¶ K. A tort is:

¶ L, lines 108-109.  At one point, Nadiya considered telling the authorities what Pru was doing, but she feared retaliation and the financial hardship of probably losing her job. If Nadiya had done this, she would have:

¶ H, lines 72-74. After that March 1 appearance by Liverpool, the facts of this case were presented to a panel of 23 people from the community who also issued charges against Liverpool. The charge provided by that panel was presented to Liverpool at the next court appearance on April 1.By going this route to charge a crime, the prosecution avoids the possibility of what?

“Law is not a guide to morality.” Why? (3 points)

¶ L, lines 101-103. Pru would have preferred financing through a bank but unfortunately in 2010 Pru had previously submitted false financial statements to the local bank, and once that was discovered, the bank declined to to business with Pru ever again.Pru could have been charged with the crime of:

¶ B, lines 26-27. Fielding was upset, reached behind the counter for a gun, went to the door and fired a shot toward a fleeing Liverpool.If Fielding’s pointed the gun at Liverpool as he was running away, killing Liverpool, Fielding could be sued by the estate of Liverpool for the tort of:

This ends the questions based primarily on the Unit 4 fact pattern. The remaining questions are general Unit 4 questions. Choose yes or no to proceed (either is accepted, no points are given).

¶ K, lines 88-89. While in the hospital, Nadiya was visited by a therapy dog. (See Exhibit 5.) Unfortunately, an orderly pushing a cart ran over the dog’s tail causing the dog to nip Nadiya’s nose.Under tort law, which is true about liability of the dog’s owner as to Nadiya’s injury caused by the dog bite/nip?

¶ K, lines 90-91. While in the hospital … Things got even worse when the therapy monkey came to visit Nadiya’s hospital bed for reasons you may recall from the video played in class. (See Exhibit 6.)Under tort law, which is true about liability of the dog’s owner as to Nadiya’s injury caused by the dog bite/nip?

When professional hockey first came to the United States, many spectators injured by flying hockey pucks sued and recovered for negligence. But as time went on and spectators came to realize that attending a hockey game meant that one might occasionally be exposed to a flying hockey puck, courts began to allow the defendant owners of hockey teams were no longer liable to injured spectators. This explains the defense to negligence of: