Yates ch05 - test bank PDF

Preview

Summary

Business Law in Canada, 11e (Yates) Chapter 5 Negligence, Professional Liability, and Insurance1) A seven-year-old boy followed his dog into Mr. Howe's backyard. He fell into a large hole dug by Mr. Howe in preparation for a tree that had been ordered. The boy broke his arm in the fall. At the hospi...

Description

Business Law in Canada, 11e (Yates) Chapter 5 Negligence, Professional Liability, and Insurance 1) A seven-year-old boy followed his dog into Mr. Howe's backyard. He fell into a large hole dug by Mr. Howe in preparation for a tree that had been ordered. The boy broke his arm in the fall. At the hospital, the boy was treated by a doctor who had been employed there for four years. The doctor did not set the boy's arm because he made a mistake in reading the x-ray. Because the arm was not treated correctly, it healed improperly. When the boy kept complaining, his mother took him to their family doctor, who discovered the error. The boy had to have his arm rebroken so that it could be set properly. Based on these facts, which of the following is true? A) The owner of the land owed no duty of care to the boy because the boy was a trespasser. B) The case law that developed over hundreds of years on the duty of care owed by occupiers of land has priority over any subsequent legislation on the point. C) The doctor owed a duty of care to the boy, but he only had to meet the standard of care expected of the average man. D) The hospital, not the doctor, would be solely liable for any harm suffered due to the negligence. E) In an action against the land owner, if the boy were found to be partially at fault for his injury, the court would apportion the award of damages as it apportioned the fault. Answer: E Diff: 3 Type: MC Page Ref: 135 Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence Skill: Applied Objective: Chapter 5: 1. Identify the four elements of a negligence claim. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge 2) Which of the following situations could not result in a successful action for negligence? A) When Todd was setting up a tent for a backyard wedding, he fell into a hole and broke his leg. The owner forgot to tell the wedding planner that he had been digging a hole to put in a fish pond. B) An employee of the bank mistakenly wrote to Maria saying that the bank had approved her loan. Relying on that letter, Maria made contracts she could not honour when the bank refused to forward the money. Maria lost $10,000 because of the bank's carelessness. C) A driver, trying to see what a movie crew was doing, accidentally plowed his car into the side of a catering truck. D) Nikki almost upset a glass table and broke an expensive vase when she yanked on a large cable without checking what was blocking its path. E) A real estate agent, fed up with his client, punches him in the nose when he changes his mind about selling his condo. Answer: D Diff: 2 Type: MC Page Ref: 135 Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence Skill: Applied Objective: Chapter 5: 1. Identify the four elements of a negligence claim. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge

1 Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada, Inc.

3) Two real estate agents, pressed for time, stopped at the bakery for some muffins that would suffice as lunch. John bought the muffins and gave one to Mary. They both began to eat the muffins as they hurried to the car. When Mary looked at the muffin she had just bitten, she saw that the raisins had little worms in them. John's muffins were the same—with little worms. Based on these facts, which of the following possibilities is true? (Read each independently from the others.) A) Since Mary did not buy the muffins, she could not sue in contract, but if she were injured, she could sue in tort. B) Even if Mary was not injured by eating the worms, she could sue the baker of the muffins for nuisance. C) If Mary sued the baker of the muffins or the packer of the raisins, she would have to prove only one thing to win her case—that there were worms in the muffin. D) Mary has a cause of action against the baker of the muffins only if she can prove that the baker used bad raisins on purpose. E) Mary can do nothing since she did not purchase the muffins. Answer: A Diff: 3 Type: MC Page Ref: 135 Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence Skill: Applied Objective: Chapter 5: 1. Identify the four elements of a negligence claim. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge 4) Which of the following situations could result in a successful action for negligence? A) George deliberately broke an expensive camera when he yanked on a large cable. B) When Eric was setting up the lighting in a backyard rented for a night shoot, he fell into a hole and broke his leg. The owner had previously notified the director that he had been digging a hole to plant an apple tree. C) An employee of the bank mistakenly wrote to Sean saying that the bank had approved his loan. Relying on that letter, Sean made contracts he could not honour when the bank refused to forward the money. Sean lost $100,000 because of the bank's carelessness. D) A doctor, acting in the best interest of his patient Alex (who had lost blood after a serious cut), gave him a transfusion even though Alex told him explicitly not to do so. E) Dr. Jones used the skill of a reasonable doctor in his field, but the patient did not respond to the treatment and lost sight in one eye. The patient sued the doctor. Answer: C Diff: 2 Type: MC Page Ref: 135 Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence Skill: Applied Objective: Chapter 5: 2. State when a duty of care arises, explaining how courts determine whether it is owed. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge

2 Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada, Inc.

5) Sam and John drank beer and watched the Olympics for hours. When John left, he did not feel impaired, but the alcohol in his system affected his driving. He lost control of his car, which crashed through Mr. Mitsu's fence and into Mr. Mitsu's garage. Mitsu's neighbour, Mr. Watson, called the police. John was charged with driving while impaired and was found guilty in the criminal proceedings. Given these facts, which of the following is true? A) Mr. Watson, the neighbour, could sue John for negligence. B) Mr. Mitsu could sue John for negligence. C) If Mr. Mitsu sued John, he would be entitled only to punitive damages. D) Because John was charged with an offence, Mr. Mitsu cannot sue him in a civil action for compensation. One court action is all that is allowed. E) Since no one was physically injured, there could be no civil action. Answer: B Diff: 2 Type: MC Page Ref: 135 Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence Skill: Applied Objective: Chapter 5: 2. State when a duty of care arises, explaining how courts determine whether it is owed. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge 6) In which of the following cases is a legal duty not owed? A) A person undertakes to rescue someone in danger B) It would be apparent to a prudent person that the conduct was likely to cause injury C) A person making a misstatement knew that it would be relied on by a member of a group D) A visitor comes on your property E) A person sees another in desperate need of assistance Answer: E Diff: 1 Type: MC Page Ref: 135 Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence Skill: Recall Objective: Chapter 5: 2. State when a duty of care arises, explaining how courts determine whether it is owed. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge

3 Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada, Inc.

7) Which of the following statements with regard to the tort of negligence is false? A) If a person is injured by a defective product that he himself did not purchase, he can sue the manufacturer for negligence. B) If the court finds contributory negligence, the defendant has no liability at all. C) If physical injury can be foreseen as the result of a person's negligence, the wrongdoer will be liable for all the injury suffered although the person injured was unusually weak and infirm. D) A possible defence to the plaintiff's claim of negligence is that the plaintiff volunteered to take the risk. E) The test used to determine whether a duty of care is owed is this: would a reasonable person foresee that the plaintiff could be affected by the acts of the defendant? Answer: B Diff: 1 Type: MC Page Ref: 135 Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence Skill: Recall Objective: Chapter 5: 2. State when a duty of care arises, explaining how courts determine whether it is owed. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge 8) Because of the North American Free Trade Agreement and increasing world competition, a provincial government decided to help businesses by providing more information about market conditions, currencies, etc., around the world. It opened small offices throughout the province that provided business information retrieved from the government's database, which was frequently updated. Mr. Hill relied on some information given to him by Alex Chec, an employee of the government. The information was wrong due to Chec's mistake; it was his job to crosscheck that information before it was released to the public, but he forgot to do it. Mr. Hill suffered a $15,000 loss because of the error. Which of the following is true? A) Mr. Hill cannot take any action because he suffered no physical injury. The case only deals with information. B) If Mr. Hill sues the government on the principle of vicarious liability, he cannot also sue the employee at fault. C) On these facts, Mr. Hill could sue successfully on the principle of strict liability. D) Mr. Hill could not take any action because he had not entered into a contract with the government for this information. E) To win in an action against the government, Hill must prove that the government owed him a duty of care, fell below the standard of care owed, and thereby caused him a foreseeable loss. Answer: E Diff: 2 Type: MC Page Ref: 135 Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence Skill: Applied Objective: Chapter 5: 2. State when a duty of care arises, explaining how courts determine whether it is owed. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge

4 Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada, Inc.

9) Which of the following statements best describes the standard used by the courts to measure socially acceptable behaviour? A) An average person acting normally B) A careful person acting to the best of his ability C) A reasonably prudent person acting in a careful manner D) The best possible response to the circumstance E) When you cause injury, you are always liable. Answer: C Diff: 1 Type: MC Page Ref: 135 Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence Skill: Recall Objective: Chapter 5: 2. State when a duty of care arises, explaining how courts determine whether it is owed. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge 10) In which of the following would the plaintiff not succeed in an action for negligence? A) A zoning officer carelessly told Mr. Lee that the lot was zoned "commercial," but it was really zoned "duplex." Lee lost $85,000 by relying on this information. B) An accounting firm made a mistake in the audited financial statements, which caused an investor to lose $20,000. The firm knew the investor was going to rely on the statements to invest. C) May was made sick by drinking a contaminated cola, bottled by Black, bought for her by her friend Fred from Green. D) Dr. Zotsky used the skill of a reasonable doctor in his field, but his patient did not respond to the treatment and lost sight in one eye. E) Nick was a willing passenger when Alex was driving at 140 km/h. He was hurt when the car slid on wet pavement and crashed. The court found Nick took the physical risk, but never took the legal risk. Answer: D Diff: 2 Type: MC Page Ref: 163 Topic: Ch. 5 - Liability of Professionals and Other Experts Skill: Applied Objective: Chapter 5: 3. Describe breach of the standard of care, identifying the test used to determine if a breach has occurred. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge

5 Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada, Inc.

11) The director of the children's zoo, Mr. Watson, was appalled to see an employee, Jake, throwing a pitchfork like a javelin in an area where there were both animals and children. Luckily, no one was hurt. He yelled to Jake to get busy and feed the birds so that the birds would come closer to the children. Jake opened a new sealed bag of feed and threw some to the birds. It happened that the manufacturer of the feed, ordered by Watson, had accidentally mixed some caustic substance with the feed, so that later in the day Jake's hand began to blister badly. Jake sued Watson for negligence because of the burns he suffered; Watson sued Jake for negligence because of the way Jake used the pitchfork. On these facts, which of the following is true? A) Jake will be found liable for negligence because he was careless with the pitchfork; a reasonable person would not have done what he did. B) The test the court will apply to determine whether or not Jake owed a duty of care is this: would a reasonable person foresee that his acts could affect the animals and children? C) Watson owed Jake a duty of care and Watson will, therefore, be liable for negligence. D) Children attending a zoo are voluntarily assuming any risk. E) Jake could not sue the manufacturer because he did not buy the feed. Answer: B Diff: 2 Type: MC Page Ref: 135 Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence Skill: Applied Objective: Chapter 5: 3. Describe breach of the standard of care, identifying the test used to determine if a breach has occurred. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge 12) Al bought a case of beer because his friends were coming over to watch the Grey Cup game. During the game, Al opened a beer, poured about a third of it into Bob's glass, and handed the can to Chuck. Bob noticed the strange orange colour of the beer and called everyone's attention to it; unfortunately, Chuck had drunk most of the beer from the can before he heard Bob. There had been a small battery in the can that contaminated the beer. Chuck was seriously injured. On these facts, which of the following is true? A) Since Chuck did not buy the beer, he has no cause of action against anyone. B) Chuck could sue Al successfully for negligence because Al handed the contaminated beer to Chuck. C) Bob could sue Al successfully for negligence because Al poured the contaminated beer in Bob's glass. D) Because Chuck did not buy the beer, he could not sue the seller for breach of contract, but he could sue the beer manufacturer in tort. E) Bob could successfully sue the manufacturer for negligence because he need only prove that the manufacturer owed him a duty of care and need not prove damages. Answer: D Diff: 2 Type: MC Page Ref: 135 Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence Skill: Applied Objective: Chapter 5: 3. Describe breach of the standard of care, identifying the test used to determine if a breach has occurred. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge

6 Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada, Inc.

13) The provincial government thought that the only way to make businesses competitive with those from other countries was to make more information available to them about market conditions, currencies, etc., around the world. It began a program of incentives that included a government office that would give people not only the business information but also advice on how the businesses could link up to the government's database that held the updated information. Mr. Su relied on some information given to him by Alex Chec, an employee of the government. The information was wrong due to a mistake made by an operator entering data. It was Mr. Chec's job to cross-check that information before it was released to the public. He forgot to do it. Mr. Su suffered a $100,000 loss because of the error. Which of the following is true? A) If Mr. Su sues the government on the principle of vicarious liability, he cannot also sue the employee, or employees, at fault. B) Mr. Su could not take any action because he suffered no physical injury. The case only deals with information. C) The court must find only one party liable and that party must pay for all of the damages. D) Mr. Su could not take any action because he had not entered into a contract with the government for this information. E) The operator may be found liable for negligence if Su, the plaintiff, can prove, among other things, that he owed him a duty of care. Answer: E Diff: 3 Type: MC Page Ref: 135 Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence Skill: Applied Objective: Chapter 5: 2. State when a duty of care arises, explaining how courts determine whether it is owed. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge

7 Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada, Inc.

14) As a result of careless driving, Mr. Boz accidentally knocked Mr. Alder, a seventy-year-old man, off his bike. Mr. Alder broke his arm and collar bone. Because of a rare disease, there was little likelihood that the breaks would heal properly, if at all. In effect, unlike most who would suffer those breaks, he lost the use of his right arm. Mr. Alder sued Boz for negligence. The court held Boz liable. With regard to the question of the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant, which of the following is correct? A) It should be an amount to cover the full extent of the injury suffered. B) It should be an amount to cover the extent of injury that would have been suffered by a reasonable man. C) It should be an amount to cover the extent of injury that would have been suffered by the average man. D) In should be an amount to cover the extent of injury that would have been suffered by the average seventy-year-old man, because a reasonable man would not have foreseen the extent of injury actually suffered. E) It should be no compensation at all because of Mr. Alder's rare condition. Answer: A Diff: 2 Type: MC Page Ref: 135 Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence Skill: Applied Objective: Chapter 5: 3. Describe breach of the standard of care, identifying the test used to determine if a breach has occurred. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge 15) Which of the following is true with respect to the law of tort? A) With assault and battery, a person can successfully sue only if they can prove damages. B) A negligent person causing physical injury to another is responsible to the full extent of the injury suffered even though the injured person suffered more than would reasonably be expected because of a special weakness. C) A person will always succeed with the defence of self-defence even if he used excessive force. D) A customer battered by an employee on the job can sue only the employee, not the employer, because it was the employee who did the wrong. E) For fair comment to be an effective legal defence to a claim of defamation, the person making the comment must have been made in Parliament or court. Answer: B Diff: 2 Type: MC Page Ref: 135 Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence Skill: Recall Objective: Chapter 5: 3. Describe breach of the standard of care, identifying the test used to determine if a breach has occurred. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge

8 Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada, Inc.

16) You and your friend recently bought a duplex. You rent out the downstairs and live in the upstairs suite. As the owner and occupier, you have acquired certain rights and responsibilities. Which of the following statements about the law relating to land is true? A) You could sue for the tort of negligence if someone used his property in such a way that it interfered with your use and enjoyment of your property. B) The use of your property is partly governed by the Personal Property Securities Act. C) If you bring something onto your property that is inherently dangerous and it escapes causing damage to others, you will be liable even if you were very careful and did not intend to harm anyone. D) If there were an accident out front and a car was knocked onto your yard, you could sue the driver in that car for trespass. E) Your tenants have no duty to take reasonable steps to make sure that any person is reasonably safe when in their suite. Answer: C Diff: 2 Type: MC Page Ref: 155 Topic: Ch. 5 - Occupiers' Liability Skill: Applied Objective: Chapter 5: 4. Explain how both physical and legal causation and damage are proven. Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge 17) Creative Farming Ltd. manufactures fertilizer from organic matter, a by-product of which is explosive methane gas. During the processing, some of this gas escaped and drifted onto the adjacent property, where it caused an explosion and extensively damaged a building owned by XYZ Co. Creative Farming Ltd. would be liable for the loss under which one of the following principles? A) Strict liability B) Vicarious liability C) Product liability D) Occupiers' Liability Act E) Contributory negligence Answer: A Diff: 1 Type: MC Page Ref: 157 Topic: Ch. 5 - Strict Liability Skill: Applied Objective: Chapter 5: 4. Explain how both physical and legal causation and damag...