1. Proust was out driving her brand new Porsche. As Delft approached her from the opposite direction, Delft's car suddenly swerved over the double-yellow center line of the highway and headed directly toward Proust. A statute prohibits crossing double yellow lines. Proust was forced to swerve quickly to the right side of the road in her automobile to avoid a horrendous collision with Delft. Although Proust and her car were uninjured, both cars stopped at the side of the road. Delft informed Proust that he (Delft) had been momentarily distracted by the beautiful daisies on the side of the road, and that this distraction had caused the car to cross the center line. Proust sued Delft for negligence, wishing to teach Delft a lesson. At trial, Proust proved the above facts and then rested her case. Delft then also rested his case, presenting no evidence. In discussing jury instructions with the judge, Proust argued that the court should declare that, as a matter of law, a defendant is always negligent when he or she crosses the center line of the road. Alternatively, Proust argued that under the facts of this case, the court was required to instruct the jury that it must find Delft liable, since Delft had presented no evidence to show he was not negligent. Delft, for his part, moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that Proust could not prevail as a matter of law. The court must: (a)Let the case go to the jury and instruct the jury that, as a matter of law, a defendant is negligent if he or she crosses the center line while driving a car unless the defendant can prove an excuse. (b)Let the case go to the jury and instruct the jury that they are to determine whether Delft acted negligently while driving. (c)Let the case go to the jury but instruct the jury that, under the facts of this case, if they find that Delft crossed the center line while driving, they must find that Delft acted negligently. (d)Grant Delft's motion for a directed verdict.

2. Prieto was shopping in a Davilion's Market. As he walked down the produce aisle, trying to decide what to have for dinner, he slipped on something and fell, breaking his leg. Prieto later sued Davilion's for negligence. The only testimony regarding the state of the floor at the time Prieto slipped was Prieto's testimony, which was as follows: QUESTION:What did you slip on? ANSWER: A piece of lettuce. QUESTION:What did the floor look like after you fell? ANSWER: It was messy. Several lettuce leaves were scattered. This was the only testimony presented by either party on how the accident occurred. At the end of the evidence presented by both parties, Prieto and Davilion's both moved for a directed verdict in their favor. Which of the following statements is accurate? The evidence presented at trial: (a) Will require a directed verdict for Davilions. (b)Will require a directed verdict for Prieto. (c)Will be sufficient for Prieto to avoid a directed verdict against her because of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. (d)Will be sufficient for Plat to avoid a directed verdict against her even if the court does not apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

3. Diefenbach is an extremely intelligent ten-year old girl who was very interested in chemistry. She had read a number of high-school level books on the subject and liked to do experiments in her family's garage. Her friend, Pringle, was a "normal" ten-year old and had come over to watch the experiment. Pringle did not have Diefenbach's extraordinary intelligence nor her knowledge of chemicals. While doing this particular experiment, Diefenbach became distracted while talking to Pringle and forgot a warning she had read about not putting two chemicals together. When she put the chemicals together they exploded, injuring Pringle. Pringle brings an action for negligence against Diefenbach in a common law jurisdiction. (Ignore any possible contributory negligence on the part of Pringle). Which of the following statements is correct? (a) Pringle can recover for battery and for negligence. (b) Diefenbach cannot be found negligent because the jury will be instructed that Diefenbach is held to have only the knowledge that a reasonable ten-year old would possess. (c) Diefenbach can be found negligent for forgetting her knowledge of chemicals even if most other ten-year olds would not have that knowledge. (d) Diefenbach's actions were negligent as a matter of law