Quize 3 attempt

docx

School

Fanshawe College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

101

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by BarristerStorkMaster799

Question 1 Incorrect Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Brandon intended to start a new company. He issued a public statement regarding the proposed business venture. That document contained a false statement to the effect that Brandon had received government authorization to use nuclear power for his venture. In fact, authorization had not yet been granted and, indeed, was eventually refused. After reading Brandon's public statement, Abigail invested in the company. She later lost her investment when the company folded. She then sued Brandon for the tort of deceit. Which of the following statements is TRUE? Question 1Select one: A. Brandon may be held liable if a reasonable person would have relied upon his statement, even if Abigail did not do so when she made her investment. B. If Brandon is held liable, damages will be calculated to reflect the position that Abigail would have enjoyed if she had not been deceived, but they will not be calculated to reflect the position Abigail would have enjoyed if Brandon's statement had actually been true. C. Brandon may be held liable even if he honestly believed that he had received government authorization to use nuclear power. D. Brandon may be held liable even if he did not intend to deceive Abigail, as long as he did in fact deceive her. E. The tort of deceit usually causes a court to award an injunction. Feedback The correct answer is: If Brandon is held liable, damages will be calculated to reflect the position that Abigail would have enjoyed if she had not been deceived, but they will not be calculated to reflect the position Abigail would have enjoyed if Brandon's statement had actually been true. Question 2 Incorrect Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text The defence of statutory authority applies only if a nuisance was the inevitable result of the defendant's performance of a statutorily authorized activity. Question 2Select one:

True False Feedback The correct answer is 'True'. Question 3 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text The defence of contributory negligence may apply even if the plaintiff carelessly contributed to the severity of the injuries that were suffered, but not to the actual occurrence of the accident that caused those injuries. Question 3Select one: True False Feedback The correct answer is 'True'. Question 4 Incorrect Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text You invited your friend Suri to your apartment for dinner. Since you knew that she would arrive first, you gave her your key and told her to let herself in. When she entered, however, a burglar jumped out and cracked her skull with a vase. Suri suffered a concussion. The burglar was also injured. As a practical joke, you had tied a string between the kitchen doorway, hoping that Suri would tumble over when she entered the room. In fact, it was the burglar who was tripped up. He broke his wrist as a result of the fall. Both Suri and the burglar have sued you under the tort of occupiers' liability. Assuming that the traditional common law rules apply, which of the following statements is most likely to be TRUE? Question 4Select one: A. You are only liable to Suri because you had no protection against burglars. B. You are only liable to the burglar because you recklessly injured him. C. You are only liable to Suri because she is a licencee. D. You are only liable to Suri because she is an invitee. E. You are liable to both Suri and the burglar. Feedback

The correct answer is: You are only liable to the burglar because you recklessly injured him. Question 5 Incorrect Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Which of the following statements is TRUE? Question 5Select one: A. The unlawful means tort always requires proof that the defendant committed a civilly actionable wrong against someone other than the plaintiff. B. The tort of interference with contractual relations always requires proof that the defendant acted with the primary intention of hurting the plaintiff. C. The tort of intimidation always requires proof that the defendant threatened the plaintiff. D. The tort of deceit always requires proof that the defendant acted with the intention of gaining an economic benefit. E. The tort of conspiracy always requires proof that the defendant intended to hurt the plaintiff. Feedback The correct answer is: The unlawful means tort always requires proof that the defendant committed a civilly actionable wrong against someone other than the plaintiff. Question 6 Incorrect Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Generally speaking, there are three sets of rules for the tort of occupiers' liability: the traditional common law rules, the judicially modified common law rules, and the statutory rules. Which of the following statements is TRUE? Question 6Select one: A. Under the judicially modified common law rules, an occupier must protect both licencees and invitees from unusual dangers. B. Under the statutory rules, there is no need to classify a visitor when determining the precise content of an occupier's duty of care.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

C. Under the traditional common law rules, a licencee was a person who had permission to be on the premises and whose presence on the premises furthered the occupier's economic interests. D. Under the traditional common law rules, an occupier was merely required to refrain from intentionally or recklessly injuring a licencee. E. No duty of care is owed to a trespasser under the new statutory rules. Feedback The correct answer is: Under the judicially modified common law rules, an occupier must protect both licencees and invitees from unusual dangers. Question 7 Incorrect Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text The unlawful means tort Question 7Select one: A. requires proof that, among other things, the defendant acted with an intention to cause the plaintiff to suffer economically. B. is a subset of the tort of interference with contractual relations. C. is one of the oldest torts. D. was recently rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada. E. requires proof that, among other things, the defendant also committed some other tort against the plaintiff. Feedback The correct answer is: requires proof that, among other things, the defendant acted with an intention to cause the plaintiff to suffer economically. Question 8 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Ocala Corp operated a factory that caused corrosive particles to drift in the air and land on a building that was owned by Broderick Inc. Those particles damaged the roof of the building. The damage could have been repaired immediately at a cost of $250 000, but Broderick did not have the money

necessary to do so. It therefore sued Ocala in negligence. By the time the trial ended several years later, inflation had run rampant and the cost of repairing Broderick's roof has increased to $900 000. Because of the modern approach to the "thin wallet" rule, Ocala cannot possibly be held liable for more than $250 000. Question 8Select one: True False Feedback The correct answer is 'False'. Question 9 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Joel was injured while walking on Maureen's property. Under the statutory rules, it will generally be necessary for a court to determine Joel's precise status as a visitor before choosing the appropriate standard of care. Question 9Select one: True False Feedback The correct answer is 'False'. Question 10 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Dakota sued Mariah for the tort of occupiers' liability in a jurisdiction that still used the traditional common law rules (as opposed to the judicially modified common law rules). The court held that Mariah was required to protect Dakota from unusual dangers that Mariah should have known about. It therefore is most likely that Dakota was classified as a Question 10Select one: A. invitee. B. co-occupier. C. contractual entrant. D. licencee.

E. trespasser. Feedback The correct answer is: invitee. Question 11 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Sarah made several statements to John. Because he acted in reliance upon those statements, John suffered a loss. Assuming that the other elements of the tort are established, Sarah may be held liable for deceit as long as John proves that she carelessly failed to realize that her statements were false. Question 11Select one: True False Feedback The correct answer is 'False'. Question 12 Incorrect Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Brewster and Constance are neighbours. They both live near the outdoor stadium that hosts sporting events and concerts in their city. For many years, Brewster and Constance both earned a great deal of money by using their lawns as parking lots during stadium events. Recently, however, attendance at stadium events has plummeted and there are not enough customers to keep both Brewster and Constance happy. The two therefore began to compete for business. In a desperate bid to win the competition, Constance threatened motorists who appeared to be headed for Brewster's property. ONE of the elements that Brewster must prove in order to hold Constance liable for the unlawful means tort is that Question 12Select one: A. Constance committed a tort against Brewster's potential customers when she threatened them. B. his property shares a legal boundary with her property. C. Constance was motivated by a desire to earn greater profits. D.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

a reasonable person in Constance's position would have realized that her behaviour violated Brewster's rights. E. Constance committed a crime when she threatened Brewster's potential customers. Feedback The correct answer is: Constance committed a tort against Brewster's potential customers when she threatened them. Question 13 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Andreas has sued Kathryn for negligence. Kathryn argues that she did not owe a duty of care to Andreas. Which of the following statements is TRUE? Question 13Select one: A. The court may refuse to recognize a duty of care even if it was reasonably foreseeable that Andreas might be injured as a result of Kathryn's carelessness, on grounds that public policy does not permit the extension of the duty of care to this relationship. B. The court cannot recognize a duty of care if Andreas and Kathryn were parties to the same contract. C. A court may recognize a duty of care even if it was not reasonably foreseeable that Andreas might be injured as a result of Kathryn's carelessness. D. The court cannot recognize a duty of care if Kathryn was Andreas's mother. E. The court cannot recognize a duty of care if Andreas was injured as a result of Kathryn's omission, rather than by her action. Feedback The correct answer is: The court may refuse to recognize a duty of care even if it was reasonably foreseeable that Andreas might be injured as a result of Kathryn's carelessness, on grounds that public policy does not permit the extension of the duty of care to this relationship. Question 14 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text

The Town of Sussex Corner owned a bridge. Ruby negligently damaged the bridge by ramming it with a boat. At that point, it would have cost $30 000 to repair the bridge. Before the town could do so, however, Oswald negligently rammed the bridge in a different spot with his own boat. The town had the damage from both incidents repaired at the same time for a total cost of $50 000. Which of the following statements is most likely to be TRUE? Question 14Select one: A. Ruby and Oswald are jointly and severally liable for the full loss. B. Oswald's conduct falls under the heading of contributory negligence. C. Sussex Corner has the option of recovering $50 000 from either Ruby or Oswald. D. Oswald may be held liable for some damages even though Ruby had already damaged the bridge. E. Ruby will not be held liable at all because Oswald's negligence is an intervening act. Feedback The correct answer is: Oswald may be held liable for some damages even though Ruby had already damaged the bridge. Question 15 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text The concept of remoteness Question 15Select one: A. is relevant only if the defendant in fact carelessly caused the plaintiff's loss. B. is most closely connected to the concept of the standard of care. C. asks whether a person in the plaintiff's position could have reasonably foreseen that loss that occurred because of a breach of care. D. is treated as a defence to the action in negligence. E. arises for consideration under concept of duty of care. Feedback The correct answer is: is relevant only if the defendant in fact carelessly caused the plaintiff's loss. Question 16

Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Salvatore and Carolyn conducted lengthy negotiations that led to her purchase of his business. At the start of those negotiations, Salvatore made a number of statements regarding the business's profitability. Those statements were accurate when they were made. However, before the sale was finalized, the facts changed such that the earlier statements were no longer true. Salvatore knew of that change, but he intentionally did not provide Carolyn with the updated truthful information and allowed Carolyn to think that the previous, now untrue information, was the true information. Consequently, he may be held liable to her under the tort of deceit. Question 16Select one: True False Feedback The correct answer is 'True'. Question 17 Incorrect Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Remy invited his friend, Fabiola, to ride on his handlebars as he cycled down a large hill. Fabiola initially refused because neither she nor Remy had ever tried that stunt before. Remy, however, was persistent. He told her that he had seen plenty of people riding on handlebars and he said that it did not look particularly difficult. Fabiola finally agreed. Halfway down the hill, the pair crashed and Fabiola suffered significant injuries. She has sued Remy for negligence. On what basis is Remy most likely to avoid or reduce his potential liability? Question 17Select one: A. Fabiola's decision to sit on the handlebars constituted an intervening act between Remy's original invitation and the accident. B. Fabiola voluntarily assumed the risk because she freely chose to sit on Remy's handlebars despite knowing that he had no experience with that stunt. C. Fabiola committed an illegal act because there is a law that prohibits riding on a bike's handlebars. D. Fabiola committed contributory negligence when she placed herself in a dangerous situation. E.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Fabiola was not owed a duty of care because Remy did not foresee the accident that occurred. Feedback The correct answer is: Fabiola committed contributory negligence when she placed herself in a dangerous situation. Question 18 Incorrect Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Under the unlawful means tort, the plaintiff must prove, among other things, that the defendant committed a civilly actionable wrong against a third party. Question 18Select one: True False Feedback The correct answer is 'True'. Question 19 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Dinar has sued Alpha Inc under the tort of negligence. The court must decide whether or not the company owed a duty of care to Dinar. Which of the following statements is TRUE? Question 19Select one: A. If the relationship between Dinar and Alpha Inc falls within a recognized category of the duty of care, there is no need for the court to analyze the duty of care on a principled basis. B. The judge will require proof that the accident that injured Dinar was an inevitable outcome of the company's activities. C. While policy considerations may affect the measure of damages, it cannot affect the existence of a duty of care. D. Dinar must sue a person associated with Alpha Inc, rather than suing the company itself. E. The judge will require proof that someone within the company actually realized, as a matter of reasonable foreseeability, that someone might be hurt in the way that Dinar was hurt.

Feedback The correct answer is: If the relationship between Dinar and Alpha Inc falls within a recognized category of the duty of care, there is no need for the court to analyze the duty of care on a principled basis. Question 20 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text The thin skull doctrine applies to the case in which the plaintiff eventually would have suffered the same injury even if the defendant did not act carelessly. That doctrine imposes liability, but only to the extent that the defendant's carelessness caused the plaintiff to suffer the injury early. Question 20Select one: True False Feedback The correct answer is 'False'. Question 21 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Omar and Caitlin own competing computer software companies. The success of Caitlin's business was due largely to the work of her chief designer, Mia. During a recent party, Omar asked Mia if she was happy working for Caitlin. Mia answered, "It's okay, I guess." Omar then spent the next hour explaining to Mia how she would earn a great deal more money, and how she would be involved in much more interesting projects, if she worked for him instead. Which of the following statements is most likely TRUE? Question 21Select one: A. Omar cannot be held liable to Caitlin for the tort of interference with contractual relations unless he committed some other tort, such as intimidation, against Mia. B. Omar cannot be held liable to Caitlin for the tort of interference with contractual relations if the court is satisfied that he provided Mia with information about his organization, but did not actually persuade her to leave her job and break her contract of employment with Caitlin. C. If Mia does leave her job with Caitlin and begins to work for Omar, Caitlin will certainly be entitled to receive damages from Omar.

D. To successfully sue Omar for interference with contractual relations, Caitlin must prove (among other things) that she had to pay Mia's replacement a higher salary than she had paid Mia. E. Because he knew that Mia worked for Caitlin, he automatically will be liable for punitive damages if the court finds that a tort has been committed. Feedback The correct answer is: Omar cannot be held liable to Caitlin for the tort of interference with contractual relations if the court is satisfied that he provided Mia with information about his organization, but did not actually persuade her to leave her job and break her contract of employment with Caitlin. Question 22 Incorrect Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Danica was injured as a result of an accident that also involved Elmer and Lloyd. The judge found that all three parties had acted carelessly, and that Elmer and Lloyd were jointly and severally liable. The judge also found that Danica was 50 percent to blame for her injuries, while Elmer was 30 percent to blame and Lloyd was 20 percent to blame. Compensation for Danica's injuries is valued at a total of $100 000. Danica may be able to recover more than $30 000 from Elmer if Lloyd is unable to pay anything because of his extreme poverty. Question 22Select one: True False Feedback The correct answer is 'True'. Question 23 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Casey published an untrue, unfounded, and unfavourable statement about Acme Corp, but not about any of its employees. He nevertheless may be held liable if the statement would tend to make reasonable people have a lower opinion of the corporation. Question 23Select one: True False Feedback The correct answer is 'True'.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Question 24 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Aher is legally classified as an "infant" because he has not yet reached the age when a person is considered an adult. That does not mean, however, that he is a toddler. In fact, although he is in junior high, he is as tall and as muscular as many of his male teachers. Unfortunately, Aher recently inflicted a serious physical injury on his neighbour, Sofia. She has sued him under the tort of negligence. Which of the following statements is most likely to be TRUE? Question 24Select one: A. Because Aher is a child, Sofia must sue Aher's parents rather than Aher himself. B. If the court finds that Aher is negligently responsible for Sofia's injury, it will also hold his parents vicariously liable for Aher's tort. C. If Aher injured Sofia while carelessly driving a vehicle, the standard of care will not be affected by the fact that Aher is a child. D. If Aher is Sofia's son, the court will apply a policy rule and refuse to recognize a duty of care. E. Because he is not an adult, the court will hold that Aher did not owe a duty of care to Sofia. Feedback The correct answer is: If Aher injured Sofia while carelessly driving a vehicle, the standard of care will not be affected by the fact that Aher is a child. Question 25 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text The Northwest Utility Co (NUC) received statutory permission from the government to lay electrical cables under residential properties. Ariana suffered severe injuries when she struck a buried cable while gardening. If Ariana sues for the tort of nuisance, NUC will be able to avoid liability on the basis of the defence of statutory authority Question 25Select one: A. as long as a nuisance was a reasonably foreseeable result of performing the statutorily authorized activity.

B. only if a nuisance was the inevitable result of performing the statutorily authorized activity. C. as long as a nuisance was the probable result of performing the statutorily authorized activity. D. as long as it did not intentionally create a nuisance when performing the statutorily authorized activity. E. only if Ariana knew of the statute when she was injured. Feedback The correct answer is: only if a nuisance was the inevitable result of performing the statutorily authorized activity. Question 26 Incorrect Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Demarcus sued Marguerite for negligence. She has relied on the defence of illegality. Which of the following statements is TRUE? Question 26Select one: A. That defence will not apply if it would re-enforce a criminal penalty. B. That defence may apply if the recovery of damages would allow Demarcus to avoid a criminal penalty. C. The Supreme Court of Canada has abolished the defence of illegality on the basis that it often creates unfair results. D. That defence could apply only if Demarcus committed a crime that was punishable by imprisonment. E. That defence allows for the apportionment of responsibility between the parties. Feedback The correct answer is: That defence may apply if the recovery of damages would allow Demarcus to avoid a criminal penalty. Question 27 Incorrect Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text

Jessica was injured while trespassing on Zach's land. Under the modified common law rules for occupiers' liability, a court will use the standard of common humanity in determining whether or not Zach exercised sufficient care with respect to a Jessica. Question 27Select one: True False Feedback The correct answer is 'True'. Question 28 Incorrect Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Which of the following is the name of a defence to the tort of defamation? Question 28Select one: A. qualified comment B. pseudo justification C. due diligence D. honesty E. public interest responsible journalism Feedback The correct answer is: public interest responsible journalism Question 29 Incorrect Mark 0.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Zoe was injured last New Year's Eve in a traffic accident that was caused by Miles. The accident would not have occurred if Miles had not been drunk. Because Miles has no assets and is not worth suing, Zoe has instead sued Thelonious, who was in control of the premises where Miles became drunk. The judge must determine whether or not Thelonious owed a duty of care to Zoe. A duty is less likely to be imposed if Question 29Select one: A.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Miles became drunk at Thelonious' sports bar after being served by an employee who has liability insurance. B. without Thelonious' knowledge, Zoe had also been drinking alcohol immediately before the accident. C. Zoe was a regular customer at Thelonious' sports bar. D. Miles became drunk while visiting Thelonious at home, than if Miles became drunk while visiting Thelonious' sports bar. E. Thelonious knew, on the basis of past experience, that Miles was likely to drive himself home after becoming drunk. Feedback The correct answer is: Miles became drunk while visiting Thelonious at home, than if Miles became drunk while visiting Thelonious' sports bar. Question 30 Correct Mark 1.00 out of 1.00 Flag question Question text The tort of conspiracy always requires proof that the conspirators committed a crime. Question 30Select one: True False Feedback The correct answer is 'False'.

Quize 3 attempt

Related Documents