Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
7 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
"pure" comparative negligence
|
a P is allowed to recover no matter how great P's own share of fault is (99%)
|
|
|
Define the test of res ipsa loquitur
|
whether it was more probable than not that the defendant’s negligence caused the harm.
|
|
|
strict liability is not imposed if the injury is inflicted on an intentional trespasser. but...?
|
but is imposed only for injuries to those who enter the land by privilege or are properly on the land as invitees or licensees.
|
|
|
Intervening acts of nature (lightening or floods) or intervening criminal conduct
|
does not relieve an original tortfeasor from liability if the intervening activity was foreseeable and could've been avoided by reasonable care.
|
|
|
superseding cause cuts the earlier initial tortfeasor's liability, what if P himself intervening?
|
even A Ps own negligent conduct can be a sole superseding cause of his injury.
|
|
|
barbed wire did cause death in this case, it is not considered to be "deadly force."
|
barbed wire presents its own warning and is not a hidden trap makes it a reasonable device for discouraging trespassers.
|
|
|
Contributory negligence is only a defense to strict liability if P :
|
(1) discovers the defect and is aware of the danger, and (2) nevertheless proceeds unreasonably to make use of the product.
|
