascot during the "Hotdog Launch," a customary activity during
games?
A. The court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the defense on the basis that the plaintiff assumed
the risk of injury by hotdog because the tossing of the hotdogs was a customary event of which
the plaintiff was or should have been aware before attending the game.
B. The court dismissed the case on the basis that injuries at baseball games are an inherent part
of the sport whether by baseball or by hotdog.
C. The court dismissed the case on the basis that through a click agreement the plaintiff
expressly agreed not to sue for any injuries when ordering the tickets through the Internet.
D. The court affirmed a jury verdict finding for the defense on the basis that the plaintiff did not
immediately report injuries to stadium officials.
E. The court found that the jury was improperly instructed on the assumption of the risk defense
and that the plaintiff did not assume the risk of injury by hotdog by attending the game.
14. Assume Bob, who had no notice of any heart problem, is driving and suddenly has an
unexpected heart attack causing him to run over a student crossing the street breaking the
student's leg in the process. Which of the following is true?
A. The student can recover upon a showing of injury. Nothing else is required.
B. The student may recover only if the student can show that the student was in the marked
crosswalk.
C. It is unlikely that the student can recover because the accident could not have been avoided
even with reasonable care.
D. The student can recover in an action for negligence only if it can be shown that Bob had
insurance.
E. The student can recover only if the student can establish that the student did not have any
medical insurance.
9-2
15. Which of the following must a plaintiff prove to win a negligence case?
A. Duty, breach of duty, and causation, but not damages.

B. Breach of duty only.
C. Duty and causation only.
D. Causation and damages.
E. Duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.
16. The ________ standard is a measurement of the way members of society expect an individual to
act in a given situation.
A. Reasonable person
B. Above-average person
C. Without error
D. Perfect accountability
E. Reasonable accountability
17. While driving her car down the street, Susan sees a child playing near the road with no adult
around. Which of the following is true?
A. Because the law holds that every U.S. citizen holds the duty to help a stranger in peril, she
must come to the child's assistance.
B. She must come to the child's assistance only because a child is involved.
C. She has no duty to render assistance to the child.
D. She must render assistance to the child only if she can do so without peril to herself.
E. She must render assistance to the child only if she is acquainted with the child's parents.
18. Tina negligently hits student Susie with her car. Which of the following is true?
A. Tina has no duty to come to the aid of Susie.

B. Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie because she negligently hit her.
C. Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie only if police are not on the scene within a
reasonable amount of time.
D. Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie only if Susie has no insurance.
E. Tina has a duty to come to the aid of Susie only if no one else is willing to do so.
19. Clients who feel that they have suffered damages as a result of a professional's breach of his or
her duty of care can bring a negligence case against the professional referred to as a
_____________ case.
A. Malfeasance
B. Malpractice
C. Mistake
D. Physician liability
E. Physician guilty
9-3
20. Which of the following is true regarding the duty that a business owes to customers?
A. A business owes no duty to its customers other than to sell safe products.
B. A business owes an absolute duty to keep its customers safe and is strictly liable for any harm.
C. A business only owes a minimal duty toward customers.
D. A business owes a negligence per se duty toward customers.
E. A business has a duty of care to protect their customers against foreseeable risks about which
the owner knew or reasonably should have known.
21. Which of the following are elements of causation?
A. Actual cause and proximate cause.

B. Actual cause and significant cause.
C. Actual cause and clear cause.
D. Proximate cause and significant cause.
E. Proximate cause and real cause.
22. Actual cause is also known as ______.
A. Proximate cause
B. Legal cause
C. Cause in fact
D. Cause for certainty
E. Proximately related cause
23. Which of the following is sometimes referred to as "but for" causation?
A. Proximate cause.
B. Significant cause.
C. Actual cause.
D. Legal cause.
E. Constructive cause.
24. Proximate cause is also sometimes referred to as which of the following?
A. Actual cause.
B. Cause in fact.
C. Legal cause.
D. Significant cause.
E. Factual Cause.
9-4
25. Which of the following refers to the extent to which, as a matter of policy, a defendant may be
held liable for the consequences of his actions?
A. Proximate cause.
B. Actual cause.
C. Cause in fact.
D. Significant cause.
E. Legal cause.
26. In most states, proximate cause is determined by _______.
A. Actual cause
B. Common law
C. Foreseeability
D. But-for causation
E. Strict liability
27. Which of the following damages are intended to reimburse a plaintiff for his or her losses?
A. Compensatory.
B. Punitives.
C. Nominal.
D. Exemplary.
E. Quantum.
28. Why are punitive damages awarded?
A. Only to punish the offender.

B. Only to deter others from committing similar offenses.
C. Only to reimburse a plaintiff for his or her losses.
D. To punish the offender and to deter others from committing similar offenses.
E. To punish the offender, to deter others from committing similar offenses, and to reimburse a
plaintiff for his or her losses.
29. Courts usually award punitive damages in cases in which the offender has committed ______.
A. Negligence
B. Strict liability offense
C. A res ipsa loquitur offense
D. A tort directly involving negligence per se
E. Gross negligence
9-5
30. Which of the following aids plaintiffs in establishing negligence claims?
A. Only res ipsa loquitur

B. Only negligence per se
C. Only assumption of risk
D. Res ipsa loquitur and negligence per se
E. Res ipsa loquitur, negligence per se, and assumption of risk
31. When would a defendant use the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?
A. To allow the judge and jury to infer that more likely than not, the defendant's negligence was
the cause of the plaintiff's harm, even though no direct evidence of the defendant's lack of due
care existed.
B. To allow the judge and jury to infer that more likely than not, the defendant's negligence was
not the cause of the plaintiff's harm.
C. To allow the judge and jury to presume the plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence.
D. To allow the judge and jury to presume the plaintiff destroyed evidence.
E. To allow the judge to hold the defendant liable under a strict liability theory.
32. Assuming res ipsa loquitur is established, what is the effect of that doctrine?
A. It requires a finding of negligence.

B. It prohibits a finding of negligence.
C. The burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff.
D. The burden of proof shifts to the defendant.
E. The burden of proof rises to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
33. Which of the following is true regarding the law of negligence in Germany?
A. It is the same as the law of negligence in the United States.

B. It focuses only on conscious negligence.
C. It focuses only on unconscious negligence.
D. Courts distinguish between conscious and unconscious negligence with defendants who have
engaged in only conscious negligence being found not guilty.
E. Both mental and physical capabilities are taken into account in determining whether a
defendant is negligent.
34. What does the term "negligence per se" mean literally?
A. Pure negligence.
B. Select negligence.
C. Negligence in or of itself.
D. Absolute wrongdoing.
E. Allowable negligence.
9-6
35. Which of the following applies to cases in which the defendant has violated a statute enacted to
prevent a certain type of harm from befalling a specific group to which the plaintiff belongs?
A. Res ipsa loquitur.

B. Negligence per se.
C. Statutory shop act.
D. Comparative negligence.
E. Assumption of the risk.
36. Which of the following is an example of a dram shop act?
A. A statute which requires bar owners to have a license before operating a bar.
B. A statute which allows bartenders and bar owners to be held liable for injuries caused by
individuals who become intoxicated at the bar.
C. A statute that prohibits any bars on certain streets in the jurisdiction.
D. A statute which allows the selling of beer but not hard liquor.
E. A statute which requires bar owners to post a bond before opening for business in a
jurisdiction.
37. Which of the following is true regarding contributory negligence?
A. The defense was once available in a few states but is not available in any state today.
B. It is available in all states today.
C. It was outlawed by a federal statute.
D. It was once available in all states but has been replaced in some states by the defense of
comparative negligence.
E. It was once available in all states and has been replaced in some states by the defense of
assumption of risk.
38. Which of the following must the defendant prove in order to rely upon the defense of contributory
negligence?
A. Only that the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable
risk of harm.
B. Only that a failure of the plaintiff was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injury.
C. Only that the plaintiff violated the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D. That the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk
of harm and also that the plaintiff's failure was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injuries.
E. That the plaintiff's conduct fell below the standard of care needed to prevent unreasonable risk
of harm; that the plaintiff's failure was a contributing cause to the plaintiff's injuries; and also
that the plaintiff failed to abide by the last-clear-chance doctrine.
9-7
39. Which of the following is a doctrine that allows the plaintiff to recover damages despite proof of
contributory negligence as long as the defendant had a final clear opportunity to avoid the action
that injured the plaintiff?
A. Assumption of risk.
B. Last-clear-chance doctrine.
C. Modified risk doctrine.
D. Modified comparative doctrine.
E. There is no such doctrine.
40. Assume Bobby begins to cross the street in a jurisdiction that applies contributory negligence. He
does not go to a crosswalk but proceeds to illegally cross the street without checking to see if any
vehicles are coming. Slick sees Bobby in the street, notices that he is not in the crosswalk, and
proceeds to hit Bobby with his vehicle because he believes that Bobby should be taught a lesson
about how to cross the street. Slick does slow down somewhat and only causes Bobby some
significant bruising, but Bobby is angry and sues. Which of the following is most likely to happen
in a contributory negligence jurisdiction?
A. Slick will not be held liable because Bobby was contributorily negligent.
B. Bobby will be able to recover despite proof of contributory negligence on his part because Slick
had a final clear opportunity to avoid the action that injured Bobby.
C. Bobby will win because of comparative negligence.
D. Slick will win because of the assumption of risk doctrine based upon the fact that Bobby
committed an offense by crossing the street where he did in violation of clearly defined law.
E. Bobby will lose because Slick, at least, reduced his speed.
41. Why have most states replaced the contributory negligence defense with a comparative
negligence theory?
A. In order to assist a defendant in defending against unfounded claims.

B. In order to assist a plaintiff in avoiding the assumption of the risk doctrine.
C. In order to assist a defendant in avoiding the assumption of the risk doctrine.
D. Because of situations in which a plaintiff is barred from recovery due to minimal contributory
negligence.
E. Because of situations in which a defendant is released from liability based on the last clear
chance doctrine when equity requires that the defendant bear at least some responsibility.
42. Under which of the following does the court determine the percentage of the fault of the
defendant with the defendant then being liable for that percentage of the plaintiff's damages, with
no requirement that the defendant be more than 50% at fault?
A. Assumption of the risk.

B. Last-clear-chance.
C. Modified comparative negligence.
D. Pure comparative negligence.
E. Both modified comparative negligence and last-clear-chance.
9-8
43. Under which of the following does the court determine the percentage of fault of the defendant
requiring that the defendant be more than 50% at fault before the plaintiff can recover?
A. Assumption of the risk.

B. Last-clear-chance.
C. Modified comparative negligence.
D. Pure comparative negligence.
E. Both modified comparative negligence and last-clear-chance.
44. Which of the following is a doctrine available to defendants whereby a defendant may avoid
liability by establishing that the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the
actual harm that the defendant caused?
A. Last-clear-chance doctrine.
B. Assumption of the risk doctrine.
C. Contributory negligence doctrine.
D. Res ipsa loquitur.
E. Negligence per se.
45. Which of the following occurs when a plaintiff expressly agrees, usually in a written contract, to
assume the risk posed by the defendant's behavior?
A. Implied assumption of the risk.

B. Express assumption of the risk.
C. Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D. Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
E. Assumption by incident.
46. Which of the following occurs when a plaintiff implicitly assumes a known risk?
A. Implied assumption of the risk.

B. Express assumption of the risk.
C. Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D. Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
E. Assumption by incident.
47. Which is the most difficult part of establishing the defense of assumption of the risk?
A. Showing that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the actual harm suffered.
B. Showing that the defendant was aware that the plaintiff assumed the risk.
C. Showing that the plaintiff was aware of applicable law.
D. Showing that the plaintiff signed the contract assuming the risk without duress.
E. Showing a lack of contributory conduct on the part of other defendants.
9-9
48. In reference to the case in the text, Ex Parte Emmette L. Barran, III, what was the result after the
plaintiff sued the national and local Kappa Alpha organization following hazing activities?
A. The court ruled that under pure contributive negligence principles, the plaintiff was entitled to
recover.
B. The court ruled that under pure comparative negligence principles, the plaintiff was entitled to
recover.
C. The court ruled that under modified comparative negligence principles, the plaintiff was entitled
to recover.
D. The court dismissed the case on the basis of negligence per se.
E. The court dismissed the lawsuit on the basis that the plaintiff assumed the risk of harm.
49. Which of the following are laws holding that people in peril who receive voluntary aid from others
cannot hold those offering aid liable for negligence?
A. Good Samaritan statutes.

B. Aid to others statutes.
C. Rescue statutes.
D. Freedom statutes.
E. All clear statutes.
50. Which of the following is an unforeseeable event which interrupts the causal chain between the
defendant's breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered?
A. A surprise event
B. A superseding cause
C. A relative cause
D. An unusual cause
E. Assumption of the risk
51. Which of the following is liability without fault?
A. Negligence.
B. Assumption of the risk.
C. Strict liability.
D. Storekeeper liability.
E. Homeowner liability.
52. Which of the following is a condition required for the imposition of strict liability?
A. The activity involves negligence pertaining to the preparation of food products.

B. The activity involves trespassing in a way that reasonably leads to fright on the part of home
owners.
C. The activity is undertaken by a minor.
D. The activity is so inherently dangerous that it cannot ever be safely undertaken.
E. The activity is heavily regulated.
9-10
53. Which of the following is an example of an inherently dangerous activity?
A. Driving a vehicle.
B. Operating an airplane.
C. Dynamite blasting in a populated area.
D. Burning trash.
E. Babysitting.
54. Which of the following is true regarding negligence under South African Law?
A. South Africa's legal system is a combination of selected legal traditions involving Roman,
Dutch, and French law, but not German law.
B. Under South African law, individuals can be found negligent in only one way, through failing to
exercise reasonable care.
C. South African law models the law of the U.S. and is substantially the same.
D. South African law refuses to recognize sudden emergency as a standard for determining
negligence in crisis situations.
E. South African law recognizes that one way to determine negligence is by determining whether
the defendant could have prevented the consequent damages.
55. What was the final result on appeal in the Case Opener involving whether the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur applied to the lawsuit brought against landowners after the plaintiff fell through a wooden
dock located on the defendants' property?
A. That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied.

B. That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because there was insufficient proof that the
type of accident at issue would not normally happen in the absence of negligence.
C. That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because there was insufficient proof that the
dock at issue was in the exclusive control of the defendants.
D. That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because it only applies in contractual cases.
E. That whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied should be decided by the jury.
56. Which of the following was the result in District of Columbia v. Wayne Singleton, the case in the
text involving whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to a negligence action involving a
single-vehicle accident?
A. That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to absolve the defendant from liability.
B. That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to establish the defendant's liability to the plaintiff.
C. That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to prevent the defendant from invoking the
doctrine of comparative fault.
D. That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to the motor vehicle accident at issue because it applies
only in litigation involving strict liability.
E. That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the plaintiff failed to eliminate
sufficiently other causes of the accident.
9-11
"Diving fiasco." Mike, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in
U.S. waters. Mike is aware that the area where the divers will be visiting is occasionally visited by
sharks. He is also aware that, while sting rays are usually tame, they can become aggressive
when fed. Mike did not reveal that information to the group of divers going with him because in his
experience, as soon as customers hear of even a hint of danger, they refuse to pay and go on the
trip. The divers go down into the water, and some have squid with which to feed the sting rays.
During the dive, one of the sting rays becomes agitated and latches onto diver Susie's arm. Susie
is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (her breathing device) from her mouth and is in
considerable difficulty. Another diver, Billy, encounters a shark which snaps at him. Fortunately,
the shark does not bite him but does damage his diving equipment. He is also in distress. Mike,
who is in charge of the dive, does nothing but return to the boat because the dive turned out to be
more trouble than expected. Wendy, another diver on the trip, also returns to the boat without
doing anything to help the divers in distress. Sam, on the other hand, goes to rescue the divers
who are in distress. He manages to assist them, but in the process, he pulls his back and
requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Mike.
57. Billy, the diver who had damaged equipment because of the shark incident wants to sue Mike for
damages. Which of the following is the most likely result?
A. Billy will win because Mike should have warned him about the occasional appearance of
sharks.
B. Billy will lose because Mike had no duty to warn him of anything.
C. Billy will lose because he did not sustain physical injury.
D. Billy will win only if he can establish that he had a contract with Mike whereby Mike agreed to
reveal harmful conditions.
E. Billy will win only if he can establish that he did not have insurance to cover the equipment.
58. Billy and Susie are annoyed that Mike did not come to their assistance. Which is true regarding
Mike's duty to provide assistance during the dive?
A. Mike had no duty to provide any assistance to them.

B. Mike had a duty to come to their aid because he arranged the dive and was charging them.
C. Mike had a duty to come to their assistance only if he had specifically agreed to do so prior to
the dive.
D. Mike had a duty to come to their assistance only if they were minors.
E. Mike had a duty to come to their assistance only if no one else did so.
59. Which of the following is true regarding whether Wendy and Sam had a duty to come to the
assistance of the divers in peril?
A. Neither Wendy nor Sam had a duty to go to the aid of the divers who were in peril.
B. Wendy and Sam had a duty to go to the aid of the divers in peril only if Mike refused to do so.
C. Wendy and Sam did not have a duty to go to the aid of the divers in peril unless they were the
first to see the problem.
D. Wendy and Sam had a duty to assist the divers in peril only if they were acquainted prior to the
dive with the divers who were in peril. They had no duty to help strangers.
E. Sam and Wendy had a duty to help the divers who were in peril if personal safety was involved
but not if the only issue was damage to property.
9-12
60. Which of the following is true regarding whether Mike is liable for the injuries Sam sustained in
coming to the rescue of the divers in distress?
A. Mike is not liable for Sam's injuries because Sam had no legal duty to come to the aid of the
other divers.
B. Mike is not liable for Sam's injuries because Sam assumed the risk of harm.
C. Mike is not liable for Sam's injuries because the shark attack constituted a superseding cause
of the injuries.
D. Mike is liable for Sam's injuries only if he made them worse by not getting Sam medical
attention on a timely basis.
E. Mike is liable for Sam's injuries under the danger invites rescue doctrine.
"Blow up." Jeanie is hauling gas in the back of her pick-up truck for her personal watercraft. She
is planning a lake party and thinks she will need a lot of it. On the way home, Jeanie stops at the
automatic teller machine at her bank and exits her car. Holly pulls behind her and negligently
rear-ends Jeanie's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the
ground. The bank sues Holly for negligence claiming that Holly should have to pay for the entire
bank building. The bank claimed that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur
doctrine.
61. Which of the following is true regarding whether actual cause exists in the bank's action against
Holly?
A. Actual causation would exist because the bank would not have been burnt down if Holly had
fulfilled her duty to drive properly.
B. Actual cause is present because as a matter of policy, it is believed that someone who rear-
ends a vehicle should be responsible for damages.
C. Actual cause is present because Holly was the legal cause of the bank burning.
D. Actual cause is not present because Holly is not the legal cause of the bank burning.
E. Actual cause is not present because Holly is not the proximate cause of the bank burning.
62. Which of the following is most likely true regarding whether Holly is the proximate cause of the
bank burning?
A. Holly is not the proximate cause of the bank burning because it was not foreseeable that
Jeanie would have gas in the back of her pick-up truck that would result in such a fire.
B. Holly is not the proximate case of the accident because her actions were not the cause in fact
of the accident.
C. Holly's actions were not the proximate cause of the accident because actual causation cannot
be established since it was foreseeable that gas can result in a fire.
D. Holly's actions were the proximate cause of the bank's burning because actual cause is
present.
E. Holly's actions were the proximate cause of the bank's burning because cause in fact can be
established.
9-13
63. Which of the following is true regarding the bank's claim that it should be able to recover under
the res ipsa loquitur doctrine?
A. The bank is correct because under that doctrine defendants are liable for any harm caused.
B. The bank is correct only if Holly has sufficient insurance to cover the bank burning.
C. The bank is correct only if it can be established that Holly was a repeat driving offender.
D. The bank is incorrect because the issue here is causation, not whether there was a lack of due
care.
E. The bank is incorrect because res ipsa loquitur is a defense.
"Chewer." The state in which Susan lives has a statute prohibiting dogs from running at large. All
dogs are required to be on a leash whenever they are off the owner's premises. Susan's dog,
while not on a leash, visits the home of a neighbor down the street. While there, the dog carries
off an expensive pair of shoes belonging to Robert. The shoes are chewed and destroyed. A
neighbor informed Robert of what had happened. Robert commented that he never should have
left his $300 shoes lying on the deck in the first place but that he expects to be repaid by Susan.
Robert found out that the dog had carried away a number of shoes and other articles in the
neighborhood, chewing them to pieces. Susan had done nothing to warn anyone. Robert thinks
that she should be punished for her activities, and perhaps that would deter her from allowing the
dog to run loose.
64. Upon which of the following theories will Robert likely rely in seeking recovery for the shoes
against Susan?
A. Negligence per se
B. Res ipsa loquitur
C. Stare decisis
D. A fortiori
E. Actus reus
65. Which of the following theories will Susan likely use to defend herself?
A. Assumption of the risk

B. Comparative negligence
C. Res ipsa loquitur
D. Negligence per se
E. Stare decisis
66. What type of damages would Robert seek in order to punish Susan and to deter her actions in
regard to letting the dog run free?
A. Punitive.
B. Compensatory.
C. Nominal.
D. Liquidated.
E. There are no such damages available.
9-14
Essay Questions
67. As the law currently stands in most jurisdictions, do individuals have a general duty to rescue
strangers from perilous situations? Discuss whether or not you believe individuals should have a
duty under tort law to rescue strangers from perilous situations and how you think the law should
be written in that area.
68. Identify and discuss the two separate elements of causation and how they are applied.
69. Identify and explain the elements of negligence.
9-15
70. Define the term "res ipsa loquitur" and set forth what a plaintiff must demonstrate in order rely
upon that doctrine.
71. Assume a jurisdiction has a law that all residential swimming pools must have a fence that is at
least six feet tall surrounding the swimming pool. Cindy has a pool in her backyard; but it was
built only a few months ago, and Cindy has not had the extra money with which to build the fence.
Unfortunately, one of the neighborhood children goes swimming in the pool and drowns. The
parents of the child sue Cindy. Discuss how they would likely go about proving their case and the
elements that would be required.
9-16
Chapter 09 Negligence and Strict Liability Answer Key
True / False Questions
1. In some situations, the law specifies the duty of care one individual owes to another.
(p. 216)
TRUE
The plaintiff must first establish that the defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff; but, in some
particular situations, the law specifies the duty of care one individual owes to another.
AACSB: Analytic
Accessibility: Keyboard Navigation
Blooms: Understand
Difficulty: 2 Medium
Learning Objective: 09-01 What are the elements of negligence?
Topic: Elements of Negligence
2. The courts generally hold that landowners have a duty to protect individuals on their property.
(p. 217)
TRUE
The courts generally hold that landowners have a duty of care to protect individuals on their
property.
AACSB: Analytic
Blooms: Remember
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Learning Objective: 09-01 What are the elements of negligence?
Topic: Elements of Negligence
3. When negligence per se applies, the plaintiff is required to show that a reasonable person
(p. 225) would exercise a heightened duty of care toward the plaintiff.
FALSE
When negligence per se applies, the plaintiff does not have to show that a reasonable person
would exercise a certain duty of care toward the plaintiff.
AACSB: Analytic
Blooms: Understand
Learning Objective: 09-02 What are the doctrines that help a plaintiff establish a case of negligence?
Topic: Plaintiff's Doctrines
9-17
4. A plaintiff in a negligence suit may choose whether the plaintiff wishes pure comparative
(p. 226- negligence or modified comparative negligence to be applied by the court.
227)
FALSE
Choice is not involved. Most states have replaced the contributory negligence defense with
either pure or modified comparative negligence.
AACSB: Analytic
Blooms: Understand
Learning Objective: 09-03 What are the defenses to a claim of negligence?
Topic: Defenses to Negligence
5. According to the pure comparative negligence defense, a defendant must be more than 50%
(p. 227) at fault before the plaintiff can recover.
FALSE
According to a pure comparative negligence defense, the court determines the percentage of
fault of the defendant, and the defendant is then liable for that percentage of the plaintiff's
damages.
AACSB: Analytic
Blooms: Understand
6. Assumption of the risk is a doctrine which makes it easier for a plaintiff to prevail in a lawsuit.
(p. 227)
FALSE
A defense available to defendants facing negligence claims is called assumption of the risk.
AACSB: Analytic
Blooms: Understand
7. More than half the states remain contributory negligence states.

(p. 227)
FALSE
Twenty-eight states have adopted modified comparative negligence, thirteen have adopted
pure comparative negligence, and nine have adopted contributory negligence.
AACSB: Analytic
Blooms: Understand
9-18
8. To use the assumption of the risk defense successfully, a defendant must prove that the
(p. 227) plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm the defendant
caused.
TRUE
To use the assumption of the risk defense successfully, a defendant must prove that the
plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably encountered the risk of the actual harm the defendant
caused.
AACSB: Analytic
Blooms: Understand
9. Implied assumption of the risk occurs when the plaintiff expressly agrees, usually in a written
(p. 227) contract, to assume the risk posed by the defendant's behavior.
FALSE
Express assumption of the risk occurs when the plaintiff expressly agrees (usually in a written
contract) to assume the risk posed by the defendant's behavior.
AACSB: Analytic
Blooms: Understand
10. Good Samaritan statutes impose liability upon people for refusing to stop at accident scenes.
(p. 229)
FALSE
Good Samaritan statutes attempt to encourage selfless and courageous behavior by removing
the threat of liability.
AACSB: Analytic
Blooms: Remember
Difficulty: 1 Easy
11. Strict liability is liability without fault.

(p. 229)
TRUE
Strict liability is liability without fault.
AACSB: Analytic
9-19
Blooms: Remember
Difficulty: 1 Easy
Learning Objective: 09-04 What are the elements of strict liability?
Topic: Strict liability
12. In District of Columbia v. Wayne Singleton, the case in the text involving the single-vehicle bus
(p. 224) accident, the court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because a single-vehicle accident
is a type that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence.
FALSE
According to the court, "Respondents' perhaps unnecessarily bare-bones case-in-chief failed

to eliminate sufficiently other causes of the accident, and failed to evince that the bus driver's
negligence was the most probable causative factor."
AACSB: Analytic
Blooms: Remember
Learning Objective: 09-02 What are the doctrines that help a plaintiff establish a case of negligence?
Topic: Plaintiff's Doctrines
Multiple Choice Questions
13. Which of the following was the result on appeal in John Coomer v. Kansas City Royals
(p. 230) Baseball Team, the case in the text in which the plaintiff sued after being hit in the eye by a
hotdog thrown into the stands by a team mascot during the "Hotdog Launch," a customary
activity during games?
A. The court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the defense on the basis that the plaintiff
assumed the risk of injury by hotdog because the tossing of the hotdogs was a customary
event of which the plaintiff was or should have been aware before attending the game.
B. The court dismissed the case on the basis that injuries at baseball games are an inherent
part of the sport whether by baseball or by hotdog.
C. The court dismissed the case on the basis that through a click agreement the plaintiff
expressly agreed not to sue for any injuries when ordering the tickets through the Internet.
D. The court affirmed a jury verdict finding for the defense on the basis that the plaintiff did not
immediately report injuries to stadium officials.
E. The court found that the jury was improperly instructed on the assumption of the risk
defense and that the plaintiff did not assume the risk of injury by hotdog by attending the
game.
According to the court "that tossing out promotional items is a customary activity does not
equate to a fan's consent to the risk of being hit by a promotional item."
AACSB: Analytic
Blooms: Understand
9-20
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
KÓWAM AND GÁHGA
CHARACTERS
Gáhga Heron
Kówam Red-billed Duck
Lok Bear
Kówam and his little brother lived on the south side of Klamath Lake.
The little boy’s name was Gáhga.
Kówam had a nice-looking wife, and when he went to fish in the lake,
he always told her that if any one came to bother her she must send
Gáhga to tell him.
One morning, when Kówam had gone to the lake, and his old
mother-in-law was out gathering wood, Kówam’s wife sat down by
the fire and began to make a reed basket for Kówam to put fish in.
After a while the old woman ran in and cried: “The big-footed people
are coming!”
Soon the five Lok brothers came in and sat down by the fire. The
eldest brother put his head on the young woman’s lap.
Gágha began to cry, and Lok said: “Why do you cry, little boy? Are
you sorry for me because I haven’t a wife? This woman is my wife.”
Gágha kept crying. At midday his eyes were so swollen that he could
hardly open them. “Stop crying,” said his sister-in-law. “Go and find
your brother and tell him that the big-footed men are here. Maybe
nothing has happened, and he doesn’t know there is trouble at
home.”
Gágha cried all the time he was going to the lake. When he found his
brother Kówam asked: “What’s the matter? What makes you cry?
Did you hurt yourself?”
“No,” said Gágha, “five of the big-footed people from the north side
of the lake are in our house, and one of them has his head on my
sister-in-law’s knees.” [285]
“Is she crying?” asked Kówam.
“No, but I’ve cried all the time, I’m so sorry they have taken my
sister-in-law away from me.”
“If she isn’t crying, she doesn’t care for us, and there is no use in
crying. If they had made her cry, I should kill those men.”
Kówam sat still a long time; he was thinking what he could do. Then
he said to Gágha: “Stop crying and get some wood; we will cook fish
to eat. You must hurry, so we can go home before it’s dark.”
Little Gágha could hardly stand; he had cried so long that he was
dizzy.
Kówam said: “Don’t cry any longer. I know what I will do to those big-
footed people.”
They built a fire and cooked fish. Gágha’s tears were dropping all the
time he was eating.
“Stop crying and finish eating!” said his brother. “Whenever a man
has a nice wife he is bothered. It will always be that way.”
Kówam filled an old basket with fish, picked it up, put it on his back,
and said: “Now we will go home.”
“How can we go home while those big-footed people are there?”

asked Gágha. He was crying again.
“I am not afraid of those men,” said Kówam. “That is my house; I will

drive them out of it or I will kill them.”
When they were part of the way home, Kówam said: “Little brother,
take my bow and arrow and shoot me in the heart.”
“How can I do that? You are my brother.”
“It won’t hurt me. I want you to practise shooting.”
“You are my own brother, all the one I have. I won’t do it,” said
Gágha.
“You must,” said Kówam. “It won’t hurt me.”
“It will kill you; then I shall be all alone,” said Gágha.
Kówam talked a long time, asked in every way, but Gágha always
said: “You are my brother; I won’t kill you.” At last Kówam said: “If
you don’t shoot me and make me strong, I will let the big-footed
people have your sister-in-law; I [286]won’t try to kill them. You can’t
kill me. Nobody can kill me; I shall live always.”
At last Gáhga took the bow and arrow and shot Kówam in the heart,
killed him; then he ran, for he felt scared. Right away Kówam
overtook him, and said: “Now shoot me in the heart and tear my
body to pieces.” Gáhga did as Kówam told him to and then ran away.
Again Kówam overtook him. That time he said: “Kill me and pound
my body to pieces; then mix the pieces with dirt and stones.” Gáhga
did as he was told. Soon his brother caught up with him, and said:
“Kill me, then pound my body up and throw the pieces away.” Gágha
did that, and went on; he didn’t run that time, he just walked; he
didn’t feel scared any longer. Kówam came up behind him, and said:
“Now, little brother, try again. Kill me, then build a big fire and burn
up my body and let the wind carry the ashes away.” Gáhga did that.
His brother overtook him again.
“What kind of a man are you?” asked Gáhga. “Is there any way to kill
you?”
“I wasn’t made to die,” said Kówam, “I shall live always. Now kill me
and cut off my feet and hands and carry them away. Hold them tight.”
Gáhga shot Kówam in the heart, cut off his hands and feet, held
them tight in his own hands, and traveled on, went fast. Right away
his brother called to him. Gáhga’s hands were shut, but the feet and
hands that he had been carrying were gone, and Kówam was by his
side. Then he cut Kówam’s head off and threw it away. At once the
head and body came together.
The brothers were almost home now and Kówam said: “You must
take my bow and quiver and wait on top of the house; I will go in
alone. Don’t be scared when they throw me out; they can’t hurt me.”
Kówam went in, pulled Lok’s head off from the woman’s knees, and
threw him out of the house. Lok came in, caught Kówam, killed him,
and threw the pieces on the fire.
Right away Kówam had Lok by the throat. He choked him and threw
him out. [287]
When Kówam was killed and thrown out, his mother-in-law

screamed: “I am glad you are dead, old Black Legs!” When Lok was
thrown out, she screamed, “Now you are killed, old Big Feet, my
son-in-law is a great man!”
The fight lasted all night. Just as daylight came, Lok tore Kówam’s
head off; he kicked the body out and held tight to the head. That
moment Kówam said to his brother: “Now I am ready to fight. I was
just waiting for another sun to come up.”
He took his bow and arrows and shot at the Loks through the smoke
hole, and killed them all. Then he covered the house with dry grass,
piled up wood around it, and set it on fire.
Gáhga screamed and cried; he wanted his sister-in-law saved.

Kówam wouldn’t listen to him and wouldn’t let his wife out. Then
Gáhga got mad at his brother, and said: “Hereafter you won’t have a
person for a wife. You will be an animal. People will call you by
different names, and you will always live in the woods and make a
great noise talking.”
Kówam said: “Punch a stick in where your sister-in-law was sitting.”

She was dead, but a voice spoke out of the fire and said to Kówam:
“You will always stick your bill up in the sun and look off on the water.
And you, my little boy, will be like your brother.”—Ningádaniak. [288]
[Contents]
MINK AND WEASEL
CHARACTERS
Blaiwas Eagle Lok Bear

Gäk Crow Moi Squirrel
Gapni Louse Näníhläs Bat
Kāhkaas Stork Skóŭks Woodtick
Kaiutois Wolf Súbbas Sun
Kaltsik Spider Sukas
Kéis Rattlesnake Tcûskai Weasel
Kékina Lizard Tskel Mink
Kówe Frog Tusasás Skunk
Kûlta Otter Wŏn Elk
Leméis Thunder
Two brothers, Tskel and Tcûskai, lived together not far from Klamath
Lake. Tskel’s wife was Skóŭks. Tcûskai was a little fellow. One day
when Skóŭks was outside cooking deer meat and was blowing the
fire to make it burn, she saw Tcûskai watching her; that made her
mad and she threw the meat into the fire. Tskel hit Tcûskai and told
him to stay in the house when Skóŭks was cooking; then he said to
Skóŭks: “Cook more meat; Tcûskai and I are going to the mountain
to hunt for deer. If I kill a big deer, we will camp and stay all night.”
Tskel never killed a deer; no matter how many he saw, he always let
them get away.
When they got to the mountain, they saw a large deer; Tcûskai killed
it, and they camped in sight of a big hole between the rocks. Tskel
wouldn’t camp very near the hole, for he was afraid his brother would
go into it and get hurt. Tcûskai would go anywhere, he wasn’t afraid
of anything.
Tskel cut up the deer; then he and Tcûskai lay down, one on each
side of the fire. As soon as Tcûskai was asleep, Gopher came and
ran across him, just to tease him. Tcûskai [289]woke up and called his
brother: “Come here! Come and see this little fellow! I will give him a
piece of our meat, and we will catch him.”
Tskel didn’t move; he was asleep. Tcûskai gave Gopher a small

piece of meat. He took it and ran off to the rocks, then came back for
more, carried that off and came back again. Each time he came
Tcûskai gave him a larger piece. At last all the deer meat was gone;
then Tcûskai went to Tskel, shook him, and said: “Get up! Get up!
This little fellow has carried off all of our meat.”
Tskel didn’t move or say a word. Tcûskai gave Gopher all the roots
Tskel had brought from home; then he took off Tskel’s belt and gave
it to him. Gopher carried it under the rocks. He gave him Tskel’s
deerskin cap and his rabbit-skin blanket.
In the morning when Tskel woke up, the north wind was blowing and
he was almost frozen. He asked Tcûskai where the blanket was.
Tcûskai said: “Gopher took it.”
“Then you gave it to him,” said Tskel; “Gopher couldn’t unwrap me.”
Tcûskai began to feel cold; he wanted to get into Tskel’s ear, but
Tskel was mad, and threw him out. Then he tried to get under Tskel’s
arm, but Tskel pushed him away and sat with his arms folded across
his breast, for he had no blanket and he was cold.
“Why are you so mad?” asked Tcûskai. “I will get those things back;
they are over there under the rocks.”
It was near daylight; Tcûskai was freezing to death. Tskel made a fire
and told him to lie down near it and get warm. Then he made himself
a bark blanket. When Tcûskai was warm, his brother said: “Now you
must get back the things you gave to Gopher.”
Tcûskai ran to the rock and looked into the hole; he thought it was
awful deep, but he ran back, and said: “The hole isn’t deep; we can
build a fire and drive Gopher out.”
“I want my blanket,” said Tskel; “maybe you can crawl in and get it.”
The mountain was Gopher’s house. The rocks were only [290]the roof
of it. Tcûskai saw his brother’s belt, but he was afraid to go and get it.
Tskel said: “Make a fire and blow the smoke into the hole. How long
can you fan the fire without getting tired?”
“I can fan it till Gopher comes out,” said Tcûskai.
“But there are many holes,” said his brother. “You will have lots of
trouble. Do you think you can fill the holes with stones?”
“I can fill them quickly,” said Tskel. He ran around, threw stones into
the holes, then came back and blew the fire. But the smoke came
out through other holes, and Tskel said: “Go and stop up every hole
you can find.”
Tskel, to make Tcûskai sorry for what he had done, hid all the water
in a hole where he couldn’t find it. Little Tcûskai got very thirsty. He
ran from one spring to another but couldn’t find water; then he knew
that his brother had hidden it and he said: “I want some water.”
“You can’t have any until you have killed Gopher,” said Tskel. “When
he is dead, I will give you some.”
Tcûskai filled all the little holes and fanned smoke into the big hole.
At midday he said to his brother: “I am stronger than you are; you
never could have filled all these holes.” He went again to hunt for
water. At last he found the place where Tskel had hidden it; then he
drank and drank, drank nearly all the water there was in the hole.
Tskel wondered why Tcûskai didn’t come back. At last he thought:

“Maybe he has found the water; I will go and see.” Tcûskai was still
drinking, and only a little water was left. If Tskel hadn’t thought of the
water and gone to look for his brother, he would have drunk it all and
there would have been no water in the world.
Tskel caught hold of Tcûskai and threw him against the rocks so hard
that he killed him; then he scattered the water. There was only a little
left, but it spread fast, spread until there were rivers and lakes. Then
Tskel went to his brother, took off the string of rattles he wore around
his neck, and struck him five times with it. Tcûskai came to life. Tskel
said: “The holes are stopped up; now I will help you kill Gopher.
[291]He is terrible to look at when he is mad. You must keep your
eyes closed; if you see him, you will die.”
Tskel had two stone knives. He gave one to Tcûskai, then he built a
fire and blew the smoke into the big hole. Tcûskai listened; there was
a noise of some one moving around in the hole. He was so scared
that he died. Tskel brought him to life, and said: “You mustn’t get
scared. That was only a young Gopher; old Gopher hasn’t moved
yet.”
Tskel blew more smoke into the hole. There was a roar as though
the mountain was going to burst open. Tcûskai died again. Tskel
brought him to life, and said: “You have played with these people
and made all this trouble; now you must stay here till it is over. Don’t
get scared every time you hear a noise.”
Just then old Gopher moved and the earth shook. Tcûskai was
dreadfully frightened. (He was on one side of the hole and Tskel was
on the other.) There was a shaking and roar, then a great, red, fiery
head came out of the hole. Tskel cut the head off with his long knife,
skinned it, and made a cap of the skin; then he buried the head
under great flat rocks. Right away the rocks were as red as blood.
(They are red to this day.)
Tskel said to Gopher: “Hereafter you will be of no account. You will

dig in the ground and people will make fun of you.”
If Tskel hadn’t killed Gopher, there would be no one living in the

world now.
In the hole where Gopher was it is always hot, no matter how cold it
is outside. Gopher’s body, turned to stone, is still in the hole.
After Tskel killed Gopher, he and Tcûskai went home, but Tskel didn’t
want to stay there. He thought about his cousin, Kaiutois. One day
he said to Skóŭks: “I am going to see my cousin,” and he sent
Tcûskai to ask Gäk if he would go with them. Gäk was willing and the
three started off. As they traveled, people told them they mustn’t go
near the Leméis family, that they were killing everybody, that each
day they carried off men to eat. Tskel said: “I am traveling around the
world to see people; I’m not afraid of Leméis.” [292]
When they got near Leméis’ house, Tskel put on his gopher-skin cap
and put little Tcûskai under his arm, where he couldn’t do any
mischief. Then he gave Gäk a sharp bone, and said: “When they
give you dead men’s meat to eat, make a hole in your throat and let
it out; don’t swallow it.”
The five Kaiutois brothers and old man Leméis with his wife and five
boys lived in one house. The five Kaiutois lived on one side of the
house and old Leméis on the other. When Tskel went to the house,
the Kaiutois brothers and Leméis boys were off hunting for deer.
Old Leméis and his wife saw Tskel’s gopher-skin cap and they were
so scared that they ran out of the house. They built a fire and began
cooking; they were afraid to go inside. The wives and children of the
Kaiutois brothers were frightened, too.
Tskel sat in the house with his head down. Tcûskai teased him to let
him put the cap on and run out and scare the old man, but Tskel
pinched him and told him to keep still where he was, under his arm.
Gäk was lying on the ground and looking at Tskel.
Soon old Leméis’ eldest son came home. When he saw his father
and mother outside, he asked: “What are you doing out here?”
The old man said: “There is something strange in our house. We

can’t stay there. We have never seen anything like it before. It is
terrible!”
“What is there stronger than I am?” asked the son. “I have been off
killing men. I am not afraid of this thing.”
“You haven’t seen it,” said old Leméis. “You can’t go into the house.”
The young man went to the house. He took one step down the
ladder, saw Tskel’s cap, and turned back, screaming so loud that the
ground shook. He said to his father, “There is something there
stronger than I am; I can’t go in.”
The second brother came home. He saw his father outside and
asked: “Why are you out here?”
“There is something in our house stronger than we are. We can’t go

in,” said the father. [293]
The young man laughed, and asked: “What is there stronger than I
am? There is nothing I can’t kill.” He was down two steps of the
ladder when he saw the cap; he screamed and ran out.
One after another the five brothers came home. Each brother got
one step farther into the house; each one screamed and ran out. The
fourth brother said: “I am stronger than anybody. If this man had ever
heard of me, he wouldn’t have come here.” He took four steps into
the house, roared with fright, and ran away. The fifth brother was the
strongest of all the brothers. There were five steps down into the
house; he was on the last step when he saw Tskel’s cap. He roared
and with one step was out.
The five Kaiutois brothers came home just at sundown. When Tskel
saw them, he looked up and they knew him. He took off his cap, put
it behind him, and they all went in. Then they called their wives, and
asked: “Why didn’t you cook for this man? He is hungry. Come in
and cook deer meat for him.”
Tskel said: “Tell Leméis and his sons to come in. It is cold outside.”
They were glad; they went in, and right away they began to cook
dead men.
Kaiutois’ meat was done first, and Gäk and Tskel ate deer meat.
Little Tcûskai said: “Let me down, brother; I want to eat. I am
hungry.” Tcûskai pinched him and told him to keep still, but Tcûskai
said: “I can’t, you don’t give me enough to eat.”
When Leméis’ meat was done, the eldest son gave some of it to
Gäk. Gäk put it in his mouth, but it came out of the hole in his throat
and dropped on the ground.
Tskel put some strong sticks in Gäk’s arms, for he knew that the
Leméis brothers would try to kill him. They sat down by the fire and
asked Gäk to come and sit near them. Then they said to one
another: “Let’s twist arms,” and the eldest brother said: “Come and
play with us, Gäk.”
Gäk said: “I never play that way.” After they had teased him a long
time, Tskel said: “Play with them; I won’t let them hurt you.” [294]
The eldest brother took hold of Gäk, twisted his arm hard, but
couldn’t break it; it was soft. “Stiffen your arm,” said Leméis. Gäk
stiffened his arm, but Leméis couldn’t break it. Then Gäk took hold of
Leméis’ arm, twisted it hard, and broke it. Leméis ran out of the
house and died.
The second brother was ashamed. He said: “That is the way my

brother always does. If he gets beaten, he runs away. Try me.” He
twisted Gäk’s arm, but no matter how he twisted he couldn’t break it.
Then Gäk twisted his arm and broke it, and he ran outside and died.
Gäk killed four of the brothers; then the youngest and strongest
wanted to try. Gäk didn’t want to twist arms with him, but Tskel said:
“Don’t be afraid, he can’t kill you.” Gäk held out his arm and Leméis
twisted it terribly. Gäk screamed; he couldn’t help it, it hurt so.
Then Tskel said to Leméis: “Let me twist your arm.” He took hold of
Leméis’ hand with a tight grip and broke every bone in it; then he
twisted his arm and broke it.
When all five of the old man’s sons were dead, Tskel said: “Hereafter
you will be of no use in this world. You will be persons no longer. You
will go up to the sky and all you will do there will be to frighten people
by making a big noise.”
He told the five Kaiutois brothers not to live in the house with old
Leméis and his wife. “Their house is dirty,” said he. “It smells of dead
people. The juice of dead people runs on to your meat; you have the
taste of it now, and in after times you will try to kill people.”
The Kaiutois brothers moved away. Old Leméis and his wife felt
badly; they were lonesome for their children. Tskel said: “You can go
to your sons; you are of no use in this world,” and he sent them to
the sky.
Now Tskel and Tcûskai went home. Skóŭks was mourning; she
thought they were dead.
The next day Tskel went to hunt. He killed five deer and was home at
midday. He was dry and he sent his brother to bring him some water.
Tcûskai ran to the spring, and there, sitting in the spring, was an old,
white-haired man.
“What are you here for?” asked Tcûskai. “We don’t [295]want old men
in our spring. My brother is dry. I am after water for him. Get out of
our spring!” He told him two or three times to get out. The old man
didn’t move, but at last he said: “Go and tell your brother to come
and wrestle with me.” Tcûskai ran back to the house.
“Why didn’t you bring me some water?” asked Tskel.
“There is an old man sitting in the spring,” said Tcûskai. “He won’t let
me get a drop of water.”
“Go back and get me some water!” said Tskel.
Tcûskai went back and screamed: “Get out of there, old man! You
are all dirt; you’ll spoil our water!”
The old man didn’t move, but he said: “Tell your brother to come and
wrestle with me. I hear that he has killed all the Leméis people. I am
their kin. I have come to wrestle with him.”
Tcûskai said: “Let my brother have some water to drink; then he will
come.”
The old man turned around and let Tcûskai take a little water out of
the spring. Tcûskai carried it to his brother, and said: “That old man
has come to fight you for killing the Leméis people. He wants you to
come to the spring and wrestle with him.”
Tskel drank the water and ate pounded seed. Then he went to the
spring and wrestled with the old man. They wrestled till dark, then
the old man threw Tskel, rolled him up in a skin blanket, took his own
form,—an animal with great horns,—put Tskel on his horns, and
carried him down in the water and off under the ground. He carried
him a long distance, then came out near a large lake. He took Tskel
off his horns, unrolled him, and said: “Look around, before I kill you.”
Tskel saw that they were on a narrow ridge of rock that ran, like a
little trail, to the middle of the lake.
The old man said: “When I get to the end of this trail, I will cut you
into small pieces and throw you to my children. They are hungry for
your flesh. As I throw the pieces, I will say: ‘Here is a piece of Tskel.
Eat it.’ They will be glad, and all my kin will be glad that you are
dead.” [296]
When he was through talking, he rolled Tskel up again, put him on

his horns, and started. Tskel moved a little.
“What are you doing?” asked the old man.
“I am scratching myself.”
“You needn’t scratch; you will die soon.”
“I itch; I can scratch while I live,” said Tskel. He moved again.

“What are you doing now?” asked the old man.
“I don’t lie easy.”
“Why bother about that? you will die soon.”
“I don’t want to suffer while I live,” said Tskel. He was getting his
stone knife out. It was tied up in his hair and the old man hadn’t seen
it. With the knife Tskel cut holes in the skin blanket for his eyes and
his hands, and just as he got to the end of the trail, he stuck the knife
into the old man and killed him. Then he cut the body up and threw it
piece by piece into the lake. As he threw the pieces, he called out:
“Here is Tskel’s shoulder! Here are Tskel’s ribs! Here are his legs!
Here are his arms!” As fast as he threw the pieces, the old man’s
children caught and ate them. At last he threw the head. It was an
awful-looking thing, enough to scare any one.
When the children saw it and knew that they had eaten their father,
they were so mad that they sent everything they had to find Tskel
and kill him. They sent what they thought he would like,—knives,
hatchets, beads, shells, blankets—to lie in his path. If he took up any
one of them, he would die.
Tskel passed them all till he came to the last, a stone knife sharp on
both edges, that looked so nice that he picked it up. Right away the
ends of his fingers were burned off. He dropped the knife, rubbed his
fingers with his own stone knife, and they were well again. Then he
went on till he reached home. Skóŭks and little Tcûskai had covered
their hair with deer fat and pounded coal; they were mourning for
him.
When Tskel saw Tcûskai, he asked: “What are you doing? Why are
you so dirty?”
Tcûskai said: “I was just going to look for you.”
Skóŭks said: “He should be whipped for telling lies. He [297]has been
everywhere in the world hunting for you. Just now he came home
and put coal on his head, for when he couldn’t find you he thought
you were dead.”
Tskel was chief in the Klamath country. He was the strongest person
living. No other man could have killed the old man of the lake.
Now Tskel stayed at home for a long time. He killed deer and dried
the meat and told his brother many things about the people in the
world.
One day when he was out hunting, he heard somebody singing a

beautiful song; he listened and wondered who it was. Then he
followed the sound. It drew him along till he came to a big cedar tree.
A woman was sitting on a bough of the tree and throwing cedar
berries on to a blanket spread under the tree. When she saw Tskel,
she called out: “Come and sit on the blanket!” He knew she was the
old man’s daughter, and he wouldn’t go near her; he went home.
The next day he heard the song again, but he didn’t follow it. He
went home and told Skóŭks that the old man’s daughter had come to
kill him. He didn’t hunt again. One day the woman came and sat in a
clump of bushes near Tskel’s house and told the crows to fly over
her. Little Tcûskai saw the crows and said to his brother: “The crows
are eating something. You had better go and see what it is.”
“Don’t go near that place,” said Tskel.
Tcûskai thought: “Why does my brother tell me not to go to those

bushes? I am going.” He went around the house, out of Tskel’s sight,
and crept toward the bushes. He found a woman sitting on a low
stump; as he went up to her she spat out beautiful beads. The
second time she spat, Tcûskai picked up some of the beads. Each
time she spat the beads were more beautiful than before.
“What kind of a woman are you?” asked Tcûskai. She didn’t answer.
Tcûskai went home, and said: “Oh, brother, there is a beautiful

woman over there in the bushes. You must have her for a wife. Send
Skóŭks off and take her.” Tskel said: “Why don’t you get her for a
wife; she must have come for you.” He [298]was sleepy. He had been
in a half dream since the first day he heard the woman’s song.
Tcûskai went three or four times to see the woman and each time
she spat beads. When she found that Tskel wouldn’t come to her,
she went to the house. Skóŭks saw her coming and she fixed herself
up. She had power and could do things. Tskel was lying on the
ground. When the woman came in, she sat down by him and began
spitting beads. Then Skóŭks spat, and her beads were nice. The
woman was frightened a little; she spat long white beads; Skóŭks
spat more beautiful beads. They kept spitting beads till, just as the
sun went down, the woman by her power made sleep come over
Tskel and Tcûskai, and made Skóŭks grow so sleepy she could
scarcely see. When darkness came the woman began to wrap Tskel
in a skin blanket to carry him off.
Right away Skóŭks was wide awake. She jumped on the woman and
fought with her. They fought all night. First one would have Tskel and
then the other. He was sound asleep all the time. There was such a
dust from their fighting that Tcûskai was covered with it. Just at
daylight Skóŭks gave out; she couldn’t fight any longer.
The woman snatched up Tskel and carried him off. She went under
the ground, and as she went she made a furrow on the surface.
Skóŭks followed for a long time, but she couldn’t get at the woman,
for she couldn’t travel underground. At last she went home, struck
Tcûskai with his neck rattles, and said: “You had better get up and
follow your brother. You found him a nice wife, nicer than I am. Now
you can go and live with them!”
Tcûskai woke up and went off to look for his brother. The trail had
disappeared; he couldn’t find even one track.
When the woman went into the ground, she was just such an animal
as her father had been. She carried Tskel on her horns till she came
out at the lake, then she put him down and said: “I will let you rest
twice before I kill you. How do you like this place?”
“I like it. I have been here before,” said Tskel.
She carried him to the middle of the trail in the lake, then [299]she put
him down, and asked: “What did you do when you were here
before?”
“Nothing.”
“Do you think you will ever go home?”
“No.”
“What do you think you will do when you die? Will you come to life,
or will you stay dead?”
“I don’t know,” said Tskel.
She took him up to carry him to the end of the trail where she could
throw him into the lake. He got his knife out, a little at a time, and just
as she was going to put him down again, he cut her head off. From
each side of the ridge the water rushed up; the ridge shook and
made a terrible noise. Tskel cut the woman’s body up, and threw the

Full download Dynamic Business Law 3rd Edition Kubasek Test Bank all chapter 2024 pdf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download Dynamic Business Law 3rd Edition Kubasek Test Bank all chapter 2024 pdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dynamic Business Law 3rd Edition

Kubasek Test Bank

Dynamic Business Law 3rd Edition Kubasek Solutions

Dynamic Business Law The Essentials 3rd Edition Kubasek

Dynamic Business Law 4th Edition Kubasek Test Bank

Dynamic Business Law The Essentials 3rd Edition Kubasek

Dynamic Business Law The Essentials 4th Edition Kubasek

Dynamic Business Law The Essentials 2nd Edition Kubasek

Dynamic Business Law The Essentials 4th Edition Kubasek

Environmental Law 8th Edition Kubasek Test Bank

Negligence and Strict Liability

True / False Questions

7. More than half the states remain contributory negligence states.

Multiple Choice Questions

A. Duty, breach of duty, and causation, but not damages.

A. Tina has no duty to come to the aid of Susie.

21. Which of the following are elements of causation?

A. Actual cause and proximate cause.

22. Actual cause is also known as ______.

23. Which of the following is sometimes referred to as "but for" causation?

24. Proximate cause is also sometimes referred to as which of the following?

26. In most states, proximate cause is determined by _______.

28. Why are punitive damages awarded?

A. Only to punish the offender.

A. Only res ipsa loquitur

A. It requires a finding of negligence.

A. It is the same as the law of negligence in the United States.

A. Res ipsa loquitur.

36. Which of the following is an example of a dram shop act?

37. Which of the following is true regarding contributory negligence?

A. In order to assist a defendant in defending against unfounded claims.

A. Assumption of the risk.

A. Assumption of the risk.

A. Implied assumption of the risk.

A. Implied assumption of the risk.

A. Good Samaritan statutes.

51. Which of the following is liability without fault?

A. The activity involves negligence pertaining to the preparation of food products.

A. That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied.

A. Mike had no duty to provide any assistance to them.

A. Assumption of the risk

69. Identify and explain the elements of negligence.

True / False Questions

7. More than half the states remain contributory negligence states.

11. Strict liability is liability without fault.

Strict liability is liability without fault.

According to the court, "Respondents' perhaps unnecessarily bare-bones case-in-chief failed

Multiple Choice Questions

“Is she crying?” asked Kówam.

“How can we go home while those big-footed people are there?”

“I am not afraid of those men,” said Kówam. “That is my house; I will

“How can I do that? You are my brother.”

“It won’t hurt me. I want you to practise shooting.”

“You must,” said Kówam. “It won’t hurt me.”

When Kówam was killed and thrown out, his mother-in-law

Gáhga screamed and cried; he wanted his sister-in-law saved.

Kówam said: “Punch a stick in where your sister-in-law was sitting.”

Blaiwas Eagle Lok Bear

Tskel didn’t move; he was asleep. Tcûskai gave Gopher a small

“I can fan it till Gopher comes out,” said Tcûskai.

Tskel wondered why Tcûskai didn’t come back. At last he thought:

Tskel said to Gopher: “Hereafter you will be of no account. You will

If Tskel hadn’t killed Gopher, there would be no one living in the

The old man said: “There is something strange in our house. We