CHAPTER 11

Your Full Name:
*Required

1. The standard of care imposed on a surgeon who is performing surgery is

the amount of care that a reasonable person would take
the amount of care that a reasonable surgeon would take
the amount of care that is required under the policies and procedures required by the hospital
the amount of care that is required under the policies and procedures required by the surgeon's professional medical association
the amount of care that is required under the Criminal Code of Canada

2. Under the law of negligence, you owe a duty of care to

everyone
anyone to whom injury is a reasonably foreseeable result of your actions
anyone injured as a result of your actions
anyone injured while you are acting dangerously
anyone to whom you intend to cause harm

3. As defined in tort law, negligence is

deliberately causing injury to another person
inadvertently causing injury to another person
exposing others to potential injury
failing to act reasonably when injury to another person is a foreseeable result
failing to prevent injury to others

4. The standard of care imposed on a person who is transporting dangerous materials like explosives is

lower than that for someone who is transporting products that are not inherently dangerous
the same as that for someone who is transporting products that are not inherently dangerous
higher than that for someone who is transporting products that are not inherently dangerous
applied only to individuals who lack the appropriate licenses
applied only to individuals who hold the appropriate licenses

5. The defence of volunti non fit injuria requires that

the defendant show that the plaintiff released his right to sue for injuries caused by the defendant
the plaintiff show that he released his right to sue for injuries caused by the defendant
the defendant show that the plaintiff contributed to his own injury by being negligent
the plaintiff show that the defendant was aware that he had a pre-existing condition that would contribute to the injury
the defendant show that he was not aware that the plaintiff had a pre-existing condition that would contribute to the injury

6. The defence of contributory negligence requires that

the defendant show that the plaintiff released his right to sue for injuries caused by the defendant
the plaintiff show that he released his right to sue for injuries caused by the defendant
the defendant show that the plaintiff contributed to his own injury by being negligent
the plaintiff show that the defendant was aware that he had a pre-existing condition that would contribute to the injury
the defendant show that he was not aware that the plaintiff had a pre-existing condition that would contribute to the injury

7. Generally, a consumer who sustains an injury because he is using a product that was manufactured negligently can recover damages by

legal action against the retailer, for breach of contract
legal action against the manufacturer, for negligence
legal action against the retailer, for negligence
a & b
all of the above

8. Under the thin skull rule, a negligent defendant is

liable for the entire amount of the injury sustained by a plaintiff whose injury is greater than would otherwise be expected because the plaintiff has a pre-existing condition
liable only for the amount of the injury that would have been sustained if the plaintiff did not have a pre-existing condition
liable only for the additional amount of the injury that resulted from the plaintiff's pre-existing condition
liable for economic losses only
not liable at all

9. Negligent misstatement is

the principle that liability will be imposed irrespective of proof of negligence
the standard by which reasonableness is determined
the relationship that exists between the defendant's words and the plaintiff's injury
the financial loss sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's false statements
negligence arising from uttering misleading statements made without appropriate care

10. The requirement of causation in negligence cases is not satisfied if

the defendant's breach of duty is reasonably foreseeable
the plaintiff's injury is reasonably foreseeable
the plaintiff's injury is too remote from the defendant's actions
the plaintiff's only injury is a pure economic loss
the plaintff has a pre-existing condition that has the effect of increasing the severity of the injury