Proving breach: statutes, custom and res ipsa — MCQs

Proving breach: statutes, custom and res ipsa — MCQs

Proving breach: statutes, custom and res ipsa — MCQs
8 questions
Read Study Notes
Q1Medium

Q2Medium

Using only the supplied client file and legal resources, prepare an objective memorandum assessing the homeowner’s claims against QuarryWorks for blasting damage and interference with use of the property. Address strict liability, private nuisance, causation, compensatory damages, the principal counterarguments, and the most important next investigation steps.

Q3Medium

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare an objective pre-suit memorandum assessing Daniel Ortiz's claim against Metro Delivery, the likely comparative-responsibility argument, the causation dispute, and the damages documentation and investigation still needed.

Q4Medium

Q5Medium

Q6Medium

Q7Easy

A movie-theater employee saw a patron place her own phone into her handbag after a screening. Mistaking the phone for theater property, the employee stood across the only unlocked exit and said, "You cannot leave until the police arrive." The patron explained that the phone contained family photographs and displayed a receipt bearing its serial number. Without examining the receipt or contacting a supervisor, the employee continued blocking the exit for 25 minutes. The employee never touched or threatened the patron. Police arrived, verified that the patron owned the phone, and released her. The theater asks its lawyer for a preliminary liability assessment. Which of the following is the most appropriate advice?

Q8Easy

During an amateur soccer match, a defender attempted a lawful slide tackle while the ball was in play. The defender mistimed the tackle and struck an opposing player's ankle, causing a fracture. Before the match, both players agreed to follow the ordinary rules of soccer. The referee assessed a routine foul but concluded that the defender had not acted recklessly or attempted to injure the player. The injured player sued the defender for battery, alleging that the defender intentionally moved his leg and caused harmful contact. The jurisdiction follows generally accepted consent principles for intentional torts. Which of the following is the defender's strongest argument against battery liability?

Want unlimited practice?

Get full access to all questions, explanations, and performance tracking.

Start For Free
75% OFFLimited time offer
GET 75% OFF