Read the text below and answer the question. There's only one correct answer.   Text: Emily is a professional photographer who rents a studio space in a busy downtown area. One day, while she is setting up for a photoshoot, a heavy sign from an adjacent building falls and injures her. The sign was not properly secured, and Emily learns that the building owner had received complaints about it being loose but had not taken any action to fix it. Emily decides to file a lawsuit against the building owner for her injuries.   Question: What legal principle is at play in Emily's case when she decides to sue the building owner for her injuries?

• Contractual Liability – Emily is suing because the building owner failed to fulfill a contract with her.
• Tortious Liability – Emily is suing because the building owner's negligence led to her injury.
• Criminal Liability – Emily is suing because the building owner committed a crime by allowing the sign to fall.

📚 Похожие вопросы по этой дисциплине

• Read the dialogue and answer the question. There's only one correct answer.   Mike: Hey, Karen! What are you studying now? Karen: Law. The law of tort to be specific. Mike: Sounds boring. Karen: Well, maybe it's not the most thrilling subject, but it's important in understanding legal responsibility for harm caused by one person to another. Mike: Like, if someone slips and falls on your property and gets injured? Karen: Yes, that would fall under negligence, a type of tort. It involves proving that someone failed to take reasonable care and caused harm as a result. Mike: So if I spill coffee all over my neighbor's expensive couch, could they sue me for damages? Karen: Absolutely. That would be an intentional tort, where someone deliberately causes harm or damage to another person or their property. Mike: Wow. You really know your stuff. Karen: Thanks. I find it interesting how complex and varied the laws of tort can be. Mike: Do you think you'll specialize in this area after law school? Karen: Maybe. But there are also other areas of law that interest me too, so I'm still keeping my options open. Mike: Well, whatever you decide, I have no doubt you're going to make a great lawyer. Now let's go grab some lunch before my stomach commits an intentional tort against me. Karen: Haha, sounds good. Let's go!   Question: How does Karen feel about specializing in tort law after law school?
• Read the text below and answer the question. There's only one correct answer.   Text: James owns a small bakery in a residential neighborhood. One day, he decides to install an outdoor seating area for customers. To create the seating area, he places several tables and chairs on the sidewalk directly outside his shop. However, James does not leave enough space for pedestrians to pass comfortably. A neighbor, Sarah, complains that she has to walk into the street to get around the seating area, which is dangerous, especially with heavy traffic. After a few weeks, Sarah trips over one of the chairs that has been pushed out onto the sidewalk and injures her ankle. She decides to take legal action against James.   Question: What legal principle is primarily at play in Sarah's case when she decides to sue James for her injury?
• Read the dialogue and answer the question. There's only one correct answer.   Kelly: Wow, that's a lot of information on tort law. Did you understand all of it? Mark: Honestly, most of it went over my head. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept of negligence. Kelly: I remember studying this in college. Negligence is when someone breaches their duty of care and causes harm to another person, right? Mark: Yeah, that sounds about right. But there are also certain defenses available in cases of negligence. Like for psychiatric injury or economic loss. Kelly: Wait, so can anyone sue for those things under the premise of negligence? Mark: Not necessarily. The courts use a three-step test to determine if there is a duty of care owed by the defendant to the victim. Kelly: Ah, I see. So basically, the first step is proving that the harm was reasonably foreseeable? Mark: Exactly. And then the second step looks at the relationship between the two parties - whether it's one of proximity or not. Kelly: And finally, the third step considers if it would be fair and just to hold the defendant liable for their actions. Mark: Right. It seems like the case of Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman was a turning point in establishing this threefold test. Kelly: Yeah, it definitely set a precedent. But I can imagine it must have been challenging determining liability in a complex situation like that. Mark: Definitely. And with the ever-changing laws and legal systems, it's important to constantly stay informed and educated.   Question: What are some defenses available in cases of negligence?
• Read the text below and answer the question. There's only one correct answer.   Text: Emily is a law student in England who is interested in pursuing a career in the legal profession. She is trying to understand the differences between barristers, solicitors, and judges. Recently, she attended a seminar where different legal professionals spoke about their roles. After the seminar, Emily has a few questions regarding who does what in the legal system.   Question: Which of the following statements correctly describes the role of a barrister in England?
• Read the text below and answer the question. There's only one correct answer.   Text: James is a university student studying law in England. He is particularly interested in understanding the differences between civil and criminal courts, as well as the structure of the legal system, including appeals and tribunals. After attending a guest lecture on the topic, he reflects on the advantages of having a case head in the Crown Court and how appeals work.   Question: Which of the following statements correctly describes an advantage of having a case head in the Crown Court?