Jeff often walks through Samantha's backyard without her permission. Samantha warns him to stay away off her property. Assume that Samantha places a set of spikes at the entrance of the backyard and Jeff gets injured when he tries entering again. What is the best result?Multiple choice question.Samantha owes a duty of reasonable care to Jeff since his presence was known.Samantha cannot be held liable for Jeff's injuries because Jeff was trespassing.Samantha has caused a breach of duty by warning Jeff to stay away from her property.Samantha will be criminally charged since Jeff was an invitee at her property.

Assume that a truck driver is driving while drunk (ie. while they have a blood alcohol content that is over the legally permitted limit). The driver loses concentration, and collides with Jim's car, injuring Jim too. Jim's car, however, was improperly parked in the middle of the road, while Jim transferred its contents onto a pallet on the side of the road. Arguably: Select one: a. Liability for damage caused to Jim's car and Jim's personal injuries should be apportioned since both parties caused the accident. b. Neither party has a legal action as they were both breaching the law. c. Jim is wholly responsible for the damage as he caused the accident. d. The truck driver is wholly responsible for the damage as the driver caused the accident.

Which of the following best describes what occurred in the case of Bolton v Stone? Select one: a. Even though the plaintiff was struck by a cricket ball, and injured as a result, this was not a breach of the duty of care. Relevant here was the low probability of the risk occurring, and the high burden of taking precautions that would have prevented the risk. b. The cricket club was held liable for an injury from a flying cricket ball because it was reasonably likely that a ball would leave the ground and that someone would be injured. c. Even though the plaintiff was struck by a cricket ball, this was not a breach of the duty of care because there was a high probability of the risk occurring and a low burden of taking precautions. d. The case established the principle that a defendant is always required to take reasonable precautions, no matter how likely the risk is to occur.

Strict liability is applied to cases involving abnormally dangerous activities that necessarily involve a risk of harm that cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable Care.Group of answer choicesTrueFalse

An injured party may not recover consequential or punitive damages unless these damages are ________.Multiple choice question.specifically provided for in the Uniform Commercial Codenot mentioned in any statute of limitationsexcluded from the Uniform Commercial Codenegligible enough to be a penalty

The law in your community requires shop-owners to shovel snow and ice from the pavement (footpath) in front of their shops. You failed to do that. A pedestrian slipped and fell, resulting in serious and costly injury. The pedestrian has sued you. Your lawyer says that while he will vigorously defend you in the lawsuit, you should expect to lose $25,000 to cover the injured party’s costs. A court decision, however, is not expected for at least a year. Required:Should you recognise a liability for this event at the end of the financial year? Justify your answer by reference to the definitions and recognition criteria in the Conceptual Framework.