Law Final Chapter 8 - Cases

Question 1

Chapter 8 - Court Case 1: Harris v. Ostromogilsky

Who owned the taxi that Harris drove?
A) Harris
B) Ostromogilski
C) The city
D) The Quebec government

Answer 1

Answer: B

Question 2

Chapter 8 - Court Case 1: Harris v. Ostromogilsky

What did Harris claim happened during his visit to Ostromogilski’s house?
A) He was offered a job
B) Ostromogilski attacked him
C) They discussed a contract
D) Nothing happened

Answer 2

Answer: B

Question 3

Chapter 8 - Court Case 1: Harris v. Ostromogilsky

How did Ostromogilski defend himself against Harris’s claim?
A) Claimed self-defense and protecting his family
B) Claimed Harris was lying
C) Claimed he was not home
D) Claimed Harris attacked himself

Answer 3

Answer: A

Question 4

Chapter 8 - Court Case 1: Harris v. Ostromogilsky

What did the medical evidence show?
A) Harris had minor scratches; Ostromogilski had severe injuries
B) Harris had numerous injuries; Ostromogilski had only hand injuries
C) Both had no injuries
D) Only Ostromogilski was injured

Answer 4

Answer: B

Question 5

Chapter 8 - Court Case 1: Harris v. Ostromogilsky

What was the court’s ruling based on the medical evidence?
A) Harris had assaulted Ostromogilski
B) Ostromogilski had assaulted Harris
C) Neither party was at fault
D) The case was dismissed

Answer 5

Answer: B

Question 6

Chapter 8 - Court Case 1: Harris v. Ostromogilsky

How many criminal convictions did Ostromogilski receive for the assault?
A) None
B) One
C) Two
D) Three

Answer 6

Answer: C

Question 7

Chapter 8 - Court Case 1: Harris v. Ostromogilsky

Can the same set of facts lead to both civil and criminal lawsuits?
A) Yes
B) No
C) Only civil
D) Only criminal

Answer 7

Answer: A

Question 8

Chapter 8 - Court Case 1: Harris v. Ostromogilsky

Under which Civil Code of Quebec (CCQ) article was Harris’s civil lawsuit filed?
A) CCQ 2094
B) CCQ 1457
C) CCQ 1500
D) CCQ 1001

Answer 8

Answer: B

Question 9

Chapter 8 - Court Case 1: Harris v. Ostromogilsky

What types of damages did Harris claim under CCQ 1457?
A) Bodily, moral, and material damages
B) Only moral damages
C) Only bodily damages
D) Only material damages

Answer 9

Answer: A

Question 10

Chapter 8 - Court Case 1: Harris v. Ostromogilsky

Which of the following was included in Harris’s claimed material damages?
A) Broken glasses and torn clothing
B) Pain and suffering
C) Emotional distress
D) Legal fees only

Answer 10

Answer: A

Question 11

Chapter 8 - Court Case 1: Harris v. Ostromogilsky

How much compensation was Harris awarded in his civil suit?
A) $1,000
B) $3,500
C) $5,880
D) $10,000

Answer 11

Answer: C

Question 12

Chapter 8 - Court Case 1: Harris v. Ostromogilsky

What section of the Quebec Charter did Harris rely on to claim punitive damages?
A) Section 1
B) Section 4
C) Section 49
D) Sections 4 and 49

Answer 12

Answer: D

Question 13

Chapter 8 - Court Case 1: Harris v. Ostromogilsky

Did the judge grant Harris’s claim for punitive damages?
A) Yes
B) No
C) Only partial
D) Deferred to criminal court

Answer 13

Answer: B

Question 14

Chapter 8 - Court Case 1: Harris v. Ostromogilsky

Why did the judge decide not to award punitive damages?
A) Harris did not prove any breach
B) Ostromogilski had already been punished by criminal convictions and fines
C) Punitive damages are illegal
D) Harris withdrew the claim

Answer 14

Answer: B

Question 15

Chapter 8 - Court Case 1: Harris v. Ostromogilsky

What is always true about punitive damages?
A) They are mandatory
B) They are discretionary
C) They cannot be awarded in civil cases
D) They are equal to criminal fines

Answer 15

Answer: B

Question 16

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.)
From whom did Mrs. Walford purchase the pool slide?
A) Pool supply company
B) Manufacturer
C) Private individual
D) Neighbor

Answer 16

Answer: C

Question 17

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.)

What did Mrs. Walford do after purchasing the slide?
A) Installed it immediately
B) Took it to a pool supply company to buy missing parts
C) Returned it to the seller
D) Asked her daughter to test it

Answer 17

Answer: B

Question 18

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.)

What question did Mrs. Walford ask the pool supply company?
A) How to install a pool slide
B) If the slide was suitable for her pool
C) If the slide was safe for children under 10
D) How to clean the slide

Answer 18

Answer: B

Question 19

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.)

What advice did the pool supply company give Mrs. Walford?
A) The slide was unsafe
B) The slide was suitable for her pool
C) The slide needed special installation
D) The slide should not be used by minors

Answer 19

Answer: B

Question 20

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.)

How old was the daughter who used the slide?
A) 14
B) 15
C) 16
D) 17

Answer 20

Answer: C

Question 21

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.)

What warning did Mrs. Walford give her daughter?
A) Not to slide at all
B) Not to slide backwards
C) To wear safety gear
D) Only to slide in deep water

Answer 21

Answer: B

Question 22

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.)

How did the daughter slide that caused the injury?
A) Forward
B) Backwards
C) Sideways
D) With a floatation device

Answer 22

Answer: B

Question 23

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.)

What was the result of the daughter’s fall?
A) Minor bruises
B) Broken arm
C) Neck injury causing paralysis
D) No injury

Answer 23

Answer: C

Question 24

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.)

What principle addresses the degree to which the daughter was at fault?
A) Duty of care
B) Contributory negligence
C) Strict liability
D) Vicarious liability

Answer 24

Answer: B

Question 25

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.) What did the trial court rule regarding the daughter’s responsibility? A) 0% responsible B) 50% responsible C) 100% responsible D) 20% responsible

Answer 25

Answer: C

Question 26

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.) What did the Court of Appeal decide about the daughter’s responsibility? A) 0% B) 20% C) 50% D) 100%

Answer 26

Answer: B

Question 27

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.) According to the Court of Appeal, who was primarily liable for the damages? A) The daughter B) Mrs. Walford C) The pool supply company D) The slide manufacturer

Answer 27

Answer: C

Question 28

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.) What percentage of liability was assigned to the pool supply company by the Court of Appeal? A) 20% B) 50% C) 80% D) 100%

Answer 28

Answer: C

Question 29

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.) Why did the Court of Appeal find that the pool supply company owed a duty of care? A) Because they manufactured the slide B) Because the Walfords were long-term customers C) Because the daughter was underage D) Because they provided installation services

Answer 29

Answer: B

Question 30

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.) What standard did the Walfords rely on regarding the pool supply company’s advice? A) Reasonable reliance on expert advice B) Legal obligation of the company to inspect C) Manufacturer warranty D) Common practice among neighbors

Answer 30

Answer: A

Question 31

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.) Why was the pool supply company found negligent? A) They sold a defective slide B) They provided incorrect advice about compatibility C) They did not supervise the daughter D) They ignored safety regulations

Answer 31

Answer: B

Question 32

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.) Under Quebec law, which CCQ article deals with negligence and breach of duty to warn? A) CCQ 1478 B) CCQ 1457 C) CCQ 2091 D) CCQ 2094

Answer 32

Answer: B

Question 33

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.) Under Quebec law, which CCQ article deals with contributory negligence? A) CCQ 1478 B) CCQ 1457 C) CCQ 2091 D) CCQ 2094

Answer 33

Answer: A

Question 34

Chapter 8 - Court Case 2: Walford v. Jacuzzi Canada (C.A.) Which legal issues were raised in this case? A) Duty of care and contributory negligence B) Product liability only C) Criminal negligence D) Vicarious liability only

Answer 34

Answer: A

Question 35

Chapter 8 - Court Case 3: Farmakis v. Canadian Tire Corp. Q1: Where did Mr. Farmakis purchase the ladder? A) Walmart, Toronto B) Home Depot, Montreal C) Canadian Tire, Welland D) RONA, Vancouver

Answer 35

Answer: C) Canadian Tire, Welland

Question 36

Chapter 8 - Court Case 3: Farmakis v. Canadian Tire Corp. When did Mr. Farmakis fall from the ladder? A) Summer 1993 B) Fall 1993 C) December 1993 D) January 1994

Answer 36

Answer: C) December 1993

Question 37

Chapter 8 - Court Case 3: Farmakis v. Canadian Tire Corp. Where did the accident occur? A) Welland, Ontario B) Toronto, Ontario C) Greece D) Quebec

Answer 37

Answer: C) Greece

Question 38

Chapter 8 - Court Case 3: Farmakis v. Canadian Tire Corp. Under which law would the safety defect be analyzed if it were a Quebec case? A) CCQ 2094 B) CCQ 1468-1469 C) CCQ 2100 D) CCQ 2001

Answer 38

Answer: B) CCQ 1468-1469

Question 39

Chapter 8 - Court Case 3: Farmakis v. Canadian Tire Corp. For Canadian Tire to be liable, the plaintiff must prove: A) Ladder was used incorrectly B) Ladder had pre-existing defects/damage or inadequate warnings C) Ladder was more than 5 steps D) Ladder was purchased online

Answer 39

Answer: B) Ladder had pre-existing defects/damage or inadequate warnings

Question 40

Chapter 8 - Court Case 3: Farmakis v. Canadian Tire Corp. Did the plaintiff prove that the ladder had defects prior to purchase? A) Yes B) No C) Only partially D) Not discussed

Answer 40

Answer: B) No

Question 41

Chapter 8 - Court Case 3: Farmakis v. Canadian Tire Corp. Why was expert testimony on ladder defects 3 years after the fall insufficient? A) Experts were biased B) Experts could not travel to Greece C) Evidence could not prove defects existed prior to purchase D) Ladder was destroyed

Answer 41

Answer: C) Evidence could not prove defects existed prior to purchase

Question 42

Chapter 8 - Court Case 3: Farmakis v. Canadian Tire Corp. How is the defendant’s duty to warn determined? A) By the price of the product B) By the character and complexity of the product C) By the number of steps on the ladder D) By the location of sale

Answer 42

Answer: B) By the character and complexity of the product

Question 43

Chapter 8 - Court Case 3: Farmakis v. Canadian Tire Corp. What did the judge say about the risk of using a step ladder? A) High risk B) Medium risk C) Low risk D) Extreme risk

Answer 43

Answer: C) Low risk

Question 44

Chapter 8 - Court Case 3: Farmakis v. Canadian Tire Corp. Were warning labels present on the ladder at trial? A) Yes, all labels intact B) No labels present C) Only one label D) Unknown

Answer 44

Answer: B) No labels present

Question 45

Chapter 8 - Court Case 3: Farmakis v. Canadian Tire Corp. Did the plaintiff admit to removing labels? A) Yes B) No C) Only one label D) Not mentioned

Answer 45

Answer: A) Yes

Question 46

Chapter 8 - Court Case 3: Farmakis v. Canadian Tire Corp. How many warning labels did the ladder probably have when purchased? A) 2 B) 3 C) 4 D) 5

Answer 46

Answer: C) 4

Question 47

Chapter 8 - Court Case 3: Farmakis v. Canadian Tire Corp. Did the defendant meet industry standards regarding manufacture and labelling? A) Yes B) No C) Partially D) Unknown

Answer 47

Answer: A) Yes