Under the common law doctrine of contributory negligence, what would happen if a plaintiff was found to be even slightly negligent?
Explanation
The traditional common law doctrine of contributory negligence was an absolute bar to recovery. If the plaintiff was found to have been negligent in any way, no matter how small, they were completely barred from recovering any damages from the defendant.
Other questions
To succeed in a negligence action, which of the following four elements must a plaintiff prove?
How does tort law measure the duty of care in negligence cases?
Under the doctrine of proximate cause, liability is limited to injuries that are a result of what?
What is the primary purpose of compensatory damages in a tort action?
What are the two requirements for the defense of assumption of risk?
Under the comparative negligence standard, what is the '50 percent' rule followed by many states?
What is the term for professional negligence?
The doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur' creates what presumption in a negligence case?
What does the 'danger invites rescue' doctrine state?
Which laws were passed largely to protect physicians and other medical personnel who volunteer their services in emergency situations?
What is the central concept of the tort of negligence?
A duty of care can be breached by:
Retailers and other firms that invite persons onto their premises have a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect which group?
What test do courts use to determine if there was causation in fact?
In the landmark case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., what was the critical factor the court considered to determine if the railroad was negligent toward Mrs. Palsgraf?
An unforeseeable intervening event that breaks the causal connection between a wrongful act and an injury is known as a:
A state law requires that anyone operating a motor vehicle must give their full time and attention to driving. If a driver violates this law and causes an accident, a court could consider this violation to be what?
What type of laws hold a tavern owner or bartender liable for injuries caused by a person who became intoxicated while drinking at their establishment?
The modern concept of strict liability traces its origins in part to what 1868 English case?
Which of the following is an example of an activity to which strict liability applies?
In the case Izquierdo v. Gyroscope, Inc., involving wet napkins on a nightclub floor, the court found that the obviousness of the hazard did not discharge what duty of the landowner?
What is the general tort law rule regarding the duty to rescue a stranger in peril?
In the case Sutton v. Eastern New York Youth Soccer Association, Inc., why did the court find that the plaintiff, a spectator, had assumed the risk of being hit by a soccer ball?
The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial for cases at law in federal courts when the amount in controversy exceeds what amount?
What are special damages intended to compensate a plaintiff for?
In the context of defenses to negligence, a state law that protects a class of people from harm, such as a safety statute for employees, means that a member of that class typically cannot:
What type of liability does not depend on the actor's negligence or intent to harm, but on the breach of an absolute duty to make something safe?
If a professional violates their duty of care toward a client, the client may bring a suit against the professional alleging what?
What two factors is the social policy of strict product liability based on?
In the case of a business owner, a duty to warn customers of risks does not typically extend to what kind of risks?
Under what condition may punitive damages be awarded in a negligence case?
Historically, a dram was a small unit of liquid, which led to what term for a place where liquor was sold?
An owner of domestic animals, such as dogs or cats, may be held strictly liable for harm if what condition is met?
The risk of injury in a negligence case must be foreseeable, meaning it must be such that a reasonable person would:
If a plaintiff must prove they suffered a loss, harm, wrong, or invasion of a protected interest to recover damages, this refers to which element of negligence?
In determining whether a duty of care has been breached, what three factors do courts consider about the nature of the act?
If a court applies the doctrine of strict liability to an activity like blasting with dynamite, what is the underlying reason?
In the context of the duty of landowners, if a customer in a supermarket slips on a wet floor where there was no warning sign, the owner would likely be held negligent for what reason?
A plaintiff who voluntarily enters into a risky situation, knowing the risk involved, may be barred from recovery under which defense?
To establish causation, a court must address two questions: causation in fact and what other type of causation?
What type of damages are awarded to recognize wrongdoing when no actual monetary loss has occurred?
What type of negligence doctrine would apply if an individual violates a statute, such as an inattentive driver law, and that violation leads to an injury?
Strict liability, or liability without fault, is imposed on a person who engages in what type of activities?
In determining if a professional has breached their duty of care, how does a court evaluate their conduct?
What is the key difference between general damages and special damages in a tort case?
The doctrine that an employer has the burden of proving that a wrongfully terminated employee could have found a similar job relates to:
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, for the presumption of negligence to apply, the event must have been within the defendant's power to control and what other condition must be met?
In the case of abnormally dangerous activities, such as blasting with dynamite, strict liability is applied because:
To bring a successful negligence lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that they suffered a legally recognizable injury because the purpose of tort law is to: