JeopardyNegligence

101Negligence

201Negligence

301Negligence

401Res Ipsa Loquitor

Q $100

Q $200

Q $300

Q $400

Q $500

Q $100 Q $100Q $100 Q $100

Q $200 Q $200 Q $200 Q $200

Q $300 Q $300 Q $300 Q $300

Q $400 Q $400 Q $400 Q $400

Q $500 Q $500 Q $500 Q $500

Final Jeopardy

$100 Question: Negligence is routinely compromised of three essential elements:

A. Duty, Causation & Circumstantial EvidenceB. Duty, Causation & HarmC. Product, Defect & HarmD. Product & Defect with a touch of salt.

$100 Answer: Negligence is routinely compromised of three essential elements:

B.

See Page 17.

$200 Q: In a Negligence action arising from a Product failure, all of these persons can potentially be held liable:

A. Anyone in the ‘stream of commerce.’B. Only the Manufacturer, and in very limited cases,

the SellerC. The Seller, once they receive the product from

the ManufacturerD. The Buyer.

$200 A: In a Negligence action arising from a Product failure, all of these persons can potentially be held liable:

A. Anyone in the ‘stream of commerce.’

$300 Q: This is a decent historical summary of the assigned case law readings and early Negligence Theory:

> Caveat Emptor The Thomas case (1852) recognized a cause of action for negligently labeled productsThe Huset case (1903) expanded on Thomas creating an exception of “inherently dangerous” to caveat emptor For the 2nd half of 19th century, there was a lot of discrepancy in how negligence theory was applied.The MacPherson case brought some clarity and introduced a form of a “reasonable test.”

TRUE or FALSE

$300 A: This is a decent historical summary of the assigned case law readings and early Negligence Theory:

True …

$400 Q: Negligence theory is pretty much accepted; but has given way to strict liability (SL) doctrine for the most part, because:

A. SL is easier to prove and has fewer defensesB. That is not true, Negligence theory is still

preferred over SLC. SL is not barred by the statutes of

limitations.

$400 A: Negligence theory is pretty much accepted; but has given way to strict liability (SL) doctrine for the most part, because

A. SL is easier to prove and has fewer defenses

B. Is false.

C. This is actually one a reason why Negligence theories have survived.

$500 Q: As we saw in the Huset case, the court embraced the concept of establishing “duty” to the manufacturer. In general, who makes the determination as to whether a ‘duty of care’ exists?

? …

$500 A: As we saw in the Huset case, the court embraced the concept of establishing “duty” to the manufacturer. In general, who makes the determination as to whether a ‘duty of care’ exists?

…?…

$100 Q: Causation and foreseeability are the same thing?

True or False

$100 A: Causation and foreseeability are the same thing?

False

… to be continued

$200 Q: What is the BETTER statement regarding the “burden” on the Plaintiff as it relates to causation and foreseeability?

A. No burden. In a Negligence action, the defendant always bears the burden of proof for all issues before the Court

B. The Plaintiff must prove “causation,” i.e., present factual evidence that a connection exists between the defendant’s negligent act and plaintiff’s harm.

$200 A: What is the BETTER statement regarding the “burden” on the Plaintiff as it relates to causation and foreseeability?

The Plaintiff must prove “causation,” i.e., present factual evidence that a connection exists between the defendant’s negligent act and plaintiff’s harm.

General Motors case …

$300 Q: In a Negligence Action against a Manufacturer or Seller … an accurate statement could be – pick all that apply :

A. A manufacturer may be held liable if the danger is latent or concealed.

B. A manufacturer may be liable where the danger is open, obvious and apparent.

C. A manufacturer may be liable where the user has actual knowledge of the defect or danger.

$300 A: In a Negligence Action against a Manufacturer or Seller … an accurate statement could be – pick all that apply:

A, B and C could all be accurate ...

Any thoughts on the Stevens v Durbin case (page 31 - 32

$400 Q: Negligent Design: What would be the better choice regarding using Industry Standard?

A. “Industry standard” can never be introduced into evidence because it is too subjective.

B. “Industry standard” is an always agreed upon factual determination.

C. “Industry standard” … the Industry Standard like the one cited in the Del Cid case (page 34-35, is can go a long ways toward proving negligent design.

$400 A: Negligent Design: What would be the better choice regarding using Industry Standard?

A. “Industry standard” can never be introduced into evidence because it is too subjective.

B. “Industry standard” is an always agreed upon factual determination.

C. “Industry standard” … the Industry Standard like the one cited in the Del Cid case (page 34-35, is can go a long ways toward proving negligent design.

$500 Q: Is this a correct statement?

To recover under a negligent design defect action, the plaintiff must prove that a safer design was feasible?

?.

$500 A: Is this a correct statement? To recover under a negligent design defect action, the plaintiff must prove that a safer design was feasible?

According to the Del Cid case, yes.

What other factors within that exist?

$100 Q: Going back to “Industry Standard” and the Del Cid case … does the standard of care always have to be set by a National entity like ANSI?

Yes or No …

$100 A: Going back to “Industry Standard” and the Del Cid case … does the standard of care always have to be set by a National entity like ANSI?

No. Thoughts? Can it be a local entity? A small subset of the population and their industry practices?

$200 Q: From a procedural standpoint; on a Motion for Summary Judgment, the court will review the motion in the light most favorable to the non-movant.

True or False?

$200 A: From a procedural standpoint; on a Motion for Summary Judgment, the court will review the motion in the light most favorable to the non-movant.

True … any thoughts why?

See Ex Parte Chevron Case – page 39

$300 Q: Re: Duty to Warn: Does a Plaintiff’s “experience” play any part in the level of warning that needs to be given?A. No. The Warning given must cover all types of

users equally.B. Yes. A user’s experience may play a large part in

how much of a warning needs to be given.

$300 A: Re: Duty to Warn: Does a Plaintiff’s “experience” play any part in the level of warning that needs to be given?

A. No. The Warning given must cover all types of users equally.

B. Yes. A user’s experience may play a large part in how much of a warning needs to be given.

$400 Q: Do you agree with this – True or False? One who lends their car to a friend and who fails to disclose a defect which he himself knows and which he should recognize as making it unreasonable dangerous for use, is subject to liability not only to his friend, but anyone the friend lets use the car.

True or False …

$400 A: Do you agree with this? One who lends their car to a friend and who fails to disclose a defect which he himself knows and which he should recognize as making it unreasonable dangerous for use, is subject to liability not only to his friend, but anyone the friend lets use the car.

According to page 40 of the text ..,

True … thoughts?

$500 Q: Select all that might change the outcome in the Chevron case (page 39-40):

A. The Plaintiff’s were non-employees.B. The Plaintiff’s were never given an

employee manual.C. Nothing would change the outcome.D. A & B

$500 A: Select all that might change the outcome in the Chevron case (page 39-40):

A. The Plaintiff’s were non-employees.B. The Plaintiff’s were never given an employee

manual.C. Nothing would change the outcome.D. A & B

$100 Q:

…

$100 A:

$200 Q:

…

$200 A:

…

$300 Q:

…

$300 A:

…

$400 Q:

…

$400 Answer

True …

$500 Q:

…

$500 A:

…

$100 Question: “ Res Ipsa Loquitor” is a Latin phrase that literally means:

A. “the thing speaks for itself.”B. “the thing speaks for you, but not for me.”C. “the thing speaks for all of us, even if you do not agree.”D. “the thing speaks.”

A, B, C, or D …

$100 A: “ Res Ipsa Loquitor” is a Latin phrase that literally means:

A. “the thing speaks for itself.”

$200 Question: Res Ipsa Loquitor DOES NOT apply unless:

1. Defendant had exclusive control of the thing causing the injury.2. The accident is of such a nature that it would not ordinarily in the absence of negligence by the defendant. True or False …

$200 A: Res Ipsa Loquitor DOES NOT apply unless:

True …

Page 44 “Case Law” footnote.

Under this standard, does the Plaintiff have to prove anything?

$300 Q: In the “Res Ipsa Loquitor” Coke bottle case, the plaintiff had to prove:

A. She handled the bottle properly.B. Prove nothing.

$300 A: In the “Res Ipsa Loquitor” Coke bottle case, the plaintiff had to prove:

A. She handled the bottle properly.B. Prove nothing.

Thoughts?

$400 Q: Consider the Illustration on page 46:

Jack purchases a can of green beans at a local supermarket. The green beans were canned by Midwest Farming Company. When eating the green beans one evening for dinner, Jack is injured by a glass shard concealed inside a green bean. Neither Jack nor any other person did anything after the green beans were opened that would account for the presence of the glass.

Without other evidence CAN IT be inferred that the presence of the glass shard in Jack’s green beans was the negligence of Midwest Farming Company.

$400 A: Consider the Illustration on page 46:

Jack purchases a can of green beans at a local supermarket. The green beans were canned by Midwest Farming Company. When eating the green beans one evening for dinner, Jack is injured by a glass shard concealed inside a green bean. Neither Jack nor any other person did anything after the green beans were opened that would account for the presence of the glass.

Without other evidence CAN IT be inferred that the presence of the glass shard in Jack’s green beans was the negligence of Midwest Farming Company. YES

True …

$500 Q: What fact(s) can you think of that may have changed the outcome in the green bean scenario?

? ….

$500 A: What fact(s) can you think of that may have changed the outcome in the green bean scenario?

Jack opened the can in his glass blowing work shop and left it there for an hour with his children running around with baseball bats.The store where Jack bought the green beans from re-packaged the can for a sale they had. …?

Final Jeopardy

McDonald’s Hot Coffee case

Final Jeopardy Answer

…