1 Jack had taken his girlfriend Jenny on

1. Jack had taken his girlfriend Jenny on a long drive. While driving on the highway, he suddenly had a severe headache and lost control of the car. They got hit by a passing car. The doctor had earlier warned Jack that he has a brain tumor, due to which he will suffer occasional pains. Jenny sued Jack for negligence. Will she succeed? A. Yes, because Jack could reasonably foresee that he could have severe pain any time and may cause an accident. B. No, because Jack never knew he was going to have that pain and cause an accident. C. Yes, because Jack caused the accident. D. No, because should have sued the driver of the passing car which hit them.

2. State X has a "Sunday Closing Law" making it a crime to operate a retail business on Sundays. The law's legislative history reveals that it was enacted to promote respect for the Sabbath by all the people of the state, and thus to promote public decency and morality. One Sunday, Judy Smith slips on a puddle of spilled soft drink at Joe's Hamburger joint (which is operating in violation of the statute), and suffers an injury to her spine. The soft drink would not have been spilled if the store had not been open on Sunday. Judy sues Joe in negligence. One part of her complaint relies on the doctrine of negligence per se. Under the doctrine of negligence per se: A. Judy will recover because the spilled drink posed a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm, and Joe failed to eliminate that risk. B. Judy will recover because Joe violated the Sunday Closing Law. C. Judy will not recover because she was not within the class of persons intended to be protected by the statute. D. Judy will not recover because she did not suffer harm of a sort that the statute was intended to protect against.

3. Negligence "per se" is a legal rule that established a defendant's negligence when: A. a statute that was intended to protect persons like the plaintiff has been violated. B. the defendant intended to harm the plaintiff. C. the plaintiff intended to harm the defendant. D. both the defendant and the plaintiff intended to harm each other.

4. Catherine decided to have lunch at Heathcliff's, one of the most popular restaurants in town. She ordered for soup before her main course as usual. The soup served to Catherine contained a maggot floating about in it. Fortunately, she noticed this before she ate the soup. She sued Heathcliff's for negligence. The most likely result will be: A. Catherine will not win since she did not sustain any damages. B. Catherine will not win, as bones in clam chowder are foreseeable. C. Catherine will win if she proves that it is possible to prevent the maggot from being in the soup. D. Catherine will win because the restaurant failed to use due care.

5. A defendant who is negligent is not liable for the unlikely or unforeseeable harm that results. This rule is called: A. the proximate cause. B. the distal cause. C. the just cause. D. the "causation in fact", also known as the "but for" rule.

6. The owner of a theatre negligently failed to install the requisite number of emergency exit. During the show of Shakespeare's Macbeth, one of the intoxicated viewers got carried away and burned himself. The entire hall was ablaze. There was only one emergency exit. Thus many people were killed in the stampede. Will theatre owner be liable for negligence? A. No, because the intervening cause of an intoxicated viewer burning himself absolves theatre owner's liability. B. No, because the viewer's reaction was completely unforeseeable by any reasonable man of ordinary prudence. C. Yes, because the harm was foreseeable and the owner cannot escape his liability. D. Yes, because though the harm was unforeseeable, the owner still cannot escape his breach of duty.

7. P sues D in negligence. At the trial, it is determined that P's negligence was 40% responsible for P's injury, and D's negligence was 60% responsible. P's losses total $10, 000. Under a pure comparative negligence system, P will recover: A. nothing. B. $4000. C. $6000. D. $10, 000.

8. A legal theory that imposes liability even if the defendant acts with all reasonable care and caution is called: A. assumption of risk. B. strict liability. C. superseding event. D. contributory negligence.