If the plaintiff knew of a danger, but failed to prevent injury, then what doctrine could bar recovery
under a doctrine of contributory negligence?
A) last clear chance B) avoidable consequences
C) inattentive plaintiff D) knowledge of peril
Q. #2An action in nuisance means that the defendant's actions have interfered with
A) peace of mind B) ownership of the property
C) possession of the property D) reasonable expectation of privacy
Q. #3Even though a driver knows that the steering is failing on the driver's car, the driver uses the
automobile to go to work. One day on a highway, the steering system finally fails. The plaintiff is
driving several hundred feet away in another lane and sees the car veer into the plaintiff's line, but
cannot completely escape hitting the on-coming car. When the plaintiff sues for damages, the
defendant says that the plaintiff should not recover anything. The driver's argument seeks to deny the
plaintiff's recovery because
A) of comparative negligence
B) the plaintiff failed to exercise due care in operating the plaintiff's car
C) the plaintiff violated the rule of avoidable consequences
D) the plaintiff assumed the risk
Q. #4When the amount in damages that a plaintiff recovers is offset by the plaintiff's breach of duty to
exercise care for one's safety, this is an example of
A) comparative negligence B) inattentive plaintiff
C) avoidable consequences D) last clear chance
Q. #5If the plaintiff is found 5 liable for the damages that arose out of an accident that involved the
defendant, and the plaintiff cannot recover any damages, then this is because of the doctrine of
A) contributory negligence B) inattentive plaintiff
C) last clear chance D) comparative negligence
Q. #6The guidelines that a judge uses to evaluate the reliability of information offered to help to resolve a question of law in a case will involve rules of evidence.
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Quick Reply
