LAW/TORTS QUIZ

Which one of the following best states the rule applied in Iseberg v. Gross?

A A defendant has no duty to warn or protect a plaintiff against the criminal conduct of a third party. B Absent a special relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, a defendant has no duty to warn or protect the plaintiff against the criminal conduct of a third party. C A defendant owes a duty of reasonable care is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs. D The no-affirmative duty rule is antiquated and out of step with today’s morality.

 

 

Which one of the following statements best describes the rule in Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California?

A A therapist must warn of credible threats of physical violence to an identifiable victim. B A therapist may warn of credible threats of physical violence to an identifiable victim. C A therapist may not warn of credible threats of physical violence to an identifiable victim because doing so would violate doctor/patient confidentiality. D No one has a duty to warn or protect against the criminal conduct of another.

 

Does a defendant owe a duty to protect plaintiffs against the negligent acts of third parties?
A Yes, if a special relationship between the plaintiff and defendant exists. B No, the duty to protect a plaintiff from a criminal act of a third person does not extend to cases where plaintiff alleges that the defendant failed to protect her from the negligence of a third party. C Yes, but only under the minority rule. D No, there is no duty to control the acts of third persons.

 

 

A business owner is most likely to owe a duty to protect against criminal assaults on patrons
A at all times because of the business-patron relationship. B only during business hours. C if a high degree of foreseeability of criminal assault exists. D if the business is located in a neighborhood where criminal activity is known to occur.

 

The public duty doctrine
A Requires police departments to protect individual citizens. B Limits the liability of government actors acting improperly. C Imposes a duty of reasonable care on all government actors. D Allows private actions against government actors.

 

 

If a child harms the plaintiff, will the plaintiff prevail in a negligence suit against the parents to recover for the harm caused by their child?

A No, parents are not vicariously liable for the actions of their children. B Yes, if the parents failed to control the child’s specific dangerous habit which the parents know or should have known existed. C Yes, because the parent/child relationship is one in which the law recognizes as special such that parents will always be liable for the torts committed by their children. D No, parents do not owe a duty to control the acts of their children.

 

If an establishment sells alcohol to a noticeably drunk patron and that patron causes an auto accident that injures plaintiff shortly after driving away from the establishment, will the plaintiff succeed in a negligence suit brought against the establishment?
A Yes, because the patron’s negligence is the proximate cause of the accident. B No, because there is no duty to control the acts of third persons. C Yes, because a duty may exist to refrain from selling alcohol to noticeably intoxicated persons. D No, because the establishment is in the business of selling alcohol.

 

A Dram Shop Statute is
A a statute prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors or intoxicated persons. B a statute that imposes criminal penalties on those that sell alcohol to minors or intoxicated persons. C unconstitutional. D a statute that expressly imposes civil liability upon the dispenser of alcohol.