Accounting
Anthropology
Archaeology
Art History
Banking
Biology & Life Science
Business
Business Communication
Business Development
Business Ethics
Business Law
Chemistry
Communication
Computer Science
Counseling
Criminal Law
Curriculum & Instruction
Design
Earth Science
Economic
Education
Engineering
Finance
History & Theory
Humanities
Human Resource
International Business
Investments & Securities
Journalism
Law
Management
Marketing
Medicine
Medicine & Health Science
Nursing
Philosophy
Physic
Psychology
Real Estate
Science
Social Science
Sociology
Special Education
Speech
Visual Arts
Business Law
Q:
A business can reduce the risk of suffering devastating losses in the event of an expropriation through licensing.
Q:
TRIPS permits nations to issue compulsory licenses when a patent holder does not make patented goods available to the public.
Q:
A service mark is a descriptive term that distinguishes businesses rather than their products or services.
Q:
The TRIPS agreement stipulates that trademarks, service marks, and geographical indications must be registered in order to be protected.
Q:
Trademark dilution laws protect "distinctive" or "famous" marks from unauthorized uses even when confusion is not likely to occur.
Q:
Trademark dilution laws focus on protecting the investment of trademark owners, while traditional trademark laws were intended to protect consumers.
Q:
The United States awards the exclusive rights over patentable subjects to the first individual to file an application rather than the inventor of the product or process.
Q:
While fishing in the lake, George anchored his new motorboat and went ashore to make an important phone call. He accidently left the key in the boat and Jeb stole the boat. While driving the boat recklessly, Jeb hit Angela, who was water skiing and severely injured her. Should George be responsible for Angela's injuries?
Q:
What are the main factors necessary for third parties to claim recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress?
Q:
Briefly describe the main defenses to negligence.
Contributory negligence and assumption of the risk are two traditional defenses to negligence. They are both based on the idea that everyone has a duty to exercise reasonable care for his/her own safety, and that people who fail to exercise such care should not be able to recover because their own behavior helped cause their injuries. Since contributory negligence can produce harsh results, some courts have adopted the doctrine of last clear chance, which holds that even though the plaintiff was negligent, he or she can still recover if it can be shown that the defendant had the "last clear chance" to avoid the harm. Recently, most states have adopted a comparative negligence system, which is seen as fairer because it distributes the cost of the accident according to both plaintiff's and defendant's fault. It may be pure or mixed. Most states have adopted a "pure" comparative negligence system which allows plaintiffs to recover the portion of their losses not attributable to their fault. A few states have adopted a "mixed" comparative fault system under which, plaintiffs are barred from recovery if they are as much or more at fault for their injuries as defendant.
Q:
What is the main difference between recklessness and negligence?
Q:
A patent generally is effective for 10 years from the date of filing.
Q:
One night, when Henry got home and flipped on the light switch, the kitchen exploded leaving him severely injured. The explosion was caused by the failure of the gas connector to the range, which allowed a large amount of gas to escape, and a small spark created by turning on the light caused it to explode. Henry sued the gas corporation, arguing that it knew the connector was defective but it did not warn its customers. He won the lawsuit on the grounds of:
A. negligence per se.
B. recklessness.
C. strict liability.
D. breach of duty.
Q:
What is meant by proximate cause?
Q:
____ is a good defense to recklessness.
A. Assumption of the risk
B. Unreasonable danger
C. Contributory negligence
D. Comparative negligence
Q:
Strict liability:
A. does not apply to someone who exercises reasonable care.
B. is described as liability without fault.
C. is a part of contributory negligence.
D. does not relate to intentional torts or negligence.
Q:
Ultrahazardous activities:
A. are defined by federal statutes.
B. are subject to strict liability.
C. only create liability where the defendant fails to act as a reasonable person.
D. only create liability when the defendant fails to exercise utmost care.
Q:
Which of the following statements is true for assumption of risk?
A. It is not a defense in cases based on strict liability.
B. It is not a defense in cases based on reckless behavior.
C. It must be the product of an explicit agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.
D. It bars recovery as the plaintiff fully understands the nature and extent of the risk involved.
Q:
Violetta was injured in a bike accident while on a ride with Alfredo, who she knew was intoxicated. A court would regard this as:
A. ultrahazardous.
B. the assumption of the risk.
C. intentional wrongdoing.
D. comparative negligence.
Q:
A defendant is guilty of recklessness when:
A. his/her behavior indicates a conscious disregard for a known high degree of probable harm to another.
B. the risk of harm is lower than the degree of risk that would make an act negligent.
C. he/she commits a highly dangerous act without intent and foreseeable harm.
D. he/she involuntarily exposes himself to an unknown danger created by another's negligence.
Q:
In an act of recklessness, Robert bets his friends that he can drive down a crowded street blindfolded, and ends up striking Tom. Under which of the following circumstances would Tom be barred any recovery from Robert?
A. If Tom had not looked before stepping into Robert's path.
B. If Tom had bet Robert's friends he could run in front of Robert without being hit.
C. If the court had declared Robert' act a foreseeable risk.
D. If Tom had the last clear chance to stay on the curb instead of stepping onto the street.
Q:
Which of the following statements is true about recklessness?
A. It is less morally objectionable than negligence, but more than intentional wrongdoing.
B. It is best defended with a plea of contributory negligence.
C. It is more morally objectionable than negligence but less than intentional wrongdoing.
D. It is identical to intentional wrongdoing.
Q:
Under a pure comparative negligence system:
A. plaintiffs who failed to exercise reasonable care are not able to recover.
B. plaintiffs are able to recover the portion of their losses not attributable to their fault.
C. plaintiffs are barred from recovery if they are as much or more at fault for their injuries as the defendant.
D. plaintiffs are able to recover for the full extent of losses from the defendant even if they were well aware of the risks involved.
Q:
If Nancy steps into the path of George's speeding car without checking to see whether any cars are coming, her ____ would prevent her from receiving damages for her injuries from George.
A. comparative negligence
B. breach of duty
C. assumption of risk
D. contributory negligence
Q:
The doctrine of _____ holds that even though the plaintiff was negligent, he/she can still recover if it can be shown that the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the harm.
A. last clear chance
B. negligence per se
C. comparative negligence
D. strict liability
Q:
Which of the following statements is true for both contributory negligence and assumption of the risk?
A. They are defenses adopted to ease the harshness of the comparative negligence system.
B. They are recent defenses to recklessness but not negligence.
C. They are based on the idea that everyone has a duty to exercise reasonable care for his/her own safety.
D. They are based on the idea that the plaintiff may recover if the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid harm.
Q:
Under a comparative negligence system, if Chez is responsible for 40% of his injuries:
A. he could recover 60% of his damages.
B. he could recover 40% of his damages.
C. he could recover 100% of his damages.
D. he could recover nothing as he exceeds the comparative negligence 30% threshold.
Q:
A van from Mario's Squibb Company is damaged by a heavy metal keg, which rolls out of the second floor window of the two storied Toss-Co. Flower building. Toss-Co. Flower is the sole occupant of the building. Although the van was parked under the window while making a delivery at the Toss Co. receiving dock, no one admits to having seen the keg fall, nor are there any witnesses who can state where the keg was just before the accident. Can Mario recover against Toss-Co. for negligence?
A. Mario can recover, but only if it proves in detail how Toss-Co. breached its duty of reasonable care to Mario.
B. Mario can recover if it can prove that kegs do not fall out of windows in the absence of negligence and that Toss-Co. had exclusive control of the keg prior to the accident.
C. Mario will be unable to recover because parking under an open second floor window amounted to contributory negligence.
D. Mario will be unable to recover because parking under an open second floor window amounted to assumption of risk.
Q:
Which of the following is true about the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?
A. It is one of the basic principles of the causation of negligence.
B. It puts the burden on the plaintiff to show that the injury was not caused by his or her negligence.
C. It is applicable to cases where the defendant has exclusive control of the thing that caused the injury, and is reluctant to disclose facts that prove liability.
D. It offers protection to those who are injured while making a reasonable attempt to rescue someone endangered by the negligent person's act.
Q:
Rachel saw her sister Rebecca being hit by a car. She rushed to help her and later accompanied her to the hospital. Unfortunately her sister died several hours later. Rachel, who received psychiatric treatment as a result of the traumatic experience, sued for emotional distress. Which of the following is true for Rachel?
A. She is not entitled to recovery because she wasn't in the "zone of danger" created by the negligent act.
B. The courts will allow recovery because she made an attempt to stop the car which had hit her sister.
C. The courts will not allow recovery because she suffered only emotional trauma with no visible signs of physical injury.
D. She will be awarded recovery because she bore witness to the accident during which her own sister was killed.
Q:
In addition to demonstrating actual emotional distress, if a third party wants to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must show that:
A. the emotional distress caused to the witness did not result in physical symptoms or injuries.
B. the third party is at least distantly related to the victim.
C. the third party actually witnessed the injury when it occurred.
D. the emotional distress caused to the witness is so serious that he/she may not recover from it.
Q:
Penny had negligently left marbles on the steps of her house. When Bijou came to visit, she broke her leg by slipping on those marbles and severely damaged her spine. While in the hospital recovering from her fall, her body being weak from all the antibiotics, she readily contracted a viral infection. Under these circumstances, Penny is liable:
A. only for Bijou's viral infection.
B. only for the damage to Bijou resulting from her fall.
C. for injuries sustained by her and also for the viral infection.
D. for neither problem because Bijou should have been careful.
Q:
Negligent persons are generally held jointly liable (along with the negligent physician) for negligent medical care their victims receive for their injuries. This is true according to:
A. the general causation rules
B. res ipsa loquitur
C. negligence per se
D. comparative negligence
Q:
Emmie worked late nights at a convenience store. The store had been robbed several times. One night Emmie discovered that the "emergency alert" security system was not working. The owner of the store told her that he would have the system repaired promptly. Nevertheless, a month went by before the system was repaired. In the meantime, the store was robbed while Emmie was working and, in the course of the robbery, the perpetrator broke Emmie's leg. Under these circumstances, Emmie may:
A. recover from the store owner because the harm was foreseeable.
B. recover from the robber as her injury was the proximate result of his actions.
C. recover under the doctrine of strict liability.
D. recover only a limited amount on the grounds of emotional distress.
Q:
An intervening force, which happens after the defendant's negligent act and contributes to the plaintiff's injury, can excuse the defendant from liability if:
A. it was unreasonable.
B. it was proximate.
C. it was unforeseeable.
D. it was highly extraordinary.
Q:
Which of the following is a general negligence causation rule?
A. The defendant is liable for the full extent of the injuries of a person even if some physical peculiarity of that person aggravated his/her injuries.
B. The defendant is liable for those who do not make reasonable attempts to avoid being injured by his/her acts.
C. The defendant is not liable for those who are injured while making a reasonable attempt to rescue someone endangered by his/her act.
D. The defendant is generally not held liable for diseases the victims contract while weakened by their injuries.
Q:
Tosca took his friend Scarpia to the amusement park for a roller coaster ride. Due to the intensity of the ride, Scarpia, who had an especially weak heart, died of a heart attack there. This would be considered an act of negligence in accordance with the concept of:
A. proximate cause.
B. negligence per se.
C. breach of duty.
D. principles of causation.
Q:
If Harry's negligent act injures Sally, and Susan, while attempting to come to Sally's aid breaks her arm in the process then, Harry is liable for the harm to __.
A. Sally only
B. Susan only
C. both Sally and Susan
D. neither Sally nor Susan
Q:
Which of the following is true about the breach of duty?
A. A person is guilty of breach of duty if he or she exposes another person to a foreseeable and unreasonable risk.
B. Even if the defendant exercised reasonable care, he/she is liable for the plaintiff's injury.
C. Only when the defendant's actions violate statutes, it is regarded as breach of duty.
D. It requires that a plaintiff must conduct himself/herself like a "reasonable person of ordinary prudence in similar circumstances."
Q:
To recover in a negligence suit, a plaintiff must prove that the:
A. defendant had intent to injure the plaintiff and did so by a breach of duty.
B. defendant's breach of duty was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
C. defendant's breach of duty indirectly caused the plaintiff's injuries.
D. defendant's actions did not violate any statutes.
Q:
_____ is an unintentional breach of duty by the defendant that results in harm to another.
A. Negligence
B. Liability
C. Injury
D. Malpractice
Q:
People who do not conform to a statute are sometimes considered to be negligent per se. This means that:
A. the law is the law, and breaking it is always wrong.
B. ignorance of a statutory law is never an excuse.
C. not knowing about a statutory requirement is not as bad as intending to do something wrong.
D. statutes can create the legal duty requisite to establish negligence.
Q:
Jose, a migrant worker who lived in a mobile home with six other workers, died in a fire in the home. The smoke alarm did not go off, and he was trapped in the bedroom. The state had a law that required dwellings to be equipped with smoke detectors and that they be maintained. Jose's widow can sue the owner of the mobile home under ___.
A. recklessness
B. negligence per se
C. breach of duty
D. strict liability
Q:
A close relative is not regarded as third party for recovery against emotional distress.
Q:
Most states have adopted a comparative negligence system because it distributes the cost of the accident according to the degree of both plaintiff's and defendant's fault.
Q:
Plaintiffs who assume the risk of injury created by another's negligence are barred from recovery.
Q:
Under the doctrine of strict liability, care and caution may mitigate liability.
Q:
A negligent person is not liable for the proximate results of his/her negligence.
Q:
A defendant is free of liabilities if the intervening force was foreseeable.
Q:
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur places the burden on the plaintiff to show that his injury was caused by the defendant's negligence.
Q:
To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a third party, the plaintiff does not always have to establish some physical symptoms resulting from the said distress.
Q:
Third parties are not entitled to recover for emotional distress resulting from witnessing harm caused to another person by a defendant's negligent acts.
Q:
People whose actions cause injuries of the kind the statute was designed to protect against are considered to be negligent per se.
Q:
If Jamal is carefully driving his car within the speed limit and an inebriated Eddie darts out in front of his car and is hit, Jamal is liable for Eddie's injuries.
Q:
Negligent wrongdoers are not necessarily liable for all direct harm resulting from their negligence.
Q:
Negligence is an intentional breach of duty that may or may not result in harm to another.
Q:
The law of negligence prosecutes a defendant even if his or her's breach of duty wasn't the actual cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
Q:
The concept of negligence is based on the idea that every member of society has a duty to conduct his or her affairs in a way that avoids injury to others.
Q:
Intentional torts are both civil and criminal in nature.
Q:
Punitive damages can be used for intangible harms such as injury to reputation and emotional distress.
Q:
One can commit an intentional tort with the conscious desire to cause harm or with the knowledge that harm is substantially certain to result.
Q:
The plaintiff's burden of proof in a tort case is identical to that of a criminal case.
Q:
The defendant need not actually touch the plaintiff's body to be liable for battery.
Q:
Explain the difference between defamation and disparagement.
Q:
(p. 121,122,125) Miss Shell bought eyeglasses from Vision Co., but she failed to make her payments. The optician's collection agency, the D. Siplin Company, responded very enthusiastically. Siplin phoned Shell about 15 times daily, including calls after midnight. Calls and letters were directed to her employer, her neighbors, and her minister telling them about her indebtedness. Siplin also posted a notice in Vision Co.'s window stating that Shell was behind in her payments, and mounted the same message on a billboard. Shell was admitted to the hospital with a nervous breakdown. Discuss her possible legal remedies against Siplin.
Q:
Define and discuss the tort of trespass to land.
Q:
Jim Slim sued Acme Smelting for trespass because microscopic, airborne particles of heavy metals from its copper smelter four miles away had been deposited on his property. The smelter's emissions met all federal, state, and regional regulations, and had caused no actual damage. Is the deposit of microscopic particles on a person's property, without damage, a trespass?
Q:
Which of the following is an example of interference with economic relations?
A. Trespass
B. False imprisonment
C. Disparagement
D. Defamation
Q:
A common defense to the tort of interference with contract is:
A. lack of capacity.
B. privilege.
C. probable cause.
D. inducing a breach of contract.
Q:
Privilege is not a common defense to which of the following intentional torts?
A. False imprisonment
B. Trespass to land
C. Interference with contract
D. Disparagement
Q:
Explain the tort of battery.
Q:
The tort of disparagement:
A. requires proof of actual damage.
B. covers true statements about the personal behavior of persons in business.
C. is identical to the tort of slander.
D. does not include truth as a common defense.
Q:
The tort of interference with contract:
A. does not protect the sanctity of private contractual relationships.
B. does not apply to a person who intentionally induces a person to breach a contract with another.
C. applies to a person who intentionally prevents performance of another person's contract.
D. justifies inducing a breach of contract in most cases.
Q:
This is a common defense to the tort of malicious prosecution.
A. Improper purpose
B. Lack of capacity
C. Probable cause
D. Inducing a breach of contract
Q:
Cybertrespass is commonly considered to be a trespass on:
A. personal property.
B. real property.
C. private property.
D. immovable property.
Q:
Which of the following is a common defense to trespass to personal property?
A. Probable cause
B. Privilege
C. Truth
D. Necessity
Q:
Conversion is defined as:
A. intrusion on a person's solitude or seclusion and publishing private facts about a person.
B. the unlawful taking of or exercise of control over the personal property of another person.
C. the intentional confinement of a person for an appreciable time without the person's consent.
D. the use of force to drive away a person's customers or employees.
Q:
Which of the following statements is true about conversion and trespass to personal property?
A. Trespass to personal property does not require intent, while conversion does.
B. The degree of interference with another's property rights acts as a basis for the difference between the two.
C. Consent acts is a defense to conversion but will not be considered as a defense for trespass to personal property.
D. Courts do not consider extent of harm to property as a difference between conversion and trespass.
Q:
In actions for malicious prosecution and for wrongful use of civil proceedings, a plaintiff must show that:
A. the wrongfully brought suit did not terminate in his favor.
B. the suit was brought with probable cause to believe the suit was justified.
C. the suit was brought for an improper purpose.
D. the wrongfully brought suit terminated in the defendant's favor.
Q:
Abuse of process requires:
A. that the wrongfully brought suit terminated in the defendant's favor.
B. that there be no probable cause in order for the person wrongfully sued to win.
C. proof that the suit was brought for a primary purpose other than the one for which such proceedings are designed.
D. proof that the suit was brought out of malice and to give a remedy for the financial, emotional, and reputational harm caused.