MATTAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE 13) Which is true regarding the tort of trespass to A)
ID: 1145606 • Letter: M
Question
MATTAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE 13) Which is true regarding the tort of trespass to A) A person cannot be B) means ofanot be liable for trespass to land if that person was not told, either directly by the owner or by sign, to stay off the property A person who using the land at the time and there was no damage to trespass to land. enters another's land without permission is liable to the landowner even if the landowner was not person stays away from the portions of land that the owner is currently using, there can be no as a person originally entered the land of another with the permission of the owner, there can be no spass to land if the non-owner stays beyond the period of permission granted by the owner. st statement of the test applied in determining if a defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries is: A) Should it have been foreseeable to the defendant that defendant's conduct could lead to this kind of injury? B) Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff that the defendant would engage in this conduct? C) Given this particular injury to the plaintiff, was it foreseeable that the defendant was the cause? D) Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff that this kind of injury could occur under the particular conditions that the injury did occur? E) Was the injury foreseeable to the plaintiff prior to the injury's occurrence? 15) What does a guest statute provide? A) that someone serving alcohol to guests in the home is liable if the alcohol causes the guest to become B) that a driver who has voluntarily given a ride to a passenger without compensation is not liable to the passenger C) that tavern owners are strictly liable for alcohol related injuries caused by tavern guests who were served D) that homeowners cannot be sued by their social guests for injuries incurred while the guests were in the intoxicated and injure another person while intoxicated for ordinary negligence alcohol at the tavern homeowner's home with permission 16) Which best describes assumption of the risk in a negligence case? The plaintiff was involved in an abnormally dangerous activity The plaintiff is more at fault than the defendant in causing the accident. The plaintiff knowingly and willingly subjected herself to a risk, and by doing so, is not able to collect from a defendant even if all of the elements of negligence are present. The defendant gave advance warning to the plaintiff that an injury would occur The defendant knew that the conduct was risky, but nonetheless chose to engage in it. A) B) C) D) E)Explanation / Answer
1. Answer is "B"
Trespass : Trespass is to enter into someone else's immovable property without his prior permission is amount to trespass. And in case of trespass it is not necessary to prove that there was damage. Injunction of trespass can be grant without prove the damages. And option But is satisfying the essentials as it is saying that a person who enters into another's land without permission is liable to the landowner if the landowner was not using the land and there was no damage to the land.
2. Answer is "A"
As In the above mentioned question the best way to determine whether the defendant was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury is should it have been foreseeable to the defendant that the defendant's conduct could lead to this kind of injury. Because it shows intention of the defendant as well.
3. Answer is " B"
Guest statute provides that if a driver voluntarily given ride to a pessanger without compensation is not liable to the pessanger for ordinary negligence. Guest statute mostly favourable to automobile drivers. And the necessity for compensation would raise only when something occurred more then ordinary negligence.
4. Answer is "C"
Assumption of risk applied where the plaintiff was aware about the nature of the risk . It can be expressly or implied. But it should be the same risk what was assumed by the plaintiff for what he was agreed to do the act which was containing that risk. Here When the plaintiff knowingly and willingly subjected herself to a Risk and by doing so , is not able to collect from a defendant even if all the elements of negligence are present.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.