6. Ram was walking down the sidewalk by a construction project site in a downtow
ID: 453867 • Letter: 6
Question
6. Ram was walking down the sidewalk by a construction project site in a downtown area. The project was owned and operated by Modern Construction, Inc. and was surrounded by orange plastic fencing typically used for construction projects. Ram stopped to watch a metal beam being lifted by a crane on the construction site. As the beam swung through the air, Ram thought it was going to fall and jumped forward quickly off the sidewalk and into the construction project property, falling into and smashing the orange plastic fencing. As Ram landed inside the construction project, the beam fell near Ram. The beam did not hit Ram but some rocks were thrown onto Ram as the beam fell, cutting his arm badly so that it required 35 stitches.
If Ram sues Model Construction for negligence, the likely result will be that Ram will:
a) Lose, because he assumed the risk as a trespasser on the construction site and trespassers can never recover damages.
b) Lose, because pedestrians are always contributorily negligent in such cases involving trespassing.
c) Win, because it is always foreseeable that a beam could fall on a rescuing pedestrian.
d) Win, if the beam fell because of Model Construction’s negligence.
7. Kim carelessly parked her car on a steep hill, leaving the car in neutral and failing to engage the parking brake. The car rolled down the hill and knocked down an electric line. The sparks from the broken line ignited a grass fire that spread to a barn several yards away. The roof of the burning barn fell and damaged a passing car owned by Ray. Can Ray likely recover damages from Kim under ordinary negligence?
a) Yes, because Kim was negligent in parking the car.
b) Yes, because Kim set in motion the chain of events that resulted in damage to Ray’s car, even though Kim did not directly hit the car.
c) No, because of the unforeseeable intervening force doctrine.
d) No, regardless of Kim’s negligence in parking the car as her negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident and harm that occurred to Ray.
8. Li sued Don in negligence. Li’s losses total $100,000. Under a contributory negligence system, if Li is found to be contributorily negligent for her own injuries, what damages will Li like recover from Don?
a) None.
b) $100,000.
c) $100,000 minus the percentage of fault (e.g., 20%, 60%, etc.) for which Li was responsible.
d) $100,000 minus the percentage of fault for which Li was responsible, so long as Li was not more than 50% responsible for the injuries.
9. Don promised to buy his girlfriend, Sophie, a new car so Sophie sold her old car. Don now refuses to buy Sophie the car. Sophie has a job that requires her to have a car to get to work. If Sophie sues Don to enforce the promise, the likely result is that the promise will:
a) Be enforced under promissory estoppel because Sophie reasonably relied on Don's promise, to her detriment.
b) Not be enforced as Sophie was not unjustly enriched simply because she did not receive the car.
c) Be enforced because the car is a necessity for Sophie and all contracts for necessities are binding and enforceable for all parties even if contract formation is flawed.
d) Not be enforced as Don’s promise was a gift to Sophie; Sophie gave consideration, but Don did not.
10. X and Y agreed that X would sell Y his small business, including the land on which the business was situated, for $500,000. Both X and Y knew at the time the contract was formed that the business was actually worth $800,000. Is this a valid, enforceable contract?
a) Yes, provided the contract was in writing, in accordance with the Statute of Frauds and the parties freely consented.
b) Yes, provided the contract was in accordance with state statutory law that permits real estate sales for 40% or more below market value.
c) No, because $500,000 is not valid consideration for a business worth $800,000.
d) No, because X has no pre-existing legal duty to sell his business.
Explanation / Answer
Answer 6: D
This is a gray area of business law, but Ram would mostly win his case if he can prove that the construction company was negligent. Typically, most construction companies would post signs nearby to warn pedestrians, but this is not enough precautions. This scenario is likely beneficial to Ram if Ram finds a way to show that the construction company failed to remove "dangerous" debris from its construction site.
Answer 7: C
Unfortunately, Kim cannot be held liable for the personal injury inflicted on Ray. The unforeseeable intervening force doctrine supports Kim's prediction because her actions with her car disrupting the electric line and harming Ray were not foreseeable. It is like the weather. The weather cannot be predicted. Likewise, the events in this scenario are not a typical situation that happens on an everyday basis. Instead, this was a special scenario where Ray is unable to sue Kim for ordinary negligence.
Answer 8: C
Under the contributory negligence, both persons played the part in causing the injury. Lee's injuries to herself have to be taken to account by the court. If Don is found to have caused 100% of the injury, then Lee would receive $100,000. However, the problem stated that Lee caused "some" of her own injures. The percentage of injury of what Lee cause to herself is calculated with Don's percentage and would result in a new amount for Lee.
Answer 9: D
This was a verbal promise between Don and his girlfriend, Sophie. There was neither written documentation nor any third party witnesses that can confirm that Don promises Sophie a new car. Regardless, even if Don promises Sophie a new car, this scenario is not a contract. Without a contract, nothing is binding. Instead, Sophie gave her consideration.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.