Question: Which of the following is true with respect to business invitees?
Answer Options: The business owner has unlimited liability to business invitees for anything. Whenever they enter a commercial building, they assume the risk of any conceivable or inconceivable injury. The duty of a business owner to business invitees is limited to intentional torts. Although the business owner’s duty only extends to dangers that are not obvious to a prudent person. Correct Answer: Although the business owner’s duty only extends to dangers that are not obvious to a prudent person.
Question: General damages awarded to patients in medical malpractice cases in Florida are no longer subject to limits because
Answer Options: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that limits on those kinds of damages in medical malpractice cases violated the U.S. Constitution. the prior cap was based on common law rather than statutory law. the Florida Supreme Court ruled that places a cap on general damages in medical malpractice cases violated the Florida Constitution. Florida doctors were taking advantage of the cap. Correct Answer: the Florida Supreme Court ruled that places a cap on general damages in medical malpractice cases violated the Florida Constitution.
Question: Arbitration is
Answer Options: a criminal punishment. a way to allow parties to resolve disputes without having to go to trial. an award of damages to the victim of a tort. a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Correct Answer: a way to allow parties to resolve disputes without having to go to trial.
Question: Miranda has a slam dunk case against Mollie for battery. Criminally charged, Mollie pleads to a deal with little jail time after the trial for battery sees a jury finds Mollie guilty. If so, Miranda intends to bring a civil tort action against Mollie. Which of the following is true?
Answer Options: If the crime Mollie committed is serious, the standard of proof in a civil case will be the same as it is in a criminal case. If the jury finds Mollie not guilty, Miranda cannot bring a civil suit against Mollie. Whether or not a jury finds Mollie guilty and or not guilty, Miranda can pursue a civil case against Mollie because criminal cases and civil cases are separate. Correct Answer: Whether or not a jury finds Mollie guilty and or not guilty, Miranda can pursue a civil case against Mollie because criminal cases and civil cases are separate.
Question: Larry files a complaint against Barry. Barry is properly served but does not file an answer to Barry’s complaint. Barry shows up in court and informs the judge that he is ready to address Larry’s complaint. Which of the following is true?
Answer Options: Barry can present a defense but cannot assert a counterclaim against Larry. Barry cannot litigate the case because he failed to file an answer as required. Barry can request a change in venue. Since Barry shows up in court, the case can go forward. Correct Answer: Since Barry shows up in court, the case can go forward.
Question: Beau Flowers owns a nursery. In the basement, below the main part of the nursery, Beau experiments with dangerous chemicals that if not put away after being exposed to the air for a few hours will catch fire. Several days after working on an experiment and failing to put the chemicals away, the nursery catches fire and burns the rest of a customer who was shopping in the basement. Over the door leading to the main part of the nursery was a sign stating “Not responsible for any damages or injuries that may occur while a person is in the nursery”. The customer sues Beau for the physical injury to his feet, what is the likely outcome?
Answer Options: The customer loses because he assumed the risk by entering the nursery. The customer will only win if he actually purchased something in the nursery. The customer wins because an exculpatory clause will not shield Beau from gross negligence evidenced by not putting the chemicals away. Correct Answer: The customer wins because an exculpatory clause will not shield Beau from gross negligence evidenced by not putting the chemicals away.
Question: Original Jurisdiction means which of the following?
Answer Options: It is a court in which a case is first heard. It is a court to which a case is appealed. It is jurisdiction limited to federal court. It is jurisdiction limited to a specialty court. Correct Answer: It is a court in which a case is first heard.
Question: The difference between minimum contacts and venue is which of the following?
Answer Options: As long as there is either minimum contacts or venue, the case can be heard. There is no difference between venue and minimum contacts. Venue is required to establish jurisdiction. Minimum contacts is used to determine which of several courts with jurisdiction should hear the case. Correct Answer: Venue is required to establish jurisdiction. Minimum contacts is used to determine which of several courts with jurisdiction should hear the case.
Question: The Florida Supreme Court declared that a cap on general damages in medical malpractice cases is unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution. Which of the following is true?
Answer Options: The Florida Supreme Court’s decision is invalid because all states must have the same statutes regarding general damages. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision is invalid because citizens of other states will come to Florida for medical procedures to take advantage of no cap on general damages. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision is invalid because it is not fair to doctors. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision is valid provided it did not violate the US Constitution. Correct Answer: The Florida Supreme Court’s decision is valid provided it did not violate the US Constitution.
Question: Watching the Super Bowl at Louie’s Bar, Charles becomes extremely intoxicated. Leaving the bar, driving drunk, Charles causes an accident with another car and injures the driver of that car. The driver sues Louie’s Bar. What is the likely outcome?
Answer Options: No liability because no one working at Louie’s bar was involved in the accident. Assuming the state has a dram act statute, Louie’s Bar could be responsible for the driver’s injuries. No liability because Louie’s Bar does not owe the driver a duty of care. No liability because individuals often get drunk at bars. Correct Answer: Assuming the state has a dram act statute, Louie’s Bar could be responsible for the driver’s injuries.
Question: Which of the following is not a characteristic of an adhesion contract?
Answer Options: Lack of opportunity to ask questions. Equal bargaining positions. One-sided provisions. Fine print. Correct Answer: Equal bargaining positions.
Question: Once a court renders a decision in which it applied a principle to a certain set of facts, which of the following is true?
Answer Options: The decision becomes law that all other courts must follow. The decision sets a precedent that other courts may follow. The decision applies retroactively to all similar cases. The decision only applies to the specific parties involved in the case. Correct Answer: The decision sets a precedent that other courts may follow.
Question: Miranda Wrights had a bad experience with her financial advisor. Although he advised Miranda not to purchase a particular stock, she purchased it anyway. In a rant, Miranda posts false statements about the financial advisor accusing him of misrepresenting the quality of the stock she purchased. Twenty-four hours later, Miranda withdrew the post. The financial advisor sues Miranda for libel. The likely outcome is:
Answer Options: The financial advisor will lose because Miranda’s posting was based on her experience. The financial advisor will lose because Miranda subsequently removed the post. The financial advisor will win because Miranda posted the false statements on Facebook. The financial advisor will win because a financial advisor is not a public figure. Correct Answer: The financial advisor will win because Miranda posted the false statements on Facebook.
Question: Which of the following is true with respect to RICO?
Answer Options: It is a state criminal statute. It is a federal criminal statute that imposes criminal penalties and does not specifically allow victims to seek damages against the wrongdoers. It is a federal regulation. It is a criminal statute that imposes criminal penalties and allows victims to seek damages against the wrongdoer. Correct Answer: It is a criminal statute that imposes criminal penalties and allows victims to seek damages against the wrongdoer.
Question: In a civil case, the object is to
Answer Options: to determine a defendant’s liability beyond a reasonable doubt. determine whether particular conduct of a party is appropriate for criminal prosecution. obtain a remedy to compensate the wronged party. to impose criminal and civil penalties on the wrongdoer. Correct Answer: obtain a remedy to compensate the wronged party.
Question: Goldie Locke’s boss tends to be very critical of her and the staff if the staff does not meet its sales quotas. At the end of work one day, Goldie’s boss told her that she would not get a raise unless she met her monthly sales quota. After work that day, as Goldie is driving home, her car is rear-ended by an inattentive motorist. Goldie suffers back damage and cannot return to work for a month. This stresses Goldie because she believes her boss will blame her for the accident and criticize her even more for not meeting quotas. Goldie sues her boss for intentional infliction of emotional stress. The likely outcome is which of the following?
Answer Options: Goldie will lose unless the state has a dram act. Goldie will win because her boss should have known criticizing Goldie would cause stress. Goldie will lose because her boss did not commit a tort. Goldie will win because her boss’ criticism is the proximate cause of her stress. Correct Answer: Goldie will lose because her boss did not commit a tort.
Question: Mollie and Miranda are ice skating together. Miranda is a beginning ice skater and not sure on her feet. Mollie is a more expert ice skater and when Miranda turns awkwardly, Mollie playfully pushes Miranda who falls on the ice. Unable to get out of the way, two other skaters fall over Miranda. Miranda and the two skaters break their arms. Which of the following is true?
Answer Options: Mollie committed the tort of battery and is responsible for the injuries of Miranda and the two skaters. Mollie committed the tort of battery with respect to Miranda and is responsible for her injuries and Miranda committed the tort of battery with respect to the two skaters and is responsible for their injuries. Mollie was negligent and is responsible only for Miranda’s injuries because the two skaters falling over Miranda was unforeseeable. Mollie committed the tort of battery and is only responsible for Miranda’s damages because she pushed Miranda and did nothing to the other skaters. Correct Answer: Mollie committed the tort of battery and is responsible for the injuries of Miranda and the two skaters.
Question: Hughes Car hears from reliable sources that Otto Mobile makes defective vehicles. Although Hughes has never purchased or used an Otto Mobile vehicle, he files a lawsuit against Otto Mobile to compel it to refund the purchase price to all its customers. What is the likely outcome of that lawsuit?
Answer Options: Hughes will not be able to file a lawsuit in any court because he never purchased a vehicle from Otto Mobile and lacks standing to bring the case. Hughes can only file a lawsuit against Otto Mobile if Otto Mobile does business in the state in which Hughes is a resident. Hughes will have to file the lawsuit in federal court if he and Otto Mobile are from different states. Hughes must find a court with the appropriate venue to hear the case. Correct Answer: Hughes will not be able to file a lawsuit in any court because he never purchased a vehicle from Otto Mobile and lacks standing to bring the case.
Question: A precedent is
Answer Options: a statute that validates common law. a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. the chief executive officer of the United States. the judicial principle upon which stare decisis is based. Correct Answer: the judicial principle upon which stare decisis is based.