1. The Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, section 4 in the assigned reading for Module 10 provides that
A a release of one tortfeasor is a release of all tortfeasors who are jointly and severally liable.
B a covenant not to sue is the only means by which a plaintiff can settle with one tortfeasor and still maintain suits against the remaining tortfeasors.
C a release of one tortfeasor does not discharge any of the remaining tortfeasors, unless the terms of the release expressly provide for discharge of those remaining tortfeasors.
D A & B.

2. In the case of Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1948) in the assigned reading for Module 10, the court held that
A since plaintiff could not prove which defendant fired the shot that entered plaintiff’s eye causing harm, plaintiff cannot recover from either defendant.
B if plaintiff can prove that it is at least 51% likely that the shot was fired by one of the defendants, then plaintiff can recover the entire amount of damages from that defendant.
C the burden of proof regarding causation is shifted to the defendants to prove that they were not the cause of plaintiff’s injury.
D none of the above.

3. Which case held that where the tortious acts of two or more tortfeasors join together to produce an indivisible injury, all of the wrongdoers will be held jointly and severally liable for the entire damages and plaintiff can proceed against any one tortfeasor separately or against all of them in one suit?
A Landers v. East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co., 248 S.W.2d 73 (Tex. 1952).
B Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway, 179 N.W. 45 (Minn. 1920).
C Salinetro v. Nystro, 341 So. 2d 1059 ( Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977).
D Joshi v. Providence Health Sys. Of Oregon Corp., 149 P.3d 1164 (Or. 2006).

4. Which case, held that the technical legal injury concept (which permits recovery of nominal damages) does not apply to negligence actions?
A Hale v. Ostrow, 166 S.W.3d 71 (Tenn. 2005).
B Right v. Breen, 890 A.2d 1287 (Conn. 2006).
C Viner v. Sweet, 70 P.3d 1046 (Cal. 2003).
D Jordan v. Jordan, 257 S.E.2d 761 (Va. 1979).

    • 6 years ago
    A+ answers

    Purchase the answer to view it

    • attachment