100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
MBE Post Midterm Answers (1) $7.99   Add to cart

Exam (elaborations)

MBE Post Midterm Answers (1)

 3 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Institution

MBE Post Midterm Answers (1)

Preview 2 out of 12  pages

  • August 5, 2024
  • 12
  • 2024/2025
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers
avatar-seller
MBE Post Midterm Answers
D. No, because there is no evidence that the woman was aware of the gasoline leak. - ANS-A
man's car sustained moderate damage in a collision with a car driven by a woman. The accident
was caused solely
by the woman's negligence. The man's car was still drivable after the accident. Examining the
car the next morning,
the man could see that a rear fender had to be replaced. He also noticed that gasoline had
dripped onto the garage
floor. The collision had caused a small leak in the gasoline tank.
The man then took the car to a mechanic, who owns and operates a body shop, and arranged
with the mechanic to
repair the damage. During their discussion the man neglected to mention the gasoline leakage.
Thereafter, while the
mechanic was loosening some of the damaged material with a hammer, he caused a spark,
igniting vapor and
gasoline that had leaked from the fuel tank. The mechanic was severely burned.
The mechanic has brought an action to recover damages against the man and woman. The
jurisdiction has adopte

C. deny the motion, because the jury may infer that the aircraft was crashed due to the airline's
negligence - ANS-A traveler was a passenger on a commercial aircraft owned and operated by
an airline. The aircraft crashed into a
mountain, killing everyone on board. The flying weather was good.
The traveler's legal representative brought a wrongful death action against the airline. At trial,
the legal representative
offered no expert or other testimony as to the cause of the crash.
On the airline's motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the legal representative's case, the court
should

A. Deny both motions, because there is evidence to support a finding that the construction
company should have realized that its negligence could create an opportunity for a third party to
commit a crime. - ANS-A construction company was digging a trench for a new sewer line in a
street in a high-crime neighborhood. During
the course of the construction, there had been many thefts of tools and equipment from the
construction area. One
night, the construction company's employees neglected to place warning lights around the
trench. A delivery truck
drove into the trench and broke an axle. While the truck driver was looking for a telephone to
call a tow truck, thieves
broke into the truck and stole $350,000 worth of goods. The delivery company sued the
construction company to

, recover for the $350,000 loss and for the damage to its truck. The construction company has
stipulated that it was
negligent in failing to place warning lights around the trench and admits liability for damage to
the truck, but it denies
liability for the loss of the goods.
On cross-motions for summary judgment on the claim for the goods, how should the

C. $100,000. - ANS-A four-year-old child sustained serious injuries when a playmate pushed
him from between two parked cars into the
street, where he was struck by a car. The child, by his representative, sued the driver of the car,
the playmate's
parents, and his own parents. At trial, the child's total damages were determined to be
$100,000. The playmate's
parents were determined to be 20% at fault because they had failed to adequately supervise
her. The driver was
found to be 50% at fault. The child's own parents were determined to be 30% at fault for failure
to adequately
supervise him. The court has adopted the pure comparative negligence doctrine, with joint and
several liability, in
place of the common law rules relating to plaintiff's fault. In addition, the common law doctrines
relating to intra-family
liability have been abrogated.
What is the maximum amount, if anything, that the child's representative can recove

C. No, because the landlord did not have notice of the dog's vicious propensities. - ANS-A child
was bitten by a dog while playing in a fenced-in common area of an apartment complex owned
by a landlord.
The child was the guest of a tenant living in the complex, and the dog was owned by another
tenant. The owner of the
dog knew that the dog had a propensity to bite, but the landlord did not have any notice of the
dog's vicious
propensities.
In an action by the child against the landlord, will the child be likely to prevail?

A. Liability, because the hotel had a nondelegable duty to the guest to keep a safe premises. -
ANS-A hotel employed a carefully selected independent contractor to rebuild its swimming pool.
The hotel continued to
operate while the pool was being rebuilt. The contract between the hotel and the contractor
required the contractor to
indemnify the hotel for any liability arising from the contractor's negligent acts. A guest of the
hotel fell into the
excavation, which the contractor had negligently left unguarded.
In an action by the guest against the hotel to recover for his injuries, what would be the most
likely outcome?

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller modockochieng06. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $7.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

79373 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$7.99
  • (0)
  Add to cart