Posted: November 9th, 2016

The roof of the burning barn fell and damaged a passing car owned by Ray. Can Ray likely recover damages from Kim under ordinary negligence?

Kim carelessly parked her car on a steep hill, leaving the car in neutral and failing to engage the parking brake. The car rolled down the hill and knocked down an electric line. The sparks from the broken line ignited a grass fire that spread to a barn several yards away. The roof of the burning barn fell and damaged a passing car owned by Ray. Can Ray likely recover damages from Kim under ordinary negligence? a) Yes, because Kim was negligent in parking the car. b) Yes, because Kim set in motion the chain of events that resulted in damage to Ray’s car, even though Kim did not directly hit the car. c) No, because of the unforeseeable intervening force doctrine. d) No, regardless of Kim’s negligence in parking the car as her negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident and harm that occurred to Ray. 8. Lee sued Don in negligence. Lee’s losses total $100,000. Under a contributory negligence system, if Lee is found to be contributorily negligent for her own injuries, what damages will Lee like recover from Don? a) None. b) $100,000. c) $100,000, less the percentage of fault (e.g., 20%, 60%, etc.) for which Li was responsible. d) $100,000, less the percentage of fault for which Li was responsible, so long as Li was not more than 50% responsible for the injuries. 9. Don promised to buy his girlfriend, Sophie, a new car so Sophie sold her old car. Don now refuses to buy Sophie the car. Sophie has a job that requires her to have a car to get to work. If Sophie sues Don to enforce the promise, the likely result is that the promise will: a) Be enforced under promissory estoppel because Sophie reasonably relied on Don’s promise, to her detriment. b) Not be enforced because Sophie received money from the sale of her old car; if she also received the new car from Don, she would be unjustly enriched. c) Be enforced because the car is a necessity for Sophie and all contracts for necessities are binding and enforceable for all parties even if contract formation is flawed. d) Not be enforced as Don’s promise was a gift to Sophie; Sophie gave consideration, but Don did not.