法律英语动态

LEC法律英语证书考试真题分享(01.04)

2022-1-4 9:25:48 admin 128

上期答案:CDDC


49. A driver negligently ran into a pedestrian who was walking along a road. The
pedestrian sustained an injury to his knee, causing it to buckle from time to time. Several
months later, the pedestrian sustained an injury to his shoulder when his knee buckled,
causing him to fall down a flight of stairs. The pedestrian then brought an action against the
driver for the injuries to his knee and shoulder.

In his action against the driver, for which of his injuries may the pedestrian recover
damages?

A. For the injuries to his knee and shoulder, because the driver takes the victim as he
finds him.

B. For the injuries to his knee and shoulder, if the jury finds that the pedestrian’s fall
down a flight of stairs was a normal consequence of his original injury.

C. For the injury to his knee only, because the injury to the pedestrian's shoulder is
separable.

D. For the injury to his knee only, if the jury finds that the driver could not have
foreseen that his negligent driving would cause the pedestrian to fall down a flight of
stairs.

50. A rancher and his neighbor were involved in a boundary dispute. In order to resolve
their differences, each drove his truck to an open pasture area on his land where the two
properties were separated by a fence. The rancher was accompanied by four friends, and the
neighbor was alone.

The neighbor got out of his truck and walked toward the fence. The rancher got out but
simply stood by his truck. When the neighbor came over the fence, the rancher shot him,
inflicting serious injury.

In a battery action brought by the neighbor against the rancher, the rancher testified that
he actually thought his neighbor was armed, although he could point to nothing that would
have reasonably justified this belief.

Is the neighbor likely to prevail?

A. No, because the rancher was standing on his own property and had no obligation to
retreat.

       B. No, because the rancher suspected that the neighbor was armed.

       C. Yes, because deadly force is never appropriate in a property dispute.

D. Yes, because it was unreasonable for the rancher to consider the use of a gun
necessary for self-defense.

51. A driver was traveling along a highway during an unusually heavy rainstorm when
the roadway began to flood. To protect his car from water damage, the driver pulled his car
up a steep, unmarked driveway abutting the highway that led to a homeowner's residence.
The driver left his car parked in the driveway and walked home, intending to return when the
floodwater had subsided. Shortly after the drive started to walk home, the homeowner
carefully rolled the car back down his driveway and parked it on the highway shoulder. The
floodwater continued to rise and caused damage to the driver’s car.

If the driver sues the homeowner to recover for damage to the car, is the driver likely to
prevail?

A. Yes, because the driver was privileged to park his car on the homeowner’s property.

B. Yes, because there were no 'no trespassing' signs posted.

C. No, because the diver intentionally drove his car onto the homeowner's property.

D. No, because the homeowner was privileged to remove the car from his property.

52. A hotel employed a carefully selected independent contractor to rebuild its
swimming pool. The hotel continued to operate while the pool was being rebuilt. The contract
between the hotel and contractor required the contractor to indemnify the hotel for any
liability arising from the contractor’s negligent acts. A guest of the hotel fell into the
excavation, which the contractor had negligently left unguarded.

In an action by the guest against the hotel to recover for his injuries, what would be the
most likely outcome?

A. Liability, because the hotel had a nondelegable duty to the guest to keep a safe
premises.

B. Liability, because the contract between the hotel and the contractor required the
contractor to indemnify the hotel for any liability arising from the contractor’s
negligent acts.

       C. No liability, because the contractor was the actively negligent party.

       D. No liability, because the hotel exercised reasonable care in employing the contractor.



答案见下期发布。



法平二维码.jpg

立即咨询法平客服

法律英语与涉外法律培训品牌-法平教育!




标签: LEC真题

评论列表

法平客服微信
LEC考试QQ交流群