### Understanding Proximate Cause in Tort Law**Question:** Which of the following does not describe the concept of proximate cause in the tort of negligence? (Choose all of the correct answers.)**Options:**- [ ] Could the plaintiff reasonably foresee the defendant would engage in this particular harmful conduct?- [ ] Could the defendant reasonably foresee his conduct could lead to the injury suffered by the plaintiff?- [ ] Could the defendant reasonably foresee he had a duty of the plaintiff?- [ ] Could the plaintiff reasonably foresee the injury he suffered?- [ ] Was the defendant the actual cause of plaintiff's injury?

In tort law, proximate cause refers to the legal concept of establishing a causal connection between…

Answered: hich of the following does not describe…

Similar questions

Barbara Rome entered Flower Memorial Hospital to undergo a series of X-rays. When she was ready for the X-rays, she was assisted by a student radiological intern. The intern placed Rome on the X-ray table and strapped her onto the table correctly; however, the intern did not properly fasten the footboard, which was located at the foot of the table. As a result of this error, Rome fell and was hurt when the table was raised. As a consequence, Rome brought a lawsuit against Flower Memorial Hospital, alleging that the ordinary negligence of the intern had caused her injury. In contrast, the hospital argued that the lawsuit involved a medical claim, as defined under the state’s medical malpractice statute. Whether a case involves ordinary negligence or a medical claim would determine whether the state’s two-year statute of limitations for negligence or the state’s one-year statute of limitations for medical claims would apply. This case clearly involves a difference of opinion on the…
T or F In the context of grievance procedures, the principle of just cause originally places the burden of proof on an employer.
Allan carelessly drops a log in the road, and he does not bother to remove it. After dark, Ben’s horse trips over the log and is seriously injured. The purpose of tort law is to compensate the victim for harm caused by the activity of other. Is Allan liable for the injuries caused by negligence? Please state your reasons, the context of old tort (strict liability) and modern tort.
Explain What are the key elements required to establish a claim in tort law?
How far does jurisdiction extend over the person in a judicial process?Carry out written work related to the topic of jurisdiction. Instructions:Answer the following questions:What is the basis for the existence of long arm statutes? What is sought to be protected by the theory of minimum contacts, when determining jurisdiction over the person in a judicial process? How is the plaintiff affected or benefited from long arm statutes and minimum contact theory? How is the defendant affected or benefited from the long arm statutes and the minimum contact theory?
In employment establishments, an employee may be different from an independent contractor. By reference to case law, explain the tests used by courts to distinguish an employee from an independent contractor.
John’s neighbour, Cynthia, has begun raising pigs in her backyard. John is no longer able to enjoy sitting in his hot tub on his back deck as a result of the smell. If John wanted to sue Cynthia, which cause of action would he use as his grounds? Select one: a. Nuisance b. Negligence c. Strict Liability d. Trespass
which of the following is not a tort: Conspiracy, deceit, inducing a breach of contract, injurious falsehood, passing off action
is essentially a shortcut for negligence. Instead of having to prove all of the normal elements, a plaintiff would simply have to show that the injury was caused by something in the defendant's exclusive control, the injury generally only occurs in negligence, and the plaintiff was not the cause.
Case: Brandt v. Boston Scientific Corporation and Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center Facts: Brenda Brandt was admitted to Bush Lincoln Health Center for treatment of urinary incontinence. She had a surgical procedure in which a sling was implanted. The manufacturer, Boston Scientific, recalled the item. Brenda had to have the sling surgically removed. She sued the manufacturer and the designer. In this case, Brandt’s bill from the Health Center reflects that of the $11,174.50 total charge for her surgery. $1,659.50, or 14.9%, was for the sling and its surgical kit. What provision of the UCC did the plaintiff sue under? What was the reasoning and decision of the court hearing the case
Please list and describe the 3 types of torts.
Intoxication may or may not be a defense to some crimes, discuss whether or not intoxication should be a valid defense. Keep in mind mens rea. Can an intoxicated person form the state of mind necessary to meet the requirement of intent? Does it matter whether a person is voluntarily intoxicated (as opposed to having his/her drink spiked or unknowingly drinking alcohol)?

SEE MORE QUESTIONS