Owners of livestock will be found strictly liable for damages caused by the animals because
A) livestock can only cause property damage
B) livestock would never harm a person
C) livestock are usually under the care and control of the defendant
D) livestock is considered to be domesticated
Q. #2One way that a jurisdiction can determine whether an animal is domesticated or wild is to ask
A) Has the animal been used in service to humanity?
B) How big was the animal?
C) Could that animal cause injury to a person?
D) Did the animal ever injure someone previously?
Q. #3Another way of talking about strict liability is to
A) seek nominal damages B) focus on defendant's intent
C) refer to it as absolute liability D) speak in terms proximate causation
Q. #4One reason that strict liability may not apply to dog-bite cases is
A) the defendant has no duty of care
B) society does not think that dog-bite cases need to be tried in court
C) the harm is often minor
D) the plaintiff was unforeseeable
Q. #5A court will find a defendant liable in strict liability only when
A) the defendant breached a duty of care
B) the court needs to assess punitive damages
C) the court does not consider whether the plaintiff suffered damages
D) the risk of harm was clearly foreseeable
Q. #6An international fast food chain sells food to eat there or to take out. On its coffee cups, it has
printed the following: Warning, coffee is hot. To save money, the restaurant always serves its
coffee at the temperature that water boils. A customer, walking to a car with a cup of coffee, trips and
gets soaked in coffee. That part of the coffee that touches naked flesh products second and third-
degree burns. For an action in negligence, the customer will claim that the restaurant breached
A) its duty to offer a sufficient warning B) its warranty of fitness for a particular purpose
C) its warranty of merchantability D) its duty to sell coffee at a lower temperature
Quick Reply
