Business Law in Canada, 11e (Yates)
Chapter 5 Negligence, Professional Liability, and Insurance
1) A seven-year-old boy followed his dog into Mr. Howe's backyard. He fell into a large hole
dug by Mr. Howe in preparation for a tree that had been ordered. The boy broke his arm in the
fall. At the hospital, the boy was treated by a doctor who had been employed there for four years.
The doctor did not set the boy's arm because he made a mistake in reading the x-ray. Because the
arm was not treated correctly, it healed improperly. When the boy kept complaining, his mother
took him to their family doctor, who discovered the error. The boy had to have his arm rebroken
so that it could be set properly. Based on these facts, which of the following is true?
A) The owner of the land owed no duty of care to the boy because the boy was a trespasser.
B) The case law that developed over hundreds of years on the duty of care owed by occupiers of
land has priority over any subsequent legislation on the point.
C) The doctor owed a duty of care to the boy, but he only had to meet the standard of care
expected of the average man.
D) The hospital, not the doctor, would be solely liable for any harm suffered due to the
negligence.
E) In an action against the land owner, if the boy were found to be partially at fault for his injury,
the court would apportion the award of damages as it apportioned the fault.
Answer: E
Diff: 3 Type: MC Page Ref: 135
Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence
Skill: Applied
Objective: Chapter 5: 1. Identify the four elements of a negligence claim.
Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge
2) Which of the following situations could not result in a successful action for negligence?
A) When Todd was setting up a tent for a backyard wedding, he fell into a hole and broke his
leg. The owner forgot to tell the wedding planner that he had been digging a hole to put in a fish
pond.
B) An employee of the bank mistakenly wrote to Maria saying that the bank had approved her
loan. Relying on that letter, Maria made contracts she could not honour when the bank refused to
forward the money. Maria lost $10,000 because of the bank's carelessness.
C) A driver, trying to see what a movie crew was doing, accidentally plowed his car into the side
of a catering truck.
D) Nikki almost upset a glass table and broke an expensive vase when she yanked on a large
cable without checking what was blocking its path.
E) A real estate agent, fed up with his client, punches him in the nose when he changes his mind
about selling his condo.
Answer: D
Diff: 2 Type: MC Page Ref: 135
Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence
Skill: Applied
Objective: Chapter 5: 1. Identify the four elements of a negligence claim.
Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge
1
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada, Inc.
,3) Two real estate agents, pressed for time, stopped at the bakery for some muffins that would
suffice as lunch. John bought the muffins and gave one to Mary. They both began to eat the
muffins as they hurried to the car. When Mary looked at the muffin she had just bitten, she saw
that the raisins had little worms in them. John's muffins were the same—with little worms. Based
on these facts, which of the following possibilities is true? (Read each independently from the
others.)
A) Since Mary did not buy the muffins, she could not sue in contract, but if she were injured, she
could sue in tort.
B) Even if Mary was not injured by eating the worms, she could sue the baker of the muffins for
nuisance.
C) If Mary sued the baker of the muffins or the packer of the raisins, she would have to prove
only one thing to win her case—that there were worms in the muffin.
D) Mary has a cause of action against the baker of the muffins only if she can prove that the
baker used bad raisins on purpose.
E) Mary can do nothing since she did not purchase the muffins.
Answer: A
Diff: 3 Type: MC Page Ref: 135
Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence
Skill: Applied
Objective: Chapter 5: 1. Identify the four elements of a negligence claim.
Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge
4) Which of the following situations could result in a successful action for negligence?
A) George deliberately broke an expensive camera when he yanked on a large cable.
B) When Eric was setting up the lighting in a backyard rented for a night shoot, he fell into a
hole and broke his leg. The owner had previously notified the director that he had been digging a
hole to plant an apple tree.
C) An employee of the bank mistakenly wrote to Sean saying that the bank had approved his
loan. Relying on that letter, Sean made contracts he could not honour when the bank refused to
forward the money. Sean lost $100,000 because of the bank's carelessness.
D) A doctor, acting in the best interest of his patient Alex (who had lost blood after a serious
cut), gave him a transfusion even though Alex told him explicitly not to do so.
E) Dr. Jones used the skill of a reasonable doctor in his field, but the patient did not respond to
the treatment and lost sight in one eye. The patient sued the doctor.
Answer: C
Diff: 2 Type: MC Page Ref: 135
Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence
Skill: Applied
Objective: Chapter 5: 2. State when a duty of care arises, explaining how courts determine
whether it is owed.
Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge
2
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada, Inc.
,5) Sam and John drank beer and watched the Olympics for hours. When John left, he did not feel
impaired, but the alcohol in his system affected his driving. He lost control of his car, which
crashed through Mr. Mitsu's fence and into Mr. Mitsu's garage. Mitsu's neighbour, Mr. Watson,
called the police. John was charged with driving while impaired and was found guilty in the
criminal proceedings. Given these facts, which of the following is true?
A) Mr. Watson, the neighbour, could sue John for negligence.
B) Mr. Mitsu could sue John for negligence.
C) If Mr. Mitsu sued John, he would be entitled only to punitive damages.
D) Because John was charged with an offence, Mr. Mitsu cannot sue him in a civil action for
compensation. One court action is all that is allowed.
E) Since no one was physically injured, there could be no civil action.
Answer: B
Diff: 2 Type: MC Page Ref: 135
Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence
Skill: Applied
Objective: Chapter 5: 2. State when a duty of care arises, explaining how courts determine
whether it is owed.
Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge
6) In which of the following cases is a legal duty not owed?
A) A person undertakes to rescue someone in danger
B) It would be apparent to a prudent person that the conduct was likely to cause injury
C) A person making a misstatement knew that it would be relied on by a member of a group
D) A visitor comes on your property
E) A person sees another in desperate need of assistance
Answer: E
Diff: 1 Type: MC Page Ref: 135
Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence
Skill: Recall
Objective: Chapter 5: 2. State when a duty of care arises, explaining how courts determine
whether it is owed.
Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge
3
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada, Inc.
, 7) Which of the following statements with regard to the tort of negligence is false?
A) If a person is injured by a defective product that he himself did not purchase, he can sue the
manufacturer for negligence.
B) If the court finds contributory negligence, the defendant has no liability at all.
C) If physical injury can be foreseen as the result of a person's negligence, the wrongdoer will be
liable for all the injury suffered although the person injured was unusually weak and infirm.
D) A possible defence to the plaintiff's claim of negligence is that the plaintiff volunteered to
take the risk.
E) The test used to determine whether a duty of care is owed is this: would a reasonable person
foresee that the plaintiff could be affected by the acts of the defendant?
Answer: B
Diff: 1 Type: MC Page Ref: 135
Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence
Skill: Recall
Objective: Chapter 5: 2. State when a duty of care arises, explaining how courts determine
whether it is owed.
Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge
8) Because of the North American Free Trade Agreement and increasing world competition, a
provincial government decided to help businesses by providing more information about market
conditions, currencies, etc., around the world. It opened small offices throughout the province
that provided business information retrieved from the government's database, which was
frequently updated. Mr. Hill relied on some information given to him by Alex Chec, an
employee of the government. The information was wrong due to Chec's mistake; it was his job to
cross-check that information before it was released to the public, but he forgot to do it. Mr. Hill
suffered a $15,000 loss because of the error. Which of the following is true?
A) Mr. Hill cannot take any action because he suffered no physical injury. The case only deals
with information.
B) If Mr. Hill sues the government on the principle of vicarious liability, he cannot also sue the
employee at fault.
C) On these facts, Mr. Hill could sue successfully on the principle of strict liability.
D) Mr. Hill could not take any action because he had not entered into a contract with the
government for this information.
E) To win in an action against the government, Hill must prove that the government owed him a
duty of care, fell below the standard of care owed, and thereby caused him a foreseeable loss.
Answer: E
Diff: 2 Type: MC Page Ref: 135
Topic: Ch. 5 - Negligence
Skill: Applied
Objective: Chapter 5: 2. State when a duty of care arises, explaining how courts determine
whether it is owed.
Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge
4
Copyright © 2017 Pearson Canada, Inc.
