风险管理与保险前半学期课后练习答案：IMch03

1、CHAPTER 3Property and Liability Loss ExposuresPROPERTY LOSS EXPOSURESSex and Property Loss ExposuresLIABILITY EXPOSURESThe High Cost of Airplane Crashes and Other LiabilityTYPES OF LIABILITY DAMAGESBodily InjuryProperty DamagePersonal InjuryLegal ExpensesCRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAWTORTSBASIC LAW OF NEGLI

2、GENCEThe Negligent ActA Negative ActA Voluntary ActAn Imputed ActProximate Cause of the LossDEFENSES AGAINST NEGLIGENCE CLAIMSContributory NegligenceAssumed RiskGuest-Host StatutesFACTORS LEADING TO HIGHER STANDARDS OF CAREExpanding Application of LiabilityWeakening of Defenses against LiabilityRes

3、Ipsa LoquiturExpansion of Imputed LiabilityChanging Concepts of DamageIncreased Damage AwardsTYPES OF LIABILITY EXPOSURESContractual LiabilityEmployer-Employee LiabilityProperty Owner-Tenant LiabilityAssumption of Liability by TenantAttractive Nuisance DoctrineConsumption or Use of ProductsBreach of

4、 WarrantyStrict TortNegligenceCompleted Operations of a ContractorProfessional ActsPrincipal-Agent LiabilityOwnership and Operation of AutomobilesLiability of the OperatorLiability of the Owner-NonoperatorLiability of EmployersMISCELLANEOUS LIABILITYINTEGRATED RISK EXPOSURESKEY TERMS AND CONCEPTSAtt

5、ractive nuisance doctrine Collateral source ruleCivil law Common lawComparative negligence Completed operations liability Contributory negligence Criminal law Direct lossFamily-purpose doctrineGuest-host statutesHard markets Imputed actsIndirect lossInviteesJoint and several liabilityLack of privity

6、Last clear chance ruleLegal injuryLibelLicenseesNegative actNegligencePain and suffering damagesPersonal propertyPositive actProfessional liabilityPunitive damagesReal propertyRes ipsa loquiturRespondeat superiorSlanderSoft marketSuperfund legislationTortTort feasorTrespassersUnderwriting cycleVicar

7、ious liabilityVoluntary actANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION 1.Negative act, voluntary act, imputed act, and proximate cause of loss are the elements of a negative act. 2.Contributory negligence: other party was also at fault.Assumed risk: plaintiff knew of danger of the risk and partic

8、ipated in the event. Should be willing to assume the loss.Guest-Host: operator of a vehicle not liable to a guest unless grossly negligent.3.Bodily injury: medical services, loss of income, rehabilitation expenses, loss of services, pain and suffering, punitive damages.Personal injury: libel, slande

9、r, invasion of privacy.4.Invitee: invited on the premises, such as the customer of a business.Licensee: on premises for a legal purpose, such as a Mail CarrierTrespasser: any other person, such as a robber.5.The attractive nuisance doctrine is a legal doctrine that transforms the status of a trespas

10、sing minor to that of an invitee. It says that an unusual condition of the premises invites the minor to the premises.6.Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine that allows the plaintiff to collect even though the plaintiff cannot or does not prove the defendant negligent. It is useful in medical malpr

11、actice because the doctor has total control of the situation, especially surgery, and if something goes wrong the plaintiff does not cause the error or contribute to it.7.The owner, a user, and a lessee may be held responsible for the operation of an auto. Also, if someone uses an auto on your behal

12、f, you can be held liable.8.The insurance industry is supporting these types of tort reform: imposing restriction on rights to sue, limiting punitive damages and pain and suffering, reducing standard of care required for product liability, and repealing collateral source rule.9 .The effect of this d

13、ecision is to make it a little easier for a member of the public to obtain a Judgment against an employer for negligence. The question of whether or not this represents more evidence of the “trend toward absolute liability” appears borderline. If an employee smokes in an area where a safety order pr

14、ohibits smoking and, as a result, a member of the public is injured in a subsequent fire caused by the employees smoking, then negligence appears to exist and the employer is liable for the acts of its agents. On the other hand, if goggles are required in a certain area, and in observing that an emp

15、loyee failed to wear goggles, a member of the public also failed to wear goggles and suffered an eye injury thereby, the employers liability would not appear as clear-cut.Yet, strict consistency of a court would require that the employer pay. 10.a.The defendant won the case because the plaintiff fai

16、led to establish proximate cause.b.The case admirably illustrates that there must be a direct connection between some negligent act and the cause of death, accident, or injury. Even if there had been a lifeguard handy, his or her presence would not necessarily have saved the boys life. The case also

17、 illustrates assumption of risk.11.High standards of care are imposed on professionals. Although doctors are not held for failing to cure a patient, they are liable in case the patients recovery is prevented by an act of the doctor, which under reasonable prudence of similarly situated doctors would

18、 not have taken place. Failing to consider the consulting radiologists opinion that the possibility of tumor should be investigated might well be such an acta failure to behave as a reasonably prudent person should have behaved in similar circumstances. The auto mechanic case is similar. 12.There ar

19、e no data to prove that malpractice is more common now than formerly, but certainly one cannot deny that suits are becoming more common and judgments are rising. Other reasons for rising suits, besides actual malpractice, include: (1) increasing complexity of medicine; (2) breakdown of legal rules i

20、n which a local doctor must be found to testify against a fellow doctorlawyers can now in many cases bring in outside doctors for this purpose; (3) increased recognition by the public of the existence of malpractice insurance to pay resulting claims; (4) breakdown on the close ties formerly existing

21、 between a family doctor and the patient, ties that might discourage suits; and (5) increasing medical specialization and lack of communication between the various specialists over indicated medical procedures. This list is, of course, not exhaustive.SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS1.As automobile was struck

22、 by an approaching vehicle belonging to B, who had swerved to avoid striking another vehicle whose driver, C, was negligently backing out of a driveway without looking. A sued B for damages, but B defended on grounds of no negligence. A contended that it was Bs car that actually did the damage. Who

23、should win this case? Why?It seems clear that under proximate cause, Cs car was the real culprit. Bs car is merely the instrumentality by which Cs negligence was wrought. C should therefore pay, unless it can be shown that B contributed to the loss.2.In the case of Gothberg v. Nemerowski, Ill. App.,

24、 108 N.E. (2d) 12 (1965) a minor telephoned a broker of insurance and arranged to get coverage on his auto. The brokers office wrote to the applicant that insurance had been ordered as of the date of the phone call. Later the applicant called the broker to ask if the coverage was effective then, and

25、 obtaining an affirmative reply, asked the person who had answered the telephone (the broker was out of the office) to repeat this to the applicants mother, who would not let him drive the car until she knew he was insured. Prior to the date the applicant sent in the balance of his premium, he had an accident and a judgment of $20,000 was rendered against him. The applicant sued the broker for this sum but the broker denied liability on the grounds tha