1. Jasper buys a can of Zaps bug spray. The first time Jasper sprays some on his arm, the can explodes, causing deep cuts on his face that require surgery. Jasper sues Zaps. Which of the following facts, if true, would most help Zaps' defense?
a. The shop that sold Jasper the bug spray had kept the bug spray in an extremely hot storage room, and the extreme temperature is what made the can explode.
b. Zaps exercised incredible care in manufacturing the bug spray and the cans, and there had never been an incident like this before.
c. Zaps is not in privity with Jasper, because Jasper bought the bug spray from the store and not from Zaps.
d. Zaps is an expert in bug spray development, and has been exclusively in the bug spray business for 26 years.
2. Lindsay decides to go skydiving for the first time, and chooses a company with an excellent reputation. On the day of the dive, Lindsay slips on some oil on the floor of the company's airplane hangar and she fractures her elbow. Will Lindsay win a negligence suit against the skydiving company?
a. Yes, because skydiving is an ultrahazardous activity.
b. No, because when Lindsay signed up for skydiving she assumed the risk of injury.
c. Yes, because Lindsay is an invitee of the skydiving company.
d. No, because the oil was a superseding cause.
3. Aurelia has emergency major heart surgery at the best hospital in town. The next week, she goes to her doctor complaining of an acute pain in her chest. The doctor performs an x-ray and finds that there is medical sponge inside Aurelia's chest. Medical sponges are tools used during surgery and should never to be left inside the patient. Since Aurelia was unconscious during the surgery she does not know who left the sponge in her chest, or how exactly it came to be placed there. Can Aurelia still win a negligence case against the hospital?
a. No, because she will be unable to prove causation.
b. No, because doctors are not required to guarantee a perfect outcome.
c. Yes, under the doctrine of strict liability.
d. Yes, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.
4. Harris walked onto some train tracks, ignoring a yellow warning line painted on the station platform, shouts from concerned onlookers, and the ringing bells and flashing lights signaling the approach of an express train. The train killed Harris, and his widow sued the railroad arguing that its negligence caused her husband's death. Will she win?
a. Yes, because under the assumption of the risk, the train station failed to provide appropriate safety measures.
b. Yes, under comparative negligence Harris was 60% responsible.
c. No, under contributory negligence, Harris was at least 1% at fault.
d. No, Harris's own actions were the factual cause of harm. The train station provided safety measures that a reasonable person would pay attention to but Harris ignored.
5. A new truck, manufactured by General Motors Corp. (GMC), had a defective alternator that caused it to stall on a busy highway. The driver set up emergency flares around the stalled truck, but congestion on the highway made them difficult to see. Davis did not see the flares, drove his car into the back of the stalled truck, and was killed by the impact. His widow sues GMC. GMC moved for summary judgment, alleging (1) no duty to Davis, (2) no factual causation, and (3) no foreseeable harm. Should summary judgment be granted?
a. No, because there was a disagreement about the facts of the case.
b. No, because there was factual cause and the injury was foreseeable.
c. Yes, because there was no disagreement about the facts of the case.
d. Yes, because the accident was caused by Davis' negligenc
6. Powers drove a truck that his employer leased from Big Trucks. After Big repeatedly failed to respond to Powers' requests to fix the strap used to close the truck's rear door, Powers replaced the strap with a nylon rope. Later, this nylon rope broke, causing Powers to fall and break his back. When Powers sued Big, what was the result?
a. Big is not liable based on Powers' assumption of the risk.
b. Big is 60% liable and Powers is 40% liable.
c. Big is liable because it knew about problem with the strap and did not fix it.
d. Powers is liable because he caused the problem when he replaced the strap with the nylon rope.
7. Lucas is hosting Thorben and several other dear friends at a housewarming party at his new home. During the tour of the new place, Thorben plunges through a trap door partially concealed by the living room carpet and falls 20 feet into the concrete basement below. Thorben breaks both legs and sues Lucas. Which of the following arguments will be Lucas' best defense?
a. The trap door was not there when he bought the house.
b. He did not know about the trap door.
c. Thorben was not a social guest but was actually at the house for business purposes.
d. The trap door was an obvious danger.
8. Raquel is speeding in her car through a busy town center when she veers off the road to avoid a cat and plows into a small newspaper stand. The stand flies into the air and smashes through the glass windows of a nearby yoga studio, where it startles Adam, a yoga student, and sends him flying into a set of lighted candles. As a result, Adam suffers a serious burn. Adam sues Raquel. What result?
a. Adam will win because speeding is ultrahazardous.
b. Adam will win because Raquel's conduct was negligent.
c. Adam will lose because Raquel's conduct was not the factual cause of his injury.
d. Adam will lose because Raquel's conduct was not the proximate cause of his injury.
9. Irving was a notary public who prepared income tax returns for Mark. Irving agreed to draft a will for Mark, leaving all of the property to Mark's sister, Sonja. When Mark died, the court refused to uphold the will because it was improperly drafted. As a result, Sonja inherits only one eighth of the estate and Sonja sued Irving. Irving defended on the grounds that he had no duty of due care to Sonja because he only had dealings with Mark. Is Irving right?
a. Yes, Irving only had duty of care to Mark and not to Sonja.
b. Yes, because Mark did not breach his duty under the "reasonable person" test.
c. No, Irving has a duty of care because it was foreseeable that the failure to properly draft the will would cause injury to Sonja.
d. No, Mark assumed the risk and entered into an agreement with Irving knowing that something unforeseeable like this could happen.
10. Curious to see its worth, Irene takes a beautiful oil painting that she inherited from her grandmother to Eleanor, a respected art appraiser. Eleanor tells Irene the artwork is a worthless piece of junk, so Irene sells the painting to Aziz at a yard sale for $50. The following week, Irene finds out that Aziz sold the painting for $12 million dollars at auction, after an appraiser at the auction house determined it is the work of a famous painter named Thomas Gainsborough. Furious, Irene sues Eleanor. What result?
a. Eleanor will not be liable, because most people would not know that the painting was by Thomas Gainsborough.
b. Eleanor will not be liable as long as she can prove that Aziz did not know the painting was valuable when he bought it.
c. Eleanor will be liable if Irene can prove that all appraisers would recognize the painting as being valuable.
d. Eleanor will be liable if Irene can prove that the best appraisers would know that the painting was by Thomas Gainsborough.