Which of the following occurs when a plaintiff expressly agrees, usually in a written contract, to assume the risk posed by the defendant's behavior?

Which of the following occurs when a plaintiff expressly agrees, usually in a written contract, to assume the risk posed by the defendant's behavior? 
A. Implied assumption of the risk.
B. Express assumption of the risk.
C. Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D. Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
E. Assumption by contract.

Express assumption of the risk occurs when the plaintiff expressly agrees (usually in a written contract) to assume the risk posed by the defendant's behavior.

Which of the following occurs when a plaintiff implicitly assumes a known risk? 
A. Implied assumption of the risk.
B. Express assumption of the risk.
C. Express assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
D. Implied assumption of the last-clear-chance doctrine.
E. Assumption by contract.

Implied assumption of the risk means that the plaintiff implicitly assumed a known risk.

Which is the most difficult part of establishing the defense of assumption of the risk? 
A. Showing that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the actual harm suffered.
B. Showing that the defendant was aware that the plaintiff assumed the risk.
C. Showing that the plaintiff was aware of applicable law.
D. Showing that the plaintiff signed the contract assuming the risk without duress.
E. None of the above because assumption of the risk is not a defense.

The most difficult part of establishing assumption of the risk is showing that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the actual harm suffered.

In reference to the case in the text, Ex Parte Emmette L. Barram, III, what was the result after the plaintiff sued the national and local Kappa Alpha organization following hazing activities? 
A. The court ruled that under pure contributive negligence principles, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
B. The court ruled that under pure comparative negligence principles, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
C. The court ruled that under modified comparative negligence principles, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
D. The court ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover based on negligence per se.
E. His lawsuit was dismissed because he assumed the risk of harm.

The appellate court stated that "the trial court correctly determined that reasonable people could reach no conclusion other than that Jones voluntarily exposed himself to the hazing."

Which of the following are laws holding that people in peril who receive voluntary aid from others cannot hold those offering aid liable for negligence? 
A. Good Samaritan statutes.
B. Aid to others statutes.
C. Rescue statutes.
D. Freedom statutes.
E. All clear statutes.

Good Samaritan statutes, attempt to encourage selfless and courageous behavior by removing the threat of liability.

Which of the following is an unforeseeable event which interrupts the causal chain between the defendant's breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered? 
A. A surprise event.
B. A superseding cause.
C. A relative cause.
D. An unusual cause.
E. None of the above because an unforeseeable event may not interrupt a chain of causation.

The defendant in a negligence suit can also avoid liability by establishing a superseding cause. A superseding cause is an unforeseeable event that interrupts the causal chain between the defendant's breach of duty and the damages the plaintiff suffered.

Which of the following is liability without fault? 
A. Negligence.
B. Assumption of the risk.
C. Strict liability.
D. Storekeeper liability.
E. Homeowner liability.

Strict liability is liability without fault.

Which of the following is a condition required for the imposition of strict liability? 
A. The activity involves negligence.
B. The activity involves trespassing.
C. The activity is undertaken by a minor.
D. The activity is so inherently dangerous that it cannot ever be safely undertaken.
E. The activity is heavily regulated.

The law holds an individual liable without fault when the activity in which he or she engages satisfies three conditions: (1) It involves a risk of serious harm to people or property; (2) it is so inherently dangerous that it cannot ever be safely undertaken; and (3) it is not usually performed in the immediate community.

Which of the following is an example of an inherently dangerous activity? 
A. Driving a vehicle.
B. Operating an airplane.
C. Dynamite blasting in a populated area.
D. Burning trash.
E. Babysitting.

Inherently dangerous activities include dynamite blasting in a populated area.

Which of the following is true regarding negligence under South African Law? 
A. South Africa's legal system is a combination of selected legal traditions including Roman, Dutch, and German.
B. Under South African law, individuals can be found negligent in three different ways.
C. Individuals who fail to prevent consequent damages can be found negligent under South African law.
D. South African law cites the American doctrine of sudden emergency as a standard for determining negligence in crisis situations.
E. All the above are true.

South Africa's legal system is a combination of selected legal traditions—from Roman to Dutch to German. South African law dictates that individuals can be found negligent in three different ways. One way of finding negligence is determined by whether the defendant could have prevented the consequent damages. South African law cites the American "doctrine of sudden emergency" as a standard for determining negligence in crisis situations.

What was the result in the "case opener" involving the victim who died after being set on fire with gasoline? 
A. On appeal the court upheld the verdict against the gas station but reduced it by 25% based on the victim's negligence.
B. On appeal the court upheld the verdict against the gas station and refused to find any negligence on the part of the victim.
C. On appeal the court found that there was no basis on which to find the gas station liable and ordered dismissal of the case.
D. On appeal the court found that the gas station acted wrongfully but that there was no basis for an award of damages because the plaintiff was over 50% at fault.
E. On appeal the court found that the gas station acted wrongfully but that there was no basis for an award of damages because the person who started the fire was over 50% at fault.

The appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence to find that the gas station cashier could have reasonably foreseen negative consequences prior to activating the pump. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court was correct in reducing the damage award by only 25 percent on the basis of Antoine's [the victim's] liability.