Negligence: Multiple Choice Questions and Analysis | Exams Law of Torts

Page 1 of 13

Questions adapted from John Bauman & Ronald Eades,

Exam Pro on Torts (Objective), Chapter 3, Negligence

1. Use the following facts for Questions 1 through 5. Farmer Sue was building a new barn for her

farm. She did the design work herself, and then hired people to come on and help her construct the

barn. After she had set the main poles for the barn and had begun to add the structure for the loft,

several of her neighbors came to visit. Farmer Joe, one of the neighbors, looked at the structure for

a long time. Joe finally said, “I don’t think you are doing that right. We do get some high winds here

on the plains, and I don’t think you have enough support for that loft.” Farmer Fred who had

accompanied Joe agreed with Joe. Fred said, “You better get someone knowledgeable about barn

building to take a look at that.” That thing will probably come down in a high wind. Sue ignored

their comments. She figured she had been a farmer for 30 years and knew enough about barns. In

addition, she figured that she would just do her best and hope it worked out. Finally, she also knew

she was very short of money. Farming just wasn’t as profitable as it used to be. She needed the

barn, but didn’t have the money to pay for outside help. After the barn was built, it only managed to

stand for about three months. When some high winds came up one night, the barn blew down.

Some of the framing from the barn blew across the field onto the farm closest to Sue and owned by

Farmer Mike. The framing blew through his chicken coop, destroyed the coop and killed 15

chickens. Mike wants to bring an action against Sue. Sue claims that she did her best and that

should be sufficient. As Sue asked, “If someone does their best, what else can the law expect?” If

confronted with this issue in a negligence case, the court should rule:

A. A person’s best is all that the law will require.

B. A person must act as a reasonable person even if that requires more than the individual’s best

effort.

C. A person must act in light of the best information and experience available.

D. A person is liable for injuries due to his or her own conduct even if the best available conduct

was used.

2. Use the facts from Question 1. Sue will also claim that she built the barn based upon her

understanding of barn building. She had been in the farming business for 30 years and figured she

knew enough about barns. She claims that her knowledge and understanding of barn building

should be enough. How should the court rule on this claim?

A. A person’s own best knowledge may not be enough. They are expected to have the ordinary

knowledge of the community in which they live.

B. A person who acts must be held to the highest level of knowledge that is available.

C. A person who acts on their own property is not held to a standard of care of knowledge.

D. A person is held to a standard of care of their own level of knowledge.

3. Use the facts from Question 1. Sue will claim that money was tight. She just did not have the

money to pay someone to assist with the barn design and building. She will also claim that she

absolutely had to have a new barn. It was necessary to keep her equipment in working order and to

store some hay. Sue wants to claim that this condition of tight money will excuse her failure to

build a reasonably safe barn. How should the court rule on that claim?

A. A person’s personal financial situation will excuse a failure to act reasonably.

B. A person must only act reasonably in light of all the circumstances that exist including his or her

own ability to finance conduct properly.

Partial preview of the text

Download Negligence: Multiple Choice Questions and Analysis and more Exams Law of Torts in PDF only on Docsity!

Questions adapted from John Bauman & Ronald Eades, Exam Pro on Torts (Objective), Chapter 3, Negligence

1. Use the following facts for Questions 1 through 5. Farmer Sue was building a new barn for her farm. She did the design work herself, and then hired people to come on and help her construct the barn. After she had set the main poles for the barn and had begun to add the structure for the loft, several of her neighbors came to visit. Farmer Joe, one of the neighbors, looked at the structure for a long time. Joe finally said, “I don’t think you are doing that right. We do get some high winds here on the plains, and I don’t think you have enough support for that loft.” Farmer Fred who had accompanied Joe agreed with Joe. Fred said, “You better get someone knowledgeable about barn building to take a look at that.” That thing will probably come down in a high wind. Sue ignored their comments. She figured she had been a farmer for 30 years and knew enough about barns. In addition, she figured that she would just do her best and hope it worked out. Finally, she also knew she was very short of money. Farming just wasn’t as profitable as it used to be. She needed the barn, but didn’t have the money to pay for outside help. After the barn was built, it only managed to stand for about three months. When some high winds came up one night, the barn blew down. Some of the framing from the barn blew across the field onto the farm closest to Sue and owned by Farmer Mike. The framing blew through his chicken coop, destroyed the coop and killed 15 chickens. Mike wants to bring an action against Sue. Sue claims that she did her best and that should be sufficient. As Sue asked, “If someone does their best, what else can the law expect?” If confronted with this issue in a negligence case, the court should rule: A. A person’s best is all that the law will require. B. A person must act as a reasonable person even if that requires more than the individual’s best effort. C. A person must act in light of the best information and experience available. D. A person is liable for injuries due to his or her own conduct even if the best available conduct was used. 2. Use the facts from Question 1. Sue will also claim that she built the barn based upon her understanding of barn building. She had been in the farming business for 30 years and figured she knew enough about barns. She claims that her knowledge and understanding of barn building should be enough. How should the court rule on this claim? A. A person’s own best knowledge may not be enough. They are expected to have the ordinary knowledge of the community in which they live. B. A person who acts must be held to the highest level of knowledge that is available. C. A person who acts on their own property is not held to a standard of care of knowledge. D. A person is held to a standard of care of their own level of knowledge. 3. Use the facts from Question 1. Sue will claim that money was tight. She just did not have the money to pay someone to assist with the barn design and building. She will also claim that she absolutely had to have a new barn. It was necessary to keep her equipment in working order and to store some hay. Sue wants to claim that this condition of tight money will excuse her failure to build a reasonably safe barn. How should the court rule on that claim? A. A person’s personal financial situation will excuse a failure to act reasonably. B. A person must only act reasonably in light of all the circumstances that exist including his or her own ability to finance conduct properly.

C. Circumstances are not to be considered with deciding whether a person’s conduct was reasonable. D. Although circumstances may be considered when deciding whether conduct was reasonable, lack of finances would not excuse the unreasonable behavior in this case.

4. Use the facts from Question 1. When the case of Mike v. Sue goes to trial, how will the issues be decided? A. The court will determine that the duty is one of a reasonable person of ordinary prudence under similar circumstances, and the jury will decide if that duty has been breached. B. The court will determine that the duty is one of a reasonable person of ordinary prudence under similar circumstances, and then determine whether it has been breached. C. The jury will determine that the duty is one of a reasonable person of ordinary prudence under similar circumstances, and then the court will determine whether it has been breached. D. The jury will determine that the duty is one of a reasonable person of ordinary prudence under similar circumstances, and then decide whether it has been breached. 5. Use the facts from Question 1. Sue will want to claim that the barn fell because of the wind. The wind, she will say, was an act of God. She wants to argue that she should not be liable for acts of God. How should the court rule on that claim? A. Acts of God relieve defendants of liability. B. Defendants must behave in light of reasonable care and ordinary prudence. If the act of God was one for which reasonable people of ordinary prudence would have planned, then the act of God does not relieve liability. C. Due to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, evidence of “Acts of God” is irrelevant to tort cases. D. Defendants who place articles in the way of “Acts of God” are liable for the damage those articles cause. 6. Use the following facts for Questions 6 through 9. Boater Bill was out on his boat on a warm summer afternoon. He was enjoying himself with a great day at the lake. Bill enjoyed seeing just how fast his boat would go and was pushing it to full throttle. Since it was such a beautiful day, Bill was going as fast as he could while looking around at the lovely scenery. Bill failed to notice that another boater was pulling a water skier in the water. Bill ran right at the water skier and hit her. The water skier, Jane, suffered serious personal injury. Jane sued Bill in negligence for those injuries. Bill claimed that he was doing the best he could in light of the warm day and beautiful scenery. Will that argument relieve Bill of liability? A. No. Bill will be held to the standard of a reasonable person of ordinary prudence under similar circumstances. B. Yes. Negligence requires that Bill use his own best judgment and skills. The facts indicate that Bill was “doing the best he could.” C. No. Bill will be held liable for intentionally driving the boat. D. Yes. Boating is a hazardous activity and all people upon the water are responsible for their own safety. The skier cannot sue someone else for injury.

Ms. Smith was driving her car along the interstate one day when she suddenly lost consciousness. The car swerved into another lane and hit a car being driven by Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones wants to sue Ms. Smith for the accident. Ms. Smith claims that she had never lost consciousness before and had no indication that anything was wrong on this day. What impact will Ms. Smith’s claim have on the litigation? A. The sudden, unexpected loss of consciousness will be considered under the reasonable person standard as an issue of how a reasonable person would respond to such an event. B. The sudden, unexpected loss of consciousness will relieve Ms. Smith of any liability. C. The sudden, unexpected loss of consciousness is irrelevant to the litigation. Ms. Smith is liable for auto accidents that she causes. D. Ms. Smith will be liable since reasonable people do not lose consciousness.
Mr. Baker went to the doctor with symptoms of the flu. The doctor gave Mr. Baker a prescription to have filled at the pharmacy. When Mr. Baker got the prescription filled, the pharmacist said, “Be careful when you take this. It makes some people sleepy.” The packaging for the medication also said, “Do not operate automobiles or heavy machinery for the first hour after taking this medication. It may cause drowsiness.” Mr. Baker was feeling poorly, so he took the medication before he left the pharmacy. His drive home was about 30 minutes. After driving about 20 minutes Mr. Baker got very sleepy, drifted off to sleep and ran into another car. The driver of the other car sued Mr. Baker. A. Mr. Baker will not be liable since it was the medication and not Mr. Baker that caused the accident. B. Mr. Baker will be liable since a reasonable person of ordinary prudence under similar circumstances would have followed the directions given by the pharmacist and the package instructions. C. Mr. Baker will not be liable since he was sick and sick people cannot be responsible for their actions. D. Mr. Baker will be liable since the driver of an automobile is liable for accidents.
Mr. Davis had a very difficult day. When he awoke, everything seemed just fine and he went to work. Before he went to work, he stopped to get some coffee at the local coffee chop. While in the coffee shop, he suddenly felt that he had to do something to save the other people in the shop from suffocating. He grabbed one of the chairs and threw it through a window. He was trying to get some air into the room. It was later discovered that Mr. Davis had a sudden occurrence of mental illness. He had to be hospitalized. There was nothing wrong in the coffee shop. The coffee shop would like to sue Mr. Davis for the damage to the window. A. Mr. Davis will avoid liability by using an insanity defense to the claim. B. Mr. Davis will avoid liability by proving that a reasonable person would not be able to plan for a sudden mental illness. C. Mr. Davis will be liable since mental illness, even sudden mental illness, is not a defense to a negligence claim. D. Mr. Davis’ mental illness will shift the burden of proof to the coffee shop.

Ms. Glena was driving home from work and decided to have a drink before going all the way home. She stopped at a local night spot and had two gin and tonics. She then got in her car and started driving home. She had not gotten more than about 2 blocks before she ran into another car. The police arrived quickly and smelled the gin on her breath. The driver of the other car wants to sue Ms. Glena for the accident. A. Ms. Glena will not be liable since reasonable people find it necessary to have a couple of drinks after work. B. Ms. Glena will not be liable since two gin and tonics is a reasonable number of drinks to have before dinner. C. Ms. Glena will be liable since she failed to drive as a reasonably, ordinarily prudent drunk. D. Ms. Glena will be liable since reasonable people do not get drunk and drive.
Mr. Hawk got a new shotgun and wanted to go out shooting. He went into the woods but was careful to look around before starting to shoot. After making sure that there was no one around, he set a couple of cans up on a log in order to practice shooting. After firing the first shot, he heard a scream just beyond where he was. Mr. Hawk ran towards the sound and found that Mr. Klim had been hit by several pellets. If Mr. Klim sues Mr. Hawk for the injury, what is the best basis of the claim? A. Intent, since Mr. Hawk intended to shoot the gun. B. Negligence, since Mr. Klim will claim that Mr. Hawk failed to use reasonable care. C. Strict liability, since guns are an abnormally dangerous instrumentality. D. Under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, there is no liability for gunshot wounds.
Bill lived in a coastal area approximately one mile from the beach. The area had gotten a hurricane or two over the years, but had never suffered badly. Bill had some oak trees on his property, but they had always done well in storms. Although they might lose a few leaves, there was never any damage from them. Early one spring, an odd weather pattern developed. A low pressure area moved near the coast and then stalled. For the next three days, that low pressure area pushed rains into the area where Bill lived. The local weather station declared the event a “ year rain fall total.” The winds weren’t bad, but all of that water caused the ground to get soft. One of Bill’s trees became uprooted from the soft ground, fell over, and hit his neighbor’s house. If Bill is sued for the damage to that house, which of the following would be the best claim for Bill to use to try to avoid having a duty to the neighbor? A. Rain is an act of God and that relieves all duties of care. B. The rain event was so rare, no one could have planned for it. C. The rain, not Bill, caused the harm. D. Bill had no expertise in weather, so not sufficiently reasonable to expect him to know about rain. 16. Joan bought a new rifle. She was fairly knowledgeable about rifles, in that she had owned several small caliber and one larger caliber rifle in the past. This new rifle was similar to the larger caliber rifle she had owned. After a few hours at a firing range, Joan went deer hunting. She climbed up into a deer stand she had mounted in a tree and began to wait. After several long, cold hours in the deer stand, Joan heard a noise in the bushes. Since she had not seen any other people around, Joan assumed the noise was a deer. She waited until she saw a small patch of brown color through the leaves and fired a shot. She immediately heard a grunt that did not sound like a deer. Joan climbed down from her stand, and ran to the spot. What she had thought was a deer, was, in

A. Reasonable person standard. B. The standard of an architect in good standing. C. Whether Carol used her own best judgment. D. To use the highest duty of care.

21. Use the facts from Question 20. Since the jury will be required to determine whether an architect used the appropriate skills and training, which of the following best describes how the jury will reach those conclusions? A. The jurors will rely on their own best judgments. B. The judge will tell the jury how an architect should have performed. C. Expert witnesses will give evidence on how an architect should have performed. D. Jurors will receive text books to read in the deliberation room about how architects should have performed. 22. Use the following facts for Questions 22 through 25. Dr. Watson was a general surgeon. He was doing a gall bladder surgery on Mr. Smith. After the surgery was over, Mr. Smith had a couple of problems. The first problem was that there seemed to be some internal bleeding after the surgery. Dr. Watson had to take Mr. Smith back to the operating room, reopen the surgery, and repair the bleeding. If Mr. Smith sues for having to undergo this second surgery, what is the standard of care to which Dr. Watson will be held? A. The reasonable person standard. B. The reasonable doctor standard. C. The care and skill of a qualified surgeon. D. The highest degree of care. 23. Use the facts from Question 22. Dr. Watson will claim that internal bleeding is a common side effect from surgery. Although it happens, it is not the sign of something going wrong with the surgery. Dr. Watson will bring other doctors who will testify to the same facts. What impact will this evidence have on the case? A. Dr. Watson is still liable since the surgery was not completed without a problem. B. Dr. Watson is still liable since doctors guarantee that such routine surgery will go well. C. Dr. Watson will not be liable since surgery is an ultrahazardous activity. D. Dr. Watson will probably not be liable since even using the care and skill of other doctors this type of circumstance may arise. 24. Use the facts from Question 22. After doing the second surgery to stop the internal bleeding, the surgery site would not heal. After several weeks, Dr. Watson had to reopen the site again. This time it was discovered that Dr. Watson had left a small sponge in the surgery site when he went in to stop the internal bleeding. If Mr. Smith wants to sue Dr. Watson for leaving the sponge in the surgery site, he must: A. Prove the fact that the sponge was left in the site. That fact should make negligence so obvious that no other proof would be necessary. B. Offer expert testimony to prove that the care and skill of surgeons requires that sponges be removed from the patient. C. Offer evidence by other surgeons that they would not leave sponges in the patient. D. Prove that sponges should never be used in surgery.

25. Use the facts from Question 22. Dr. Watson has been sued for leaving a sponge in Mr. Smith. Dr. Watson wants to offer evidence that although most doctors nationally view that as inappropriate, his local community of surgeons takes a different view. They feel like surgery is such a difficult skill, that surgeons just can’t take the time to be responsible for counting sponges. The local community of surgeons feels that it is not that big of an issue. If a sponge is left in a patient, it can be easily removed with additional surgery. What impact will this argument have on the case? A. The evidence of community standard will be excluded and the jury will be instructed to use the national standard. B. The evidence of the national standard will be excluded and the jury will be instructed to use the community standard. C. The jury will hear all of the evidence and decide which standard seems best. D. The judge will hear all of the evidence, decide which standard seems best and then so instruct the jury.

Will Walker was out for his morning walk. Without watching, he crossed a major highway. A car hit him and knocked him into a ditch. Will was seriously injured by the accident. His left leg, for example, was completely crushed. An ambulance came and took Will to the hospital. The emergency room doctor decided that Will’s life could only be saved if the left leg was amputated. A well-known surgeon, Dr. Cutter, came in and examined Will. Dr. Cutter told Will, “We will have to amputate your left leg. There is no other way to save your life.” Will said, “You may operate on me, but do not amputate my leg. I would rather die than lose the leg.” Dr. Cutter took Will to the operating room, administered a general anesthesia and when Will was unconscious, Dr. Cutter amputated the leg. When Will regained consciousness, he was furious. He again claimed that he would have rather died then lose the leg. Will recovered from the accident and surgery although he had lost his left leg. Several qualified experts have stated that there was no way that Will could have lived without the amputation. If Will sues Dr. Cutter, which of the following answers is most accurate? A. Will has no claim since Dr. Cutter saved Will’s life. B. Will can sue for the tort of Battery. C. Will can sue for negligence since his consent to the surgery was not fully informed. D. Will has no claim since the emergency situation allows the doctor to do what is best for the patient. 27. Use the following facts for Questions 27 through 30. Sandy, age 40, was feeling poorly and went to the doctor. Her doctor, Dr. Pam, did a complete physical. Dr. Pam then informed Sandy that she had a rare disease that would require one of two treatments. Sandy could take medication “A” that was very strong, but would only require taking it for 10 days. In the alternative, Sandy could take medication “B” which was not as strong and had to be taken for 30 days. Sandy asked if there were any other differences. Dr. Pam said that the prices were about the same and health insurance would pay for both. The stronger medication could cause some upset stomach, but there were no other differences. Sandy took the stronger medication for 10 days, had a little upset stomach, but was completely healed by the medication. A year later, Sandy returned to Dr. Pam with another issue. Sandy informed Dr. Pam that Sandy was trying to get pregnant and it didn’t seem to be happening. It seems that Sandy didn’t have any children, had gotten married at age 38,

that because of their superior knowledge, skill and experience, physicians have a duty to protect patients from making decisions that may later turn out to have not been correct. Which of the following is most accurate? A. Sandy cannot recover from Dr. Pam since Dr. Pam acted as a physician in good standing in the community and gave Sandy full information before getting consent. B. Sandy can recover from Dr. Pam for a battery for causing the harm to child bearing. C. Sandy can recover from Dr. Pam for Dr. Pam’s failure to fully protect the patient from injury. D. Sandy can recover from Dr. Pam for Dr. Pam’s failure to make decision for Sandy that was in Sandy’s best interest.

31. Use the following facts for Questions 31 through 33. Jane was driving down the street at approximately 40 miles per hour. The posted speed limit was 35 miles per hour. Another car pulled out from a side street in front of Jane and Jane’s car hit the other car. The driver of the other car, Sam, was injured. Sam wants to sue Jane for his injuries. In that litigation, the fact that Jane was exceeding the speed limit will: A. Be irrelevant. B. Result in Jane being automatically held at fault. C. Result in the speed limit of 35 miles per hour being used as the duty in the negligence case. D. Be used as the issue to determine whether Jane’s negligence was the cause of the accident. 32. Use the facts from Question 31. Jane wants to claim that she was using reasonable care in driving her car. Even though she was exceeding the speed limit, she believes that the road and weather conditions were such that a mere 5 miles per hour over the limit was reasonable. Her attorney asks the judge to allow the jury to determine whether exceeding the speed limit by 5 miles per hour is reasonable. The judge should: A. Allow the jury to decide whether Jane should be held to the standard of the statute or just using reasonable care. B. Decide that the duty is compliance with the statute, and then let the jury decide if Jane violated the statute. C. Allow the jury to decide what the appropriate standard for driving is, and then decide who is responsible for the accident. D. Enter a directed verdict for the plaintiff. 33. Use the facts from Question 31. Jane’s attorney wants to argue that Jane’s action of driving in excess of the speed limit was not what caused the accident to occur. Jane’s attorney wants to argue that the real cause of the accident was the fact that Sam pulled out of a side road in front of Jane. Due to the conduct of Sam, Jane couldn’t avoid the accident. According to Jane and her attorney, the accident would have happened whether Jane was driving at 40 miles per hour or 20 miles per hour. What impact should these facts and arguments have on the case. A. They will be considered by the jury in determining the causation issue. B. They will be considered by the jury in determining whether Jane breached a duty. C. They will be considered by the judge in determining whether there was a duty. D. They will be irrelevant. 34. Use the following facts for Questions 34 through 37. Fred was driving along a side street when he came to an intersection. As he entered the intersection, his car was struck by a car being

driven by George. The accident caused injuries to Fred, and Fred sued George for those injuries. At the trial, a local police officer named Officer Smith testified that he had done the investigation of the accident. According to Officer Smith, the intersection was a four way stop and had a stop sign on all of the streets. In addition, it was the expert opinion of Officer Smith that George had run that stop sign. George testifies that he definitely stopped at the stop sign. What should the judge do with Officer Smith’s testimony? A. Direct a verdict against Fred since Fred had a statutory duty to stop and did not stop. The case is “negligence per se.” B. Allow the jury to consider the evidence in order to decide whether Fred did or did not stop at the stop sign. C. Allow the jury to consider the evidence in order to decide whether Fred was the cause of the accident. D. Strike the evidence from the record as being inappropriate opinion testimony.

35. Use the facts from Question 34. Assume that Officer Smith testifies that there were stop signs at the intersection, but offers no opinion as to who ran the stop sign. In addition, Fred offers no other testimony as to whether George ran the stop sign. George testifies that he definitely stopped at the stop sign and brings three eye witnesses to say that he stopped. What should the judge do with the evidence? A. Direct a verdict on the issue of breach for George since Fred offered no evidence on the issue. B. Allow the jury to consider all of the evidence in order to decide whether George did or did not stop at the stop sign. C. Declare the trial a tie since the evidence seems confused and allow the appellate courts to decide the issues. D. Direct a verdict in favor of Fred since Fred was the one injured by the accident. 36. Use the facts from Question 34. Assume that Officer Smith testifies that there were stop signs at the intersection. Officer Smith, however, refused to speculate as to who ran the stop sign. Fred testifies that he is certain that he stopped at the stop sign before proceeding. He then testifies that he is not sure whether George stopped or not. Fred does say that surely George must not have stopped for the accident did happen. What should the judge do with this evidence? A. Direct a verdict for Fred against George since there is evidence that maybe George did not stop. B. Direct a verdict for George against Fred since the evidence that George did not stop is very weak. C. Send the case to the jury and allow the jury to determine whether George stopped or did not stop. D. Since the facts are close, the judge should carefully consider the facts, the demeanor of the witnesses and determine the fact issue of breach. 37. Use the facts from Question 34. Assume that Officer Smith testifies that there were stop signs at all streets. In addition, Officer Smith has carefully measured all of the skid marks and testifies that his opinion is that George ran the stop sign. Fred testifies that he saw George coming along the street and assumed that George would stop at the stop sign. According to Fred, George did not stop. Three eyewitnesses to the accident testify that George did not stop at the stop sign. George testifies that he did stop. What should the judge do with this evidence? A. Direct a verdict for Fred against George since the evidence seems overwhelmingly in favor of Fred.

Jane went to her doctor and was told she would need minor surgery. Her doctor sent her to see Dr. Sue. Dr. Sue was going to do the surgery. The surgery was done in the morning, and Jane remained in the hospital for 3 days. After that, Jane went home. Jane was supposed to report back to the doctor on a regular basis and she did so. Jane was worried about the surgery because it did not appear to heal. The surgery location remained red, swollen, and oozing fluid. After about 4 weeks, Dr. Sue suggested that maybe they ought to reopen the surgery location and take a look. Upon reopening the surgery location, Dr. Sue discovered that a surgery sponge had been left inside Jane’s body. The sponge was removed and the surgery closed. After the removal of the sponge, the surgery location healed promptly and properly. Jane would like to bring an action against Dr. Sue. Although the surgery finally healed properly, Jane wants to recover for the additional missed work and pain and suffering of the extended recovery time. In Jane’s action against Dr. Sue: A. Jane can rely on res ipsa loquitur to prove that Dr. Sue breached the duty owed by a physician. B. Jane will have to introduce expert testimony to prove that Dr. Sue breached the duty owed by a physician. C. Jane can rely on res ipsa loquitur to prove that Dr. Sue caused the extended recovery time from the surgery. D. Jane has no claim since leaving a sponge in a patient is a normal risk of surgery.
Tom was jogging along a sidewalk that was beside a large hardware store. He was suddenly hit on the head, and injured, by a piece of roofing material. Not being sure where the material came from, Tom sued the large hardware store for his injuries. Clearly someone should have had a duty to keep from hitting Tom on the head with roofing material. What should Tom try to prove on the issue of breach? A. The roofing material came from the roof of the hardware store, the roof was in the exclusive control of the store, and roofing material does not ordinarily fly off roofs unless someone is negligent. B. The store had exclusive custody or control of the sidewalk beside the store, and sidewalks are ordinarily safe unless someone is negligent. C. The roofing material was a type normally sold by the store, and there is no evidence of other purchasers in the area at the time of the accident. D. The roofing material is similar to the type on the roof of the store and the store does not allow customers on the roof.

Negligence: Multiple Choice Questions and Analysis, Exams of Law of Torts

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Negligence: Multiple Choice Questions and Analysis and more Exams Law of Torts in PDF only on Docsity!