Which of the following statements most accurately describes the “Thin skull plaintiff” rule?

•  An unusually sensitive person can recover damages in full for injuries that are greater in extent than would be reasonably foreseeable

• An unusually sensitive person can recover damages in full for injuries that are greater in extent than would be reasonably foreseeable if it was reasonably foreseeable that an ordinary person would suffer some kind of harm

•  An unusually sensitive person cannot recover damages for any harm suffered beyond what would have been suffered by an ordinary person

•  An unusually sensitive person cannot recover damages for any harm suffered beyond what would have been suffered by an ordinary person

 Alan was addicted to a violent computer game that required the player to shoot as many people as possible in a short space of time. One day, he armed himself with several handguns and killed many children at the local school, before killing himself. The parents of the victims sued the manufacturer of the video game. Which of the following conclusions would be necessary before the court could come to the conclusion that the manufacturer should be held responsible for the victims’ death?

• Playing the game made Alan disconnect violence from its natural consequences

• The manufacturer should reasonably have foreseen that players might be encouraged to shoot people in real life

•  Alan would not have shot the children if he had not played the computer game

•  Alan would not have shot the children if he had not played the computer game

Alan was addicted to a violent computer game that required the player to shoot as many people as possible in a short space of time. One day, he armed himself with several handguns and killed many children at the local school, before killing himself. The parents of the victims sued the manufacturer of the video game. Which of the following most accurately states the likely outcome? 

• The manufacturer should win because the risk that players of the game might actually harm others was unforeseeably small

• The manufacturer should win because Alan killed the children, not the manufacturer

• The manufacturer should lose because it was likely that players of the game might actually harm others

• The manufacturer should lose because it was likely that players of the game might actually harm others

Which of the following statements most accurately states what the outcome should be when injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence are made worse by subsequent negligent medical treatment?

• The defendant should be held liable for the worsening of the plaintiff’s condition because negligent medical treatment is always a possible consequence

•  The defendant should be held liable for the worsening of the plaintiff’s condition only if the negligent medical treatment was reasonably foreseeable

• The defendant should not be liable for the worsening of the plaintiff’s condition because negligent medical treatment is never reasonably foreseeable

• The defendant should not be liable for the worsening of the plaintiff’s condition because negligent medical treatment is never reasonably foreseeable

Andrew is a very tidy man. He is very annoyed by the city council’s failure to clear the public ditches near his home. He repeatedly asks the city council to clear the ditches, without success. He decides to clear them himself, although he knows that he has a heart condition. While clearing the ditches, he suffers a heart attack. He sues the city council, which responds by arguing that Andrew was at fault himself, by doing hard labor when he knew he had a weak heart. In which of the following jurisdictions would it be impossible for Andrew’s claim to fail altogether if the city council was held to be at fault?

• A jurisdiction with a comparative fault regime that does not supersede the doctrine of intervening cause

• A jurisdiction with a comparative fault regime that does supersede the doctrine of intervening cause

•  A jurisdiction where contributory negligence is still a complete defense

•  A jurisdiction where contributory negligence is still a complete defense

 Alexandra negligently injures Bella. Bella becomes extremely depressed as a result of the injuries she suffers and she eventually commits suicide. Which of the following would not be a possible outcome if Bella’s estate were to sue Alexandra?

• Bella’s estate might win if Alexandra’s negligence caused Bella to suffer mental disturbance destroying the will to survive

• Bella’s estate will probably lose because suicide is generally an unforeseeable intervening cause

•  Bella’s estate must lose because Alexandra did not kill Bella, Bella did

•  Bella’s estate must lose because Alexandra did not kill Bella, Bella did

Which of the following situations would be sufficient to support a res ipsa loquitur inference of fault on the part of the defendant? 

• A glass bottle of soda bottled by the defendant explodes in the plaintiff’s hand, injuring the plaintiff

• The spare tire falls from beneath defendant’s truck and crashes through the windshield of plaintiff’s car

• A bottle of wine lands on plaintiff’s head as she walks past defendant’s hotel, which has many balconies.

• A bottle of wine lands on plaintiff’s head as she walks past defendant’s hotel, which has many balconies.

Antonia wants to take up water-skiing. Before her first lesson, with Bright Ski Classes, Inc., she is asked to sign a contract that includes the following clause: “I recognize that water-skiing is a dangerous sport. By signing this contract I expressly assume all risk of injury occurring while skiing, whether caused by negligence of Bright Ski Classes, Inc., its employees, or other parties.” Antonia is injured during her lesson when the driver of the tow-boat tows her too close to some moored yachts and she is unable to avoid crashing into one. Antonia sues Bright Ski Classes, Inc., which raises the defense of express assumption of risk. Which of the following most accurately states what is likely to happen in relation to Bright’s assumption of risk defense?

•  Bright’s defense will fail because the contractual clause did not cover the risk that harmed Antonia

•  Bright’s defense will succeed unless Antonia was deceived into signing the contract or the clause was not adequately brought to her attention

•  Bright’s defense will succeed because Antonia signed the contract

•  Bright’s defense will succeed because Antonia signed the contract

Implied assumption of risk is usually divided into two sub-categories: primary and secondary implied assumption of risk. Which of the following most accurately describes what “primary implied assumption of risk” means? 

•  The plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risks inherent in the activity in question and so the defendant did not breach any duty of care owed to the plaintiff in respect of that activity

• The plaintiff’s assumption of risk defense is of primary importance, so the defense prevails over apportionment of liability because of comparative fault

• The plaintiff was aware of and voluntarily accepted the risk of negligent conduct on the part of the defendant

• The plaintiff was aware of and voluntarily accepted the risk of negligent conduct on the part of the defendant

 Implied assumption of risk is usually divided into two sub-categories: primary and secondary implied assumption of risk. Which of the following most accurately describes what “secondary implied assumption of risk” means?

• The plaintiff voluntarily accepted secondary or incidental risks of the activity in question as well as its inherent risks

• The plaintiff’s assumption of risk defense is of secondary importance, so it will not operate in a system of apportionment of liability because of comparative fault

• The plaintiff was aware of and voluntarily accepted the risk of negligent conduct on the part of the defendant

• The plaintiff was aware of and voluntarily accepted the risk of negligent conduct on the part of the defendant