Pieper Multiple Choice Handout Flashcards Preview

Torts > Pieper Multiple Choice Handout > Flashcards

Flashcards in Pieper Multiple Choice Handout Deck (26)
Loading flashcards...

In a negligence action against a grocery store by the plaintiff for injuries sustained from another business invitee (shopper) that struct the plaintiff with a shopping cart, would argue what defense?

Regardless of whether the customer is treated as a business invitee or, as in New York, where the invitee-licensee distinction has been abolished, a supermarket is not an absolute insurer for the safety of its customers. It must act to discover and prevent foreseeable dangerous conditions from inflicting injury on a customer. While the store does owe the customer a duty to protect him from foreseeable negligent conduct of other customers, the facts need to support a finding of foreseeability


Anytime the possessor of land opens the land up to public access then

the possessor's right to control the land imposes a duty to use reasonable care to control permissive uses to prevent them from inflicting harm on others. So a store owner has a duty to protect its customers from foreseeable dangerous acts of other customers


A store can be found negligent when

The store was, in fact, negligent in NOT abating the dangerous situation, then the store would have breached its duty to the customer, and the said breach would have been a proximate cause of his injuries


If a third person suffers pecuniary loss as a result of a tortious injury to another

Tort law does not permit recovery.


What are the exceptions to allowing third person who suffers pecuniary loss as a result of a tortious injury to another

The exceptions to this rule are (1) wrongful death claims and (2) a parent's claim for loss of child's services


In tort law a plaintiff may not recover solely for

economic loss resulting from negligent action, this includes not permitting a 3rd person who suffers an economic loss due to the tortious physical harm to another person


A plaintiff may not recover solely for economic loss suffering from negligent infliction of bodily harm to a third person, and reasons for denial of such recovery of damages arising from injury to third persons include:

(1) the defendant owed no duty to the plaintiff
(2) The damages are too remote
(3) The damages are unforeseeable
(5) Permitting recovery of damages for injury to third persons will allow limitless recoveries and have ruinous consequences


Parents will be liable to a third party for a child's conduct

if the parent should have been or was aware of the child's propensities for violent conduct if the parent ALLOWED the child to act in such a manner


Under "pure" comparative negligence, the plaintiff recovers

a proportion of his losses regardless of his degree of fault


A land owner, which "opens his land to the public" has a duty to

inspect and make safe any dangerous conditions on the premises of which the possessor is/was aware (actual notice) or with reasonable care should have been aware (constructive notice)


In order to recover from a land owner, which "opens his land to the public," that the landowners duty is

To recover in tort, the injured plaintiff must prove that the possessor (supermarket) either created the dangerous condition, had actual notice of it, or that it existed for a long enough time that the possessor, by exercising reasonable care to inspect the premises, should have known of it constructive notice


Strict tort liability is not imposed on the possessors of land for injuries under what circumstances

(1) to trespassers
(2) latent dangerous condition on the land


Grossly negligent standard is applied

When a plaintiff must demonstrate that a person's conduct amounted to more then mere negligence, and must satisfy the "heightened standard of gross negligence."


The doctrine of danger invites rescue applies to what type of defendants

(1) negligent
(2) intentional
(3) strict product liability


if an injured plaintiff is found negligent for failing to check a safety device on a product, that caused injuries to the plaintiff and a rescuer, what does that do to the manufacturer or retail store liability

If the injured party was negligent in failing to test a safety device that was defective, the retail store and manufacturer will NOT be relieved from its strict tort liability


If an animal is not a "domestic animal," but rather a dangerous, wild one, the possessor of a wild animal is

strictly liable in tort, but strict liability is not imposed if the injury is inflicted on an intentional trespasser


Ordinarily, the possessor of a wild animal is strictly liable in tort, but strict liability is not imposed if the injury

is inflicted on an intentional trespasser.


Strict liability is imposed only for injuries to those who enter the land by

privilege or are properly on the land as invitees or licensees


You need to determine if the defendant's conduct created a situation that made the injury

substantially certain to happen.


What kind of conduct would excuse the defendant from liability of an injury occurring when a trespasser enters the land and is injured by an attractive nuisance

Mere risk, even a very high risk, is not enough to show substantial certainty, when you have a trespasser


When will a land owner who keeps a wild animal on his property be liable to a trespasser

The landowner may be liable to a trespasser injured by a wild animal on the basis of negligence in keeping the wild animal when trespassers are known to frequent the land.


Under the "attractive nuisance" doctrine

liability is imposed for artificial conditions highly dangerous to trespassing children. The possessor of land who fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or to protect children from injury may be liable in negligence.


The R2d 511 & 512 state that the rules as to strict liability of the possessor of a wild or an abnormally dangerous animal ...

do not apply when the plaintiff intentionally or negligently trespasses on the land of the defendant


Generally, there is no duty owed to trespassers EXCEPT

to avoid intentional or reckless conduct directed at the trespasser.


Placing warning signs and/or simply warning trespassers under certain circumstances would NOT relieve a landowner from a duty of care under what circumstances

When a landowner is aware that the land is frequently used by trespassers tort law requires that the landowner carry on activities on the land with reasonable care for the foreseeable safety of the known trespassers, and therefore, if the landowner intentional puts wild animals or engages in abnormally dangerous activities that injure the trespasser, the landowner will have breached a duty to the trespasser


A possessor of land MAY BE relieved from liability for harboring wild animals or vicious domestic animals if the possessor takes steps that

a reasonable person would take (e.g., posting warning signs) and would believe to be effective in excluding trespassers, unless the possessor discovers that the signs are ineffective and disregarded