Miscellaneous Quiz / Sec 1A Torts Cases

Random Miscellaneous Quiz

Can you name the Case name?

Quiz not verified by Sporcle

Forced Order
Challenge
Share
Tweet
Embed
Score 0/77 Timer 15:00
HoldingCase
careless + some foreseeable harm = responsible for all resulting harm
knowingly encountering a risk created by D --> secondary assumption of risk
road surface, lack of signs: discretionary act -->liablity
Non-commercial social host has no duty towards 3rd parties injured by drunk minors
Eggshell P rule
spare tire flew off truck = res ipsa
no licensee/invitee distinction: both reasonable care
GM design defect, but P was responsible too
shift burden for causation to Ds in special cases
drinking buddies --> special relationship; start helping --> special relationship
cannot recover for loss of enjoyment of life w/o cog. awareness
econ harm: if foreseeable, can recover
qualified immunity for govt
Falling barrel = res ipsa
motorcycle w/ no leg guards --> design defect
products: rejects privity; duty of care to end users
govt employee: ministerial/discretionary distinction
B < PL
Med Mal: national standard > similar localities test
Dillon standard doesn't apply to mother + kidnapped baby in hospital
SL for products
'shocks the conscious' --> overrule compensatory damages
false information --> liable for resulting harm
No special relationship --> no aff duty
danger is obvious and necessary--> assumption of risk
Independent contractor: Apparent Auhority --> vicarious liability
HoldingCase
rape behind untrimmed hedges: not foreseeable
Jury decides reasonable precautions for crossing train tracks
mental distress: lack of physical manifestation OK; standard: ordinary sensitive person
firefighter rule doesn't apply beyond premises liability
failure to follow industry standard doesn't establish negligence
warnings: enough to say 'serious injury' don't need to be specific
fungible product: liability by market share
mental suffering: doesn't require physical impact, but does require physical manifestation
duty to fetus which will result in a child
Negligent entrustment = not ok
Suing your parents is OK
police: no duty re: specific threats
Baller scientist gets disfigured: high non-pecuniary damages upheld
Asbestos: physical contact =/= physical impact
Duty to protect patrons on commercial prop? Balancing test
complex product: use risk/utility
Standard of care: get out of car, look/listen for trains
legal, but inherently dangerous activity: liable
no relationship if far away --> no duty
Chem spill: use negligence, not SL
res ipsa to smoke out which doc was negligent
Jury should decide if airline is negligent for falling luggage
Applies Birkner test for scope of employment --> vicarious liability
Adequate precautions against foreseeable risks = no liability
Therapist has duty to protect threatened victim
when statute: private action must be consistent w/ legislative scheme
HoldingCase
defective design for autos: compare to other similar models
expert med testimony --> causation
constructive notice of danger --> negligence
econ harm: surrounding businesses can't recover lost profits
state of the art: ex ante approach
mental distress: dillon standard
release form for ski resort unenforceable
causation: must show reasonable certainty for cause
extreme event: only reasonable for damages that were foreseeable
No liability when result would be crushing liability
bible study group: licensee not invitee
Med experts can testify --> educate jury about med mal res ipsa
Common carriers required to exercise reasonable care NOT extraordinary care
established: lawful act + ordinary care = no liability
punitive: single-digit multiplier
bring something onto land -->mischief-->you're responsible
No lights on buggy: negligence per se
FDA requires waning--> exception to learned intermediary doctrine
Docs: no comparative negligence for Ps
safety statute = negligence per se; rule of the road doesn't
foreseeability: probable consequences standard
financial harm: no knowledge of particular use, therefore no duty
conscious disregard for others --> punitive damages
no proof of elapsed time --> no constructive notice
negligent sterilization: limited-recovery rule; but if birth defects, special expenses

You're not logged in!

Compare scores with friends on all Sporcle quizzes.
Sign Up with Email
OR
Log In

You Might Also Like...

Show Comments

Extras

Top Quizzes Today


Quiz Stats

Your Account Isn't Verified!

In order to create a playlist on Sporcle, you need to verify the email address you used during registration. Go to your Sporcle Settings to finish the process.