Question

business law.

1. How is tort law different from the other types of US common law?

A. It is a response to the problem of injury.

B. The other answers describe contract law, property law, and criminal law.

C. It arises from mutual agreements.

D. It regulates ownership.

E. It penalizes wrongful actions on behalf of the public.

2. Which of the following is NOT a goal of tort law?

A. Making people honor their agreements

B. The answer is a goal of contract law, not tort law

C. Compensating victims of injury.

D. Deterring dangerous behavior.

E. Punishing recklessness and malice.

F. Forcing businesses to internalize their costs

3. Under the Massachusetts state court’s ruling in the historic “fighting dogs” case of Brown v. Kendall (1850):

A. A plaintiff is entitled to compensation if the defendant acted unreasonably.

B. A plaintiff is entitled to recover if the defendant is at fault.

C. A plaintiff who is partly at fault for his or her injury can never recover damages.

4. Recognized defenses in a common law tort action do not include

A. Self-defense. B. Defense of property. C. Honest mistake of the law.

5. Under the rules of US common law, a stranger who happens to witness an accidental injury in progress and who is in a position to help:

A. Has a legal obligation to intervene with assistance.

B. Has a legal duty to not get involved, because meddlers can possibly make things worse for the victim.

C. Has no duty to rescue and is potentially liable for injuries caused in a botched rescue attempt.

True or False:

The U.S. Constitution contains mainly detailed rules about how state officials are chosen and removed, how laws are passed, how the court system run and how finances and revenues are paid and collected.

Answer 1

1) Solution: It penalizes wrongful actions on behalf of the public.
Explanation: The tort law is mainly due to the sense of public morality

2) Solution: Making people honor their agreements
Explanation: The main objective of tort law are to compensate with money damages victims to injured parties for harms caused by others, to deter others from doing any harmful acts, and to impose liability on parties who caused the harm.

3) Solution: A plaintiff is entitled to recover if the defendant is at fault.
Explanation: In this case the court rejected a rule of “no fault” or “strict” liability, whereby plaintiffs who are injured are entitled to recover when they prove that volitional conduct of defendant’s is the cause of their injuries.

4) Solution: Honest mistake of the law.
Explanation: Honest mistake of the law will not categorized as a defense thus are liable for injuries caused due to the conduct which is believed to be lawful.

5) Solution: Has no duty to rescue and is potentially liable for injuries caused in a botched rescue attempt
Explanation: The law make changes in response to shifts in cultural and moral value; and also the common law rule is still that strangers would not be obligated under law to help one another