Which one of the following tests will a court usually apply in negligence actions where there are multiple redundant causes of plaintiff’s harm?
A But-for test.
B Market share test.
C Substantial factor test.
D Alternative liability test.
Which case, held that the technical legal injury concept (which permits recovery of nominal damages) does not apply to negligence actions?
A Hale v. Ostrow, 166 S.W.3d 71 (Tenn. 2005).
B Right v. Breen, 890 A.2d 1287 (Conn. 2006).
C Viner v. Sweet, 70 P.3d 1046 (Cal. 2003).
D Jordan v. Jordan, 257 S.E.2d 761 (Va. 1979).
A plaintiff must prove both actual cause and proximate cause to prevail in a negligence action. Which form of causation involves a matter of principle or policy as to whether the defendant should be held liable for the plaintiff’s harm?
A Actual cause.
B Proximate cause.
C Both actual and proximate cause.
D None of the above.
Under which of the legal theories listed below can a defendant be held liable for harm to plaintiff despite the fact that defendant’s actions were not a but-for cause of the harm?
A Res ipsa loquitur.
B Negligence per se.
C Respondeat superior.
D None of the above.
Which case held that where the tortious acts of two or more tortfeasors join together to produce an indivisible injury, all of the wrongdoers will be held jointly and severally liable for the entire damages and plaintiff can proceed against any one tortfeasor separately or against all of them in one suit?
A Landers v. East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co., 248 S.W.2d 73 (Tex. 1952).
B Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway, 179 N.W. 45 (Minn. 1920).
C Salinetro v. Nystro, 341 So. 2d 1059 ( Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977).
D Joshi v. Providence Health Sys.Of Oregon Corp., 149 P.3d 1164 (Or. 2006).
What approach to the plaintiff’s claim for a loss of opportunity for a substantially better recovery due to defendant’s negligence was adopted in the case of In Lord v. Lovett, 770 A. 2d 1103 (N.H. 2001)?
A Plaintiff must prove that due to defendant’s negligence, plaintiff was deprived of at least a 51% of a more favorable outcome in her recovery, at which point plaintiff can recover damages for the entire preexisting condition.
B Plaintiff can submit her case to the jury upon proof that the defendant’s negligence more likely than not either “increased the harm” to plaintiff, or “destroyed a substantial possibility” of achieving a more favorable outcome in her recovery. Once proven, plaintiff can recover damages for the entire preexisting condition.
C Plaintiff must establish the causal link between the defendant’s negligence and the lost opportunity for a better recovery, and plaintiff can prevail even if her chances of a better recovery are less than 51%. However, plaintiff can only recover damages directly attributable to the defendant’s negligence.
D None of the above.
Joint tortfeasors include which of the following groups?
A Two or more individuals who act independently but cause a single, indivisible tortuous injury to the plaintiff.
B Two or more individuals who act in concert to commit a tort which causes injury to the plaintiff.
C Two or more individuals who share legal responsibility for a tort under a theory of vicarious liability.
D All of the above.
Joint and several liability permits which of the following results?
A Plaintiff can enforce an entire judgment against any of the defendants individually.
B If one defendant pays more than his proportional share of liability, he can seek contribution for the excess from the remaining defendants.
C Plaintiff can recover more than the total amount of the judgment if the defendants have sufficient resources.
D Both A & B.
The Uniform Contribution AmongTortfeasors Act, section 4 in the assigned reading for Module 10 provides that
A a release of one tortfeasor is a release of all tortfeasors who are jointly and severally liable.
B a covenant not to sue is the only means by which a plaintiff can settle with one tortfeasor and still maintain suits against the remaining tortfeasors.
C a release of one tortfeasor does not discharge any of the remaining tortfeasors, unless the terms of the release expressly provide for discharge of those remaining tortfeasors.
D A & B.
In the case of Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1948) in the assigned reading for Module 10, the court held that
A since plaintiff could not prove which defendant fired the shot that entered plaintiff’s eye causing harm, plaintiff cannot recover from either defendant.
B if plaintiff can prove that it is at least 51% likely that the shot was fired by one of the defendants, then plaintiff can recover the entire amount of damages from that defendant.
C the burden of proof regarding causation is shifted to the defendants to prove that they were not the cause of plaintiff’s injury.
D none of the above.
The court’s decision in U.S. v. Peterson
A was in agreement with the common law self-defense rule of “retreat to the wall.”