x
Info
x
Warning
x
Danger
 / 
 / 
 / 
[Diving Fiasco] Rogerio, who owns a dive shop in the

Question : [Diving Fiasco] Rogerio, who owns a dive shop in the : 2095781

[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.

76) Did Rogerio have a duty to provide assistance to Tamika and Billy during the dive?

A) Rogerio had a duty to come to their assistance only if no one else did so.

B) Rogerio had a duty to come to their assistance only if they were minors.

C) Rogerio had a duty to come to their assistance only if he had specifically agreed to do so prior to the dive.

D) Rogerio had a duty to come to their aid because he arranged the dive and was charging them.

E) Rogerio had no duty to provide any assistance to them.

77) Did Claudia and Sam have a duty to aid the divers in peril?

A) Claudia and Sam had a duty to go to the aid of the divers in peril only if Rogerio refused to do so.

B) Claudia and Sam had a duty to assist the divers in peril only if they were acquainted prior to the dive with the divers who were in peril. They had no duty to help strangers.

C) Claudia and Sam did not have a duty to go to the aid of the divers in peril unless they were the first to see the problem.

D) Neither Claudia nor Sam had a duty to go to the aid of the divers who were in peril.

E) Sam and Claudia had a duty to help the divers who were in peril if personal safety was involved but not if the only issue was damage to property.

78) Is Rogerio is liable for the injuries Sam sustained in coming to the rescue of the divers in distress?

A) Rogerio is liable for Sam's injuries under the danger invites rescue doctrine.

B) Rogerio is liable for Sam's injuries only if he made them worse by not getting Sam medical attention on a timely basis.

C) Rogerio is not liable for Sam's injuries because the shark attack constituted a superseding cause of the injuries.

D) Rogerio is not liable for Sam's injuries because Sam had no legal duty to come to the aid of the other divers.

E) Rogerio is not liable for Sam's injuries because Sam assumed the risk of harm.

[Blow Up] Devin has several full gas cans in the bed of her pick-up truck, because she runs a landscaping company and needs the gas for her mowers. On the way home from the gas station, Devin stops at her bank and exits her truck. Teresa pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Devin's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Teresa for negligence claiming that Teresa should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claims that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.

79) Does actual cause exist in the bank's action against Teresa?

A) Actual cause is present because Teresa was the legal cause of the bank burning.

B) Actual cause is not present because Teresa is not the proximate cause of the bank burning.

C) Actual cause is present because as a matter of policy, it is believed that someone who rear-ends a vehicle should be responsible for damages.

D) Actual causation would exist because the bank would not have been burnt down if Teresa had fulfilled her duty to drive properly.

E) Actual cause is not present because Teresa is not the legal cause of the bank burning.

80) Is Teresa the proximate cause of the bank burning?

A) Teresa is not the proximate case of the accident because her actions were not the cause in fact of the accident.

B) Teresa's actions were the proximate cause of the bank's burning because actual cause is present.

C) Teresa's actions were not the proximate cause of the accident because actual causation cannot be established since it was foreseeable that gas can result in a fire.

D) Teresa's actions were the proximate cause of the bank's burning because cause in fact can be established.

E) Teresa is not the proximate cause of the bank burning because it was not foreseeable that Devin would have gas in the back of her pick-up truck that would result in such a fire.

 

 

Solution
5 (1 Ratings )

Solved
Business Law 2 Years Ago 443 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