Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
1) Betty backs out of her parking space and collides with Mickey's car. Mickey may recover $7,500 to cover the cost of repairs if Betty failed to act...
1) Betty backs out of her parking space and collides with Mickey's car. Mickey may recover $7,500 to cover the cost of repairs if Betty failed to act as
a. A faultless person
b. A blameless person
c. A reliable person
d. A reasonable person
2) Paul is driving down Division Street when he slams on the brakes to stop for a red light he noticed just too late. His short stop spooks a cyclist who is pedaling through the intersection causing her to swerve. Another car swerves to avoid hitting her and runs off the road into a light pole, knocking it over, and the pole falls into a parking lot, where John is waiting in an idling car. John quickly backs up to avoid having the light land on his car and backs into Carol, a pedestrian. Carol sues Paul for negligence. Carol will
a. Lose, because Paul was driving like a reasonably prudent person
b. Win, because Paul breached his duty of care
c. Win, because Paul was the ultimate cause of her injury
d. Lose, because Paul was not the proximate cause of the accident
3) Garet, a produce distributor, follows Linda, his competitor, into a store and eavesdrops on Linda's negotiation with the store manager. After Linda and the manager strike a deal, Garet approaches the manager and undercuts Linda's deal. Garet is most likely liable for
a. Product disparagement
b. Conversion
c. Breach of contract
d. Tortious interference
4) Holly orders a bottle of Miller Lite at a tavern, and the bottle unexpectedly explodes in her hand severing her jugular vein. Sadly, Holly dies. Her husband, Dale, sues MillerCoors, the beer distributor, and the tavern for strict product liability alleging that there was a manufacturing defect in the bottle. Dale will likely
a. Lose, because Dale cannot establish how the bottle was defective or which defendant introduced the defect
b. Lose, because Holly likely caused the defect herself, after ordering the beer
c. Win, because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur dictates that the bottle would not have exploded unless it contained a defect introduced by the defendants
d. Win, because the defendants violated their general duty of reasonable care by selling a defective bottle
