Test your knowledge of US tort law
Not liable, because her business is not selling lawnmowers.
Not liable, because the child is not in privity of contract with Diana.
Liable, because the lawnmower was defective when sold.
Liable, because Diana had the last clear chance of preventing the lawnmower from being distributed.
Prevail, because the mechanic did not meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable mechanic.
Prevail, because the damage from the accident exceeded the cost of the windshield wiper.
Lose, because the crash occurred due to a broken headlight.
Lose, because a mechanic does not owe a duty of care to anyone other than a paying customer.
Highway 22 was wide, had little traffic, and Don was a professionally trained driver.
Don had driven on the highway before at even higher speeds without being ticketed.
The purpose of the speed limit was not to protect pedestrians against lightning strikes.
Lightning would have been unlikely to strike Perry but for his telephone call.
The jurisdiction does not allow contributory negligence as a defense to strict liability. .
The jurisdiction follows strict rules of comparative negligence and the negligence of the mechanic did not exceed the negligence of the manufacturer.
The jurisdiction follows strict comparative negligence rules and the mechanic was not negligent..
The jurisdiction does not apply negligence per se rules to violations of the law by pedestrians.
The supermarket had a visible sign at the entrance stating, "Exercise care. Floors can be slippery."
The spill took place 20 minutes earlier and the child's mother did not warn Perry or the supermarket despite an opportunity to do so.
The manager of the supermarket was busy conducting a state mandated lesson for all new employees on how to check identification of persons buying alcohol.
The spill took place just moments before Perry slipped.
Lose, because a reasonable driver would not have known about the ice patch.
Lose, because a reasonable driver would have believed it was safe to pass.
Prevail, because a reasonable driver in Donny's position would not have passed Peter.
Prevail, pursuant to a theory of Res Ipsa Loquitor.
Probably $250,000, assuming Don was no more negligent than David.
Probably $500,000.
Probably $400,000, assuming Don was 4/5 liable for the accident.
Probably nothing, because Don's actions were not the proximate cause of the injury.
Yes, if Donny bought the bicycle.
Yes, if a reasonably prudent 16 year old cyclist would have avoided the intersection.
No, the plaintiff did not prove that Donny breached a duty of care.
No, unless Donny bought the bicycle for purposes of commuting to work.
Lose, because the pizza shop owner was, for purposes of the investigation, an agent of natural law enforcement.
Lose, because the owner did not make an unlawful threat.
Prevail, because the owner did not demonstrate probable cause.
Lose, because the owner did not lock the office door.
Lose, if a reasonable person in Patty's position would appreciate the gift.
Prevail, if a reasonable person would exercise due car before giving someone a gift that the recipient would not appreciate.
Prevail, if Daisy's action was reckless.
Lose, if emotional distress is a lesser offense merged with the greater offense of trespassing on Patty's property.
Quiz Review Timeline +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.