Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Yes, for negligent hiring provided it failed to check Bill's references and criminal records and to contact his former employers to see if there had been any past problems with his behavior.
B) Yes, but only if Bill had demonstrated threatening behavior since Eduardo hired him.
C) No, as employers may not be held liable for their employees' criminal conduct.
D) Yes, for strict liability to any harm its employees cause while acting in the scope of their employment.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The statement was true.
B) The statement was only an opinion.
C) The person making the statement made it only to the plaintiff, not to any third parties.
D) All of the above.
Correct Answer
verified
Essay
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
Multiple Choice
A) a battery, but not an assault.
B) an assault, but not a battery.
C) both an assault and a battery.
D) neither an assault nor a battery.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) refused to place a limit on punitive awards.
B) stated that punitive damages cannot be awarded in oil spill cases.
C) approved the jury's compensatory award, but reduced the punitive award from $5 billion to $507 million.
D) interpreted a state statute limiting punitive awards and found punitive damages should be no more than three times the award for compensatory damages.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) the magazine has a history of being "reckless" with facts on a regular basis.
B) the magazine either knew the story was false or acted with reckless disregard of the facts.
C) the magazine failed to attempt to verify the story by trying to contact her or her agent before the story was printed.
D) the magazine could have discovered that the story was false but failed to do so.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) was liable for libel.
B) had interfered with a prospective advantage.
C) had defamed its company's reputation with malicious and misleading advertising.
D) had interfered with a contractual relationship.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) the restaurant is liable based on the doctrine of strict liability.
B) the restaurant is liable based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
C) the restaurant is liable if the incident was reasonably foreseeable.
D) the restaurant is not liable as the child should have been under her parents' supervision at all times.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) duty, strict liability, causation, and injury.
B) mens rea, breach, foreseeable harm, and injury.
C) duty, actus reus, foreseeable harm, and causation.
D) duty of due care, breach, causation, foreseeable harm, and injury.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) No, since he was only playing a practical joke.
B) Yes, but only if Adam intended to cause Linda serious emotional distress.
C) Yes, as his extreme and outrageous conduct was intentional.
D) No, since Linda was not physically hurt by Adam.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) defamatory statement; falseness; communication; and injury.
B) a contract; knowledge of the contract; improper inducement; injury.
C) false or misleading fact statements; statements in commercial advertising; and likelihood of harm.
D) duty; breach of duty; proximate causation; and damages.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) using harmful chemicals.
B) operating explosives.
C) bringing dangerous substances onto property.
D) a defective product manufactured or sold by the business.
E) All of the above.
Correct Answer
verified
Essay
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Showing 1 - 20 of 45
Related Exams