Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
The landlord has moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the tenant failed to comply with a state law that requires plaintiffs suing for negligence to plead that they were not contributorily negligent. In opposition to that motion, the tenant argues that under federal law, contributory negligence is an affirmative defense that a defendant who wishes to assert the defense must plead in an answer or other responsive pleading.
After a fire burned down a house that a tenant was renting, the tenant brought a federal diversity action against the landlord. The complaint alleged that the fire had been caused by the landlord's negligent failure to maintain the house's electrical system in accordance with the applicable housing code. The landlord's own investigation indicated that the fire had been caused by the tenant's leaving a soup pot unattended on a hot stove.
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. The question of who has the burden of pleading in federal actions, as opposed to the burden of proof, is a procedural matter within the US Supreme Court's rulemaking power.
C is incorrect. The «outcome determinative» test applies only when asking whether a state rule that conflicts with a judge-made federal practice should be followed. It does not apply when federal law comes from a valid and on point federal rule.
D is incorrect. The «bound up» concept applies only when asking whether a state rule that conflicts with a judge-made federal practice should be followed. Where federal law derives from a valid, on point federal rule, the «bound up» concept does not apply.