Chapter5

Front 1

1

A seven-year-old boy followed his dog into Mr. Howe's backyard. He fell into a large hole dug by Mr. Howe in preparation for a tree that had been ordered. The boy broke his arm in the fall. At the hospital, the boy was treated by a doctor employed there for four years. The doctor did not set the boy's arm because he made a mistake in reading the x-ray. Because the arm was not treated correctly, it healed improperly. When the boy kept complaining, his mother took him to their family doctor, who discovered the error. The boy had to have his arm rebroken so that it could be set properly. On these facts, which of the following is true?

Back 1

A) The owner of the land owed no duty of care to the boy because the boy was a trespasser.
B) The case law that developed over hundreds of years on the duty of care owed by occupiers of land has priority over any subsequent legislation on the point.
C) The doctor owed a duty of care to the boy, but he only had to meet the standard of care expected of the average man.
D) The hospital, not the doctor, would be solely liable for any harm suffered due to the negligence.
E) In an action against the land owner, if the boy were found to be partially at fault for his injury, the court would apportion the award of damages as it apportioned the fault.

Front 2

2

Which of the following is true with respect to the law of tort?

Back 2

A) With assault and battery, a person can successfully sue only if she can prove damages.
B) A negligent person causing physical injury to another is responsible to the full extent of the injury suffered even though the injured person suffered more than would reasonably be expected because of a special weakness.
C) A person will always succeed with the defence of self-defence even if she used excessive force.
D) A customer battered by an employee on the job can sue only the employee, not the employer, because it was the employee who did the wrong.
E) For fair comment to be an effective legal defence to a claim of defamation, the comment must have been made in Parliament or court.

Front 3

3

You and your friend recently bought a duplex. You rent out the downstairs and live in the upstairs suite. As the owner and occupier, you have acquired certain rights and responsibilities. Which of the following statements about the law relating to land is true?

Back 3

A) You could sue for the tort of negligence if someone used his property in such a way that it interfered with your use and enjoyment of your property.
B) The use of your property is partly governed by the Personal Property Securities Act.
C) If you bring something onto your property that is inherently dangerous and it escapes, causing damage to others, you will be liable even if you were very careful and did not intend to harm anyone.
D) If there were an accident out front and a car was knocked into your yard, you could sue the driver in that car for trespass.
E) Your tenants have no duty to take reasonable steps to make sure that any person is reasonably safe when in their suite.

Front 4

4

Stella bought a cup of coffee at the drive-through window at a coffee shop. Holding the cup between her knees and attempting to take off the lid to add cream, she spilled the coffee. She suffered burns to her thighs. If this happened in Canada, which of the following is true?

Back 4

A) If Stella sues the coffee shop for negligence, she will only have to prove that the company owed her a duty of care.
B) If Stella sues the coffee shop, the company's best argument is that it didn't owe her a duty of care.
C) To succeed with the defence that she volunteered to take the risk, the coffee shop would have to prove that she deliberately spilled the coffee.
D) If the coffee shop claims there was no way to reasonably foresee that Stella would be harmed, the plaintiff's case would be dismissed even though she suffered burns.
E) If the court finds the plaintiff contributorily negligent causing 60 percent of her loss, she must suffer that portion of the loss and will not be compensated for it by the defendant.

Front 5

5

Which of the following statements describes the standard expected of experts?

Back 5

A) Require skills and abilities expected of an average person.
B) Must exercise skill with degree of care expected from a reasonable person in that profession.
C) Inexperience excuses incompetence.
D) Common practice always sets the appropriate standard.
E) The standard of an expert need be perfection.

Front 6

6

Which of the following situations could result in a successful action for negligence?

Back 6

A) George deliberately broke an expensive camera when he yanked on a large cable.
B) When Eric was setting up the lighting in a backyard rented for a night shoot, he fell into a hole and broke his leg. The owner had previously notified the director that he had been digging a hole to plant an apple tree.
C) An employee of the bank mistakenly wrote to Sean saying that the bank had approved his loan. Relying on that letter, Sean made contracts he could not honour when the bank refused to forward the money. Sean lost $10 000 because of the bank's carelessness.
D) A doctor, acting in the best interest of his patient Alex (who had lost blood after a serious cut), gave him a transfusion even though Alex told him explicitly not to do so.
E) Dr. Jones used the skill of a reasonable doctor in that field, but the patient did not respond to the treatment and lost sight in one eye. She sued the doctor.

Front 7

7

Two real estate agents, pressed for time, stopped at the bakery for some muffins that would suffice as lunch. John bought the muffins and gave one to Mary. They both began to eat the muffins as they hurried to the car. When Mary looked at the muffin she had just bitten, she saw that the raisins had little worms in them. John's muffins were the same—with little worms. Given these facts, which of the following possibilities is true? (Read each independently from the others.)

Back 7

A) Since Mary did not buy the muffins, she could not sue in contract, but if she were injured, she could sue in tort.
B) Even if Mary was not injured by eating the worms, she could sue the baker of the muffins for nuisance.
C) If Mary sued the baker of the muffins or the packer of the raisins, she would have to prove only one thing to win her case—that there were worms in the muffin.
D) Mary has a cause of action against the baker of the muffins only if she can prove that the baker used bad raisins on purpose.
E) Mary can do nothing as she did not purchase the muffins.

Front 8

8

In Hall v. Hebert, an individual was severely injured when he allowed his intoxicated friend to drive his car. The Supreme Court of Canada had to deal with whether volenti non fit injuria would apply. What did the Court hold?

Back 8

A) The plaintiff assumed neither the physical risk nor the legal risk in the circumstances.
B) The plaintiff assumed only the legal risk, but this is all that is required for volenti non fit injuria to apply.
C) The plaintiff assumed only the physical risk, but this is all that is required for volenti non fit injuria to apply.
D) The plaintiff assumed the physical risk, but there was no indication he had assumed the legal risk as well.
E) The plaintiff assumed the legal risk, but there was no indication he had assumed the physical risk as well.

Front 9

9

Creative Farming Ltd. manufactures fertilizer from organic matter, a by-product of which is explosive methane gas. During the processing, some of this gas escaped and drifted onto the adjacent property, where it caused an explosion, extensively damaging a building owned by XYZ Co. Creative Farming Ltd. would be liable for the loss under which one of the following principles?

Back 9

A) strict liability
B) vicarious liability
C) product liability
D) Occupiers' Liability Act
E) contributory negligence

Front 10

10

People who see a child drowning have no duty in tort law to rescue that child, unless a particular relationship exists. This is an example of

Back 10

A) contributory negligence
B) reasonable person test
C) strict liability
D) misfeasance
E) nonfeasance

Front 11

11

Mr. Reasoner was looking out his livingroom window and saw his next-door neighbour, Jon Bon, trying to burn leaves. Bon threw gasoline on the damp leaves, and when he lit a match, there was an explosion that sent flames in every direction. Luckily, no one was around, and the flame that shot onto Reasoner's property caused no harm whatsoever. Reasoner was upset by this carelessness and sued Bon for negligence. Which of the following is the best argument for the defendant Bon?

Back 11

A) He didn't owe the plaintiff a duty of care.
B) He was not below the standard of care.
C) There were no damages suffered.
D) Reasoner had voluntarily assumed the risk.
E) Reasoner was contributorily negligent.

Front 12

12

A 70-year-old woman, using the escalator at the airport, dropped a glove. When she attempted to pick it up, she lost her balance and fell. As a result of the accident, she suffered a fractured vertebra (spine-bone). In an action by her against the company that had the responsibility of maintaining the escalator, the defendant company would argue which of the following for its best defence?

Back 12

A) It did not owe her a duty of care.
B) It was not below the standard of care.
C) There were no damages suffered.
D) Provocation.
E) Qualified privilege.

Front 13

13

Hank rented a new ground-floor condominium for four months before the owner offered to sell it to him. Hank accepted the offer. After Hank became the owner, he built a small patio off the living room. At a house-warming party, one of his friends caught the heel of her shoe between some patio bricks and fell, breaking her arm. It took an abnormally long time to heal because she suffered from an unusual bone disease. Hank has heard the following assertions about liability and asks you about them. Which of the following statements is true?

Back 13

A) The standard of care owed to this visitor is governed by a federal statute and is therefore the same for all provinces.
B) Under the governing statute, he owed a duty of care because he now owned the property; he would not have had any duty of care if he had still been renting it.
C) He owed no duty of care to persons who came to his place; people must take responsibility to look after themselves.
D) The standard of care set by statute is that the occupier has a duty to take reasonable care to see that any guest on the property is reasonably safe.
E) If found liable, he would be responsible only for the damages incurred by a normal person who had suffered from such a fall and not for the greater damages actually suffered by this guest.

Front 14

14

Which of the following statements with regard to the tort of negligence is false?

Back 14

A) If a person is injured by a defective product that he himself did not purchase, he can sue the manufacturer for negligence.
B) If the court finds contributory negligence, the defendant has no liability at all.
C) If physical injury can be foreseen as the result of a person's negligence, the wrongdoer will be liable for all the injury suffered although the person injured was unusually weak and infirm.
D) A possible defence to the plaintiff's claim of negligence is that the plaintiff volunteered to take the risk.
E) The test used to determine whether a duty of care is owed is this; would a reasonable person foresee that the plaintiff could be affected by the acts of the defendant?

Front 15

15

The director of the children's zoo, Mr. Watson, was appalled to see an employee, Jake, throwing a pitchfork like a javelin in an area where there were both animals and children. Luckily, no one was hurt. He yelled to Jake to get busy and feed the birds so that the birds would come closer to the children. Jake opened a new sealed bag of feed and threw some to the birds. It happened that the manufacturer of the feed, ordered by Watson, had accidentally mixed some caustic substance with the feed, so that later in the day Jake's hand began to blister badly. Jake sued Watson for negligence because of the burns he suffered; Watson sued Jake for negligence because of the way Jake used the pitchfork. On these facts, which of the following is true?

Back 15

A) Jake will be found liable for negligence because he was careless with the pitchfork; a reasonable person would not have done what he did.
B) The test the court will apply to determine whether or not Jake owed a duty of care is this; would a reasonable person foresee that his acts could affect the children?
C) Watson owed Jake a duty of care and Watson will, therefore, be liable for negligence.
D) Children attending a zoo are voluntarily assuming any risk.
E) Jake could not sue the manufacturer because he did not buy the feed.

Front 16

16

In which of the following would the plaintiff not succeed in an action for negligence?

Back 16

A) A zoning officer carelessly told Mr. Lee that the lot was zoned "commercial," but it was really zoned "duplex." Lee lost $85 000 by relying on this information.
B) An accounting firm made a mistake in the audited financial statements, which caused an investor to lose $20 000. The firm knew the investor was going to rely on the statements to invest.
C) May was made sick by drinking a contaminated cola, bottled by Black, bought for her by her friend Fred from Green.
D) Dr. Zotsky used the skill of a reasonable doctor in that field, but the patient did not respond to the treatment and lost sight in one eye.
E) Nick was a willing passenger when Alex was driving at 140 km/h. He was hurt when the car slid on the wet pavement and crashed. The court found Nick took the physical risk, but never took the legal risk.

Front 17

17

Ms. Lam bought a lot next to a house owned by Mr. Dodson. She asked Mr. Dodson for permission to use his electricity while building a house on her property. He refused. He feared his house was too old to handle the electricity load needed. Later, a carpenter employed by Ms. Lam accidentally broke a window of Mr. Dodson's while moving lumber. Furthermore, the carpenter removed part of Dodson's fence to make room for needed materials, used Dodson's house to support the lumber and drove some nails into Dodson's tree to hold some wires. Dodson complained to Ms. Lam. Irritated by his stand on the electricity and his complaints, Lam began a civil action against him for the tort of defamation, although she had absolutely no grounds for alleging defamation. Which of the following is not supported by the facts given above?

Back 17

A) Dodson has an action against the carpenter for trespass.
B) Dodson has an action against Lam on the principle of vicarious liability.
C) Dodson has an action against Lam on the grounds of strict liability (the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher).
D) Dodson has an action against the carpenter for negligence.
E) Dodson could sue Lam for trespass even if there was no damage.

Front 18

18

When Joan visited her friend Clive, who was renting a small farm in Langly, she was injured by some dangerous cleaning solvent that Clive stores in very large quantities for Soapo Ltd. The solvent had leaked from just one of the massive 1000-litre drums. When she had walked toward the side door of the farmhouse, she stepped through a puddle of what turned out to be solvent. The solvent not only ruined her shoes, but also burned the skin when some splashed onto her legs. The solvent also drained down into the fish pond on the adjacent property owned by the Nelsons. Read each of the following separately and indicate which is true.

Back 18

A) If the Nelsons sue for any loss, they would not succeed against Clive because he is just the tenant of the farm, not the owner.
B) If the Nelsons sued on the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, the defendant could succeed by showing that there was no intention to harm anyone and reasonable care had been taken to contain the solvent.
C) If Joan sued Clive, she would not sue on the rule of strict liability but under the Occupiers' Liability Act.
D) If the Nelsons sued on the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, they are barred from also pleading negligence as an alternative cause of action.
E) If Joan sues for any loss, she must sue the owner of the farm.

Front 19

19

Which of the following statements best describes the standard used by the courts to measure socially acceptable behaviour?

Back 19

A) an average person acting normally
B) careful person acting to the best of his ability
C) a reasonably prudent person acting in a careful manner
D) the best possible response to the circumstance
E) When you cause injury, you are always liable.

Front 20

20

Which of the following statements with regard to the tort of negligence is false?

Back 20

A) If a person is injured by a defective product that he himself did not purchase, he can sue the manufacturer for negligence.
B) To win his negligence case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed him a duty of care, was below the standard of care the law requires, and thus caused him foreseeable damage.
C) In most provinces, the standard of care imposed on an occupier has been modified by statute.
D) For a person to completely escape liability for negligence on the grounds that the plaintiff volunteered to take the risk, the court would have to find that the plaintiff volunteered to accept the physical risk and the legal consequences as well.
E) In negligence cases, the special provision of res ipsa loquitor must be applied in order to establish liability.

Front 21

21

A land appraiser prepared an appraisal of a property for a real-estate development company. The appraiser had been told that the appraisal would be used by the company to attract potential investors. Because the appraiser forgot to check the recent changes in the zoning by-laws, the appraisal was not accurate; the investor, a party unknown to the appraiser, was misled about the value of the land and, consequently, suffered a financial loss. On these facts, which of the following is true?

Back 21

A) A land appraiser owes a duty of care to her client, the company, but not to any potential investors.
B) A land appraiser owes a duty of care to her client, and to potential investors only if she knows the name of the investor.
C) The investor might sue the appraiser for "negligent misstatement causing economic loss."
D) The investor must suffer his own loss, because an investor takes the risk and so must take care.
E) A person cannot be sued for words that cause loss, only for actions that cause physical injury.

Front 22

22

In which of the following cases is a duty not owed?

Back 22

A) A person undertakes to rescue someone in danger.
B) It would be apparent to a prudent person that the conduct was likely to cause injury.
C) A person making a misstatement knew that it would be relied on by a member of a group.
D) A visitor comes on your property.
E) A person sees another in desperate need of assistance.

Front 23

23

Although there was no carelessness on the part of Mr. Tam, and although he had no intention of harming anyone, he could still be sued by someone harmed by dangerous substances that escaped from his property. This is an example of what tort or what principle of tort law?

Back 23

A) vicarious liability
B) contributory negligence
C) false imprisonment
D) strict liability
E) defamation

Front 24

24

In Hodgkinson v. Simms, an accountant advised a client to invest in a real estate development while also acting for the developers. What did the Supreme Court of Canada find?

Back 24

A) The presence of a financial risk was the identifying feature of a fiduciary relationship and, in this case, imposed the fiduciary duty.
B) The presence of a financial risk was the identifying feature of a fiduciary relationship but, in this case, did not impose a fiduciary duty.
C) The presence of loyalty, trust, and confidence were identifying features of a fiduciary relationship and, in this case, imposed the fiduciary duty.
D) A fiduciary relationship could not arise in circumstances where an investor acted of his own accord.
E) A fiduciary relationship could not arise in commercial circumstances, such as those found in this case.

Front 25

25

An employee prepared an appraisal of a property for his real-estate development company. The employee had been told that the appraisal would be used by the company to attract a potential investor, Mr. Jones, for the company's client, Mr. Lee. Because the appraiser carelessly forgot to check the recent changes in the zoning by-laws, the appraisal was not accurate. Mr. Jones was misled about the value of the land and suffered a financial loss of $20 000. Given these facts, which of the following is true?

Back 25

A) Mr. Jones could not take any action because he had no contract with the company or the appraiser.
B) A person cannot be sued for words that cause loss, only for actions that cause physical injury.
C) If Jones sues the appraiser, he cannot also sue the employer company; he can only sue one or the other.
D) The cause of action most likely to be taken by the investor is defamation.
E) To win in an action against the appraiser, Jones must prove that the appraiser owed him a duty of care, fell below the standard of care owed and thereby caused him a foreseeable loss because of his reliance on the information.

Front 26

26

Often, a business suffering a loss from a fire will have insurance to cover the property damage, but there will be nothing to cover the losses the business suffers during the period it is closed down for repairs. What form of insurance will cover the latter issue?

Back 26

A) liability insurance
B) disability insurance
C) business interruption insurance
D) property insurance
E) professional liability insurance

Front 27

27

In Heitsman v. Canadian Premier Life Insurance Co., an insurance company denied coverage on the basis of an ambiguous exclusion of liability clause. What did the Court find?

Back 27

A) The contra proferentum rule was applied, and the exclusion was narrowly interpreted.
B) The contra proferentum rule was applied, and the exclusion was broadly construed.
C) The contra proferentum rule was applied, so the interpretation favoured the insurance company.
D) The contra proferentum rule did not apply, because the insurance contract was in standard form.
E) The contra proferentum rule did not apply, because the insured had signed the contract voluntarily.

Front 28

28

Which of the following is correct with respect to the principle of subrogation as it relates to insurance law?

Back 28

A) Subrogation refers to the insured's right to demand payment from the insurance company if the insured-against event takes place.
B) Subrogation refers to the principle that the insured cannot benefit from his own wrongdoing.
C) Subrogation refers to the principle that, if the insured does not take out enough insurance, he will be taken to be responsible for a portion of any loss incurred.
D) Subrogation refers to the principle that, if an insurance company pays out on a policy, they assume all of the rights of the insured against the person causing the loss.
E) Subrogation refers to the practice of the insurance companies taking out their own insurance where the policy involves potentially large losses or high risk.

Front 29

29

Joe entered a store and approached a display of china. He was examining an extremely valuable vase and carelessly dropped it, destroying it. Which of the following is correct with respect to his liability?

Back 29

A) If the store has insurance coverage, the insurance will cover his careless conduct and he doesn't have to worry about anything.
B) If the store has insurance coverage, the insurance will pay the store for the loss but can go after Joe for repayment by suing him for negligence.
C) Joe cannot be sued for the loss because Joe is not a party to the insurance contract.
D) If the store does not have insurance coverage, they should have and so Joe has no responsibility in these circumstances.
E) Joe is responsible only if the store has no insurance coverage.

Front 30

30

In Mueller v. Wawanesa Insurance Co. , insurance had been taken out on a house when it was being used as a residential dwelling. The building was occupied by three members of a motorcycle gang. The insurance company was not notified of the change. What was the result when the house was destroyed by fire?

Back 30

A) In Mueller v. Wawanesa Insurance Co. , insurance had been taken out on a house when it was being used as a residential dwelling. The building was occupied by three members of a motorcycle gang. The insurance company was not notified of the change. What was the result when the house was destroyed by fire?
B) The failure to notify of the change voided the policy, but the insurance company still had to cover the loss.
C) The failure to notify of the change was immaterial because there was no proof that is what caused the fire.
D) The failure to notify of the change was immaterial because there was no misrepresentation at the time the policy was taken out.
E) The failure to notify of the change resulted in the insured being charged higher premiums.