Spartan Lawyer Winter 2018
Torts with Professor Brian Kalt - Are You Smarter than a Law Student?
While your day job might not involve mulling over Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., you still remember most of the content from your Torts class, right? Here's your chance to beat the curve all over again with Professor Brian Kalt’s first-year Torts class.
(And if it's tougher than you remember, you can always check your answers at the bottom of the page!)
Ralston is trapped under a boulder. Which of the following would NOT cause you to have a duty to rescue him?
- Ralston is your employee and he was trapped in the scope of his work for you.
- You caused Ralston to become trapped under the boulder, though you were not negligent in doing so.
- A reasonable person in your position would definitely undertake to rescue Ralston.
- Ralston is a customer of your business and he was trapped in the scope of his patronage of your business.
- It is your boulder and you could move it if you chose to do so.
Which of the following defendants definitely cannot be sued for negligence in the situation presented?
- A person who failed to protect plaintiff from being harmed by a third party.
- A person who is successful in arguing that the statute of repose has run out, but is unsuccessful in arguing that the statute of limitations has run out.
- The estate of a person who died after causing plaintiff’s injury.
- A person who is married to the plaintiff, and was married to him at the time she caused plaintiff’s injury.
- A company whose product broke an express warranty, resulting in plaintiff’s injury.
Dillard, a ten-year-old child, is sued for negligence. Which of the following statements about the case against her is accurate? Note the multiple possibility in Answer E.
- If Dillard’s alleged negligence arose out of her using a motorized vehicle, she should be held to an adult standard of care.
- If Dillard is found liable for negligence, her parents will be vicariously liable for that negligence.
- In determining what level of care was reasonable for Dillard, her general mental characteristics (such as her intelligence) will not be considered.
- If Dillard was a trespasser, then under the “attractive nuisance” doctrine she might have owed the plaintiff a heightened duty.
- Answers A and D are both accurate.
Max goes to the store and buys a box of Pow!, a heavy-duty cleaner of high repute. Pow! is dark green (or, as a lawyer would say, dark green in color) and comes in a spray bottle. Max brings the Pow! home and leaves it on the counter. Louie, who lives with Max, sees the bottle of Pow! on the counter and thinks that it might be a tasty beverage, so he drinks it. He becomes violently ill. He sues the manufacturers of Pow! for not warning properly of the dangerous nature of their product. Which of the following is an accurate statement about the case?
- Louie will win unless the label said something like “Do Not Drink. Ingestion May Cause Violent Illness” in big, prominent letters, in which case he will lose.
- Louie will definitely win unless the jury decides that the danger of ingesting Pow! was obvious to a reasonable adult.
- If Louie can establish that the defendant knew that their product was dangerous if ingested, he will definitely win.
- Louie will lose if the defendant can establish that Louie would not have paid attention to any warnings they might have provided, however convincing and noticeable the warnings might have been.
- None of the above statements are accurate.
C, B, A, D