Chapter 5

.pdf

School

Humber College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2083

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by EarlSardinePerson1031

Chapter 05 Negligence and Unintentional Torts Multiple Choice Questions For all multiple choice questions please choose one (1) answer which is most correct. 1. Jacqui and Penny decided to go into partnership in a small baseball equipment manufacturing firm. Jacqui raised $250,000 start-up funds, in large part on the basis of documents which she forged. These documents purported to show that they owned their factory, when in fact, they merely leased it. Jacqui spent all of the money on herself, and she now has no assets and has been jailed for 10 years. The creditors have contacted Penny and told her they will hold her liable for the loss. A. Since she was unaware of Jacqui's fraudulent actions, Penny cannot be successfully sued by the creditors. B. Since Penny is Jacqui's partner, she is liable for this fraud. C. Penny is both civilly and criminally liable for Jacqui's behaviour. D. Since they should have verified independently everything that they were told by Jacqui, the creditors must bear their own losses. E. Penny can successfully argue volenti non fit injuria in her own defence. Accessibility: Keyboard Navigation Difficulty: Moderate

2. Miss Haversham, a guest at a wedding catered by Giardia's Fine Foods, became violently ill, as did several other guests. It was later found that only those who ate the crab salad appetizer became ill. If Miss Haversham were to sue for negligence, she would normally have to prove A. that Giardia's was strictly liable for her injuries. B. that Giardia's failure to live up to the duty of care which it owed to her led directly to her injuries. C. that Giardia's had a duty of care, which it failed by its actions, to serve her food that was fit to eat. D. that Giardia's had a duty of care, which it failed by its actions, to serve her food that was fit to eat, and that Giardia's failure to live up to the duty of care, which it owed to her, led directly to her injuries. E. that Giardia's had a duty of care, which it failed by its actions, to serve her food that was fit to eat, and that Giardia's failure to live up to the duty of care, which it owed to her, led directly to her injuries. The plaintiff must also prove causation. Accessibility: Keyboard Navigation Difficulty: Moderate 3. Miss Haversham, a guest at a wedding catered by Giardia's Fine Foods, became violently ill, as did several other guests. It was later found that only those who ate the crab salad appetizer became ill. Since Miss Haversham is not able to prove how she was injured by Giardia's but only that she was injured, presumably by them, which of the following concepts could she use to help her establish Giardia's negligence? A. Agony of the moment B. Volenti non fit injuria C. Res ipsa loquitur D. The doctrine of last clear chance E. Vicarious liability Accessibility: Keyboard Navigation Difficulty: Moderate

4. Richard drank all the beer at the house one evening, and knowing he was not in a fit state to drive, decided to walk down the highway to the beer store for more. In order not to get lost, he followed the centre line on the road. Milton, who was driving too fast for his headlights on low beam, hit Richard from behind, and seriously injured him. A. Richard had clearly voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by walking on the highway, and Milton is not liable. B. Richard had waived any right to sue by voluntarily getting drunk. C. If Milton had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, he will be liable unless he can prove that Richard was the only one with the last opportunity to avoid the accident. D. By getting drunk and walking on the highway, Richard was negligent and will have to bear all of the losses caused by his own negligence. E. By getting drunk and walking on the highway, Richard was negligent and will have to bear part of the losses caused by his own negligence. Accessibility: Keyboard Navigation Difficulty: Moderate 5. While at a baseball game one afternoon, Jack bought Matt a hot dog. When Matt bit into the hot dog he broke his tooth on a nail in it. i. Jack cannot sue the hot dog vendor for breach of contract. ii. Matt can sue the hot dog vendor for breach of contract. iii. Jack can sue the hot dog manufacturer under the tort of manufacturer's liability iv. Matt can sue the hot dog manufacturer under the tort of manufacturer's liability. v. The hot dog manufacturer will be strictly liable for allowing an inherently dangerous hot dog to leave his property and injure Matt. vi. Jack can sue for his emotional distress caused by the sight of blood coming from Matt's mouth. A. i and iv. B. i, iv and vi. C. i and ii. D. ii and iii. E. ii, iii, v and vi. Accessibility: Keyboard Navigation Difficulty: Challenging

6. The Central Hospital, Dr. Cuttham, a surgeon, and the operating room staff are sued by Mrs. Mullen because a scalpel was left in her abdomen after an operation for a burst appendix. It is unclear how the scalpel was missed. i. The hospital will be liable if the operating room staff employed by it is found to have been negligent. ii. Mrs. Mullen must prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendants had the sole care and control of the operating room. iii. Mrs. Mullen must prove on the balance of probabilities that, unless someone has been negligent, scalpels are not left in abdomens after operations. iv. Mrs. Mullen must prove on the balance of probabilities that a reasonable surgeon has a duty of care to ensure that no foreign objects are left inside a patient, that Dr. Cuttham failed to meet the duty of care, and that she was injured because of this. v. Dr. Cuttham will be held liable if he cannot show that he took all reasonable care and the scalpel was left by someone else. A. i and iv. B. ii and iii. C. i, ii and iii. D. i, ii, iii and v. E. i, iv and v. Accessibility: Keyboard Navigation Difficulty: Challenging

7. Terri was injured by an exploding pop bottle. She lost time from work, for which she was not paid, and had to undergo several painful operations. Her right eye was badly damaged, and she will lose the sight in it over the next few years. If she wins her case against the manufacturer of the pop bottle, she will be entitled to: i. an injunction. ii. an order of replevin. iii. nominal damages iv. punitive damages. v. special damages vi. general damages. A. all of these. B. i, iii, v and vi. C. ii, iv and v. D. ii, iv and vi. E. v and vi. Accessibility: Keyboard Navigation Difficulty: Moderate

8. Dennis is the owner of a successful real estate company. His agents are provided with automobiles so they can complete deals more efficiently. One of Dennis' employees takes poor care of his car and frequently produces mechanic's bills for repairs. The last bill indicated that the car was no longer mechanically safe for the road. The employee, when confronted by Dennis with the threat of legal action if he did not repay the excessive maintenance costs for the car, was uncooperative. Shortly thereafter the car, which was occupied by the employee driver and a prospective buyer, skidded out of control seriously injuring the client and destroying the vehicle. With Dennis facing legal action by the client, the employee showed no remorse, refused to compensate for any damages and again dismissed Dennis' threats of legal action. A. The employee is liable in negligence because of the poor standard of care he exhibited in maintaining the car. B. Dennis has no legal rights because he is the owner of the car and the employer and therefore must assume responsibility for the damages. C. Both parties may be liable because there was mutual responsibility for the car and vicarious liability of the employer. D. All of the above except B. E. None of the above are true. Accessibility: Keyboard Navigation Difficulty: Challenging 9. Jean and Donald hired a lawn care company to come to their house and spray for dandelions, which had overtaken their lawn. When the spraying was completed the chemical had not only killed the dandelions but had destroyed the grass to an irreversible state. When the company investigated, it found that the acid content of the soil had caused the reaction. The company stated that the reaction is so rare it seldom does preliminary acid tests and tried to downplay the situation. Jean and Donald are contemplating legal action. A. The company, having full knowledge of potential reactions, proceeded without exercising the proper standard of care making them liable for the damages. B. The manufacturer is liable because the potential reaction was not compensated for in the chemical formula even though the product's label bears a suitable warning. C. The company and the manufacturer both acted reasonably and therefore have no legal liability. D. The company may seek compensation from the manufacturer for a defective product. E. All of these. Accessibility: Keyboard Navigation Difficulty: Moderate

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help