71) Which of the following a condition required for the

Question : 71) Which of the following a condition required for the : 2095780

71) Which of the following is a condition required for the imposition of strict liability?

A) The activity is undertaken by a minor.

B) The activity is heavily regulated.

C) The activity involves trespassing in a way that reasonably leads to fright on the part of home owners.

D) The activity is so inherently dangerous that it cannot ever be safely undertaken.

E) The activity involves negligence pertaining to the preparation of food products.

72) Which of the following is an example of an inherently dangerous activity?

A) Dynamite blasting in a populated area.

B) Babysitting.

C) Operating an airplane.

D) Driving a vehicle.

E) Burning trash.

73) Which of the following is true regarding negligence under South African Law?

A) South Africa's legal system is a combination of selected legal traditions involving Roman, Dutch, and French law, but not German law.

B) South African law refuses to recognize sudden emergency as a standard for determining negligence in crisis situations.

C) Under South African law, individuals can be found negligent in only one way, through failing to exercise reasonable care.

D) South African law models the law of the U.S. and is substantially the same.

E) South African law recognizes that one way to determine negligence is by determining whether the defendant could have prevented the consequent damages.

74) What was the final result on appeal in the Case Opener involving whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to the lawsuit brought against landowners after the plaintiff fell through a wooden dock located on the defendants' property?

A) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because it only applies in contractual cases.

B) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied.

C) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because there was insufficient proof that the type of accident at issue would not normally happen in the absence of negligence.

D) That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply because there was insufficient proof that the dock at issue was in the exclusive control of the defendants.

E) That whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied should be decided by the jury.

[Diving Fiasco] Rogerio, who owns a dive shop in the U.S., takes a group of his customers diving in U.S. waters. Rogerio is aware that the area where the divers will be visiting is occasionally visited by sharks. He is also aware that, while sting rays are usually tame, they can become aggressive when fed. Rogerio did not reveal the information about sharks or sting rays to the group of divers going with him because, in his experience, as soon as customers hear of a hint of danger, they refuse to pay and go on the trip. The divers go down into the water, and some have squid with which to feed the sting rays. During the dive, one of the sting rays becomes agitated and lashes diver Tamika's arm. Tamika is so disconcerted that she drops her regulator (her breathing device) from her mouth and is in considerable distress. Another diver, Billy, encounters a shark which snaps at him. Fortunately, the shark does not bite him but does damage his diving equipment. He is also in distress. Rogerio, who is in charge of the dive, does nothing and just returns to the boat because the dive turned out to be more trouble than expected. Claudia, another diver on the trip, also returns to the boat without doing anything to help the divers in distress. Sam, on the other hand, goes to rescue the divers who are in distress. He manages to assist them, but in the process, he injures his back and requires medical care. All divers return to the boat and are very unhappy with Rogerio.

75) The diver whose equipment was damaged because of the shark incident, Billy, wants to sue Rogerio for damages. Which of the following is the most likely result?

A) Billy will lose because Rogerio had no duty to warn him of anything.

B) Billy will lose because he did not sustain physical injury.

C) Billy will win because Rogerio should have warned him about the occasional appearance of sharks.

D) Billy will win only if he can establish that he had a contract with Rogerio whereby Rogerio agreed to reveal harmful conditions.

E) Billy will win only if he can establish that he did not have insurance to cover the equipment.



5 (1 Ratings )

Business Law 2 Years Ago 418 Views
This Question has Been Answered!

Related Answers
Unlimited Access Free
Explore More than 2 Million+
  • Textbook Solutions
  • Flashcards
  • Homework Answers
  • Documents
Signup for Instant Access!
Ask an Expert
Our Experts can answer your tough homework and study questions
1790 Business Law Questions Answered!
Post a Question