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.
- Homepage »
- Torts »
- Negligence
41. In this action, will the mechanic obtain a judgment against the man?
The mechanic has brought an action to recover damages against the man and woman. The jurisdiction has adopted a pure comparative negligence rule in place of the traditional common law rule of contributory negligence. The jury found that while a reasonable person in the man's position would have warned the mechanic about the gasoline leak, the man had no actual knowledge of the risk that the gasoline leak presented.
The man then took the car to a mechanic, who owns and operates a body shop, and arranged with the mechanic to repair the damage. During their discussion the man neglected to mention the gasoline leakage. Thereafter, while the mechanic was loosening some of the damaged material with a hammer, he caused a spark, igniting vapor and gasoline that had leaked from the fuel tank. The mechanic was severely burned.
A man's car sustained moderate damage in a collision with a car driven by a woman. The accident was caused solely by the woman's negligence. The man's car was still drivable after the accident. Examining the car the next morning, the man could see that a rear fender had to be replaced. He also noticed that gasoline had dripped onto the garage floor. The collision had caused a small leak in the gasoline tank.
Comments (0)
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. Although the statement is true, the mechanic's negligence, while diminishing his damages, will not prevent him from prevailing on his claim. In a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, the plaintiff is entitled to all of his damages minus the portion that the court attributes to the plaintiff's negligence.
B is incorrect. The man's conduct is subject to the objective reasonable person standard. Under that standard, his actual understanding of the risk is irrelevant.
D is incorrect. It combines elements of products liability with a landowner's liability for abnormally dangerous activity on his land. The man is a user, not a manufacturer or seller of the car, so he will not be held strictly liable for the leaking gas tank. Likewise, the man was not conducting ultra hazardous activities that would create a nondelegable duty resulting in strict liability. Instead, the mechanic must prove negligent conduct by the man to prevail.