法律英语证书LEC2018年11月真题试卷一6

Questions 51-52 are based on the following fact situation: Emma was the owner in fee simple of Greenacre, a tract of land. In 1965, Emma conveyed Greenacre to Martha, "for life and then to the first child of Martha's sister, Vera, who shall reach the age of 21." Vera was unmarried and childless in 1965. In 1971, Vera married, and in 1973, Vera gave birth to a son, Oscar. In 1994, Oscar reached the age of 21, and Martha was still alive and living on Greenacre.

51.Oscar now seeks to obtain possession of Greenacre and brings an action in ejectment against Martha. Martha's best defense against Oscar's attempt to eject her is that:（A）

A.Martha"s life estate was not subject to termination during her lifetime.

B.Oscar has no claim to Greenacre, because he was not living at the time of Emma, s original conveyance.

C.A conveyance of Greenacre to Oscar violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.

D.Oscar's interest, if any, would be that of a contingent remainder, and the contingency is Martha's death.

52.Assume that Martha died before Oscar became 21. Assume also that the jurisdiction has abolished the common law rule of destructibility of contingent remainders. Who would be the owner of Greenacre?（D）

A.Oscar.

B.Oscar's court-appointed guardian ad litem.

C.Emma and her heirs in fee simple.

D.Emma and her heirs would take the estate until Oscar became 21 years of age.

D.Questions 53-54 are based on the following fact situation: Danny is 10-year-old, and although his parents make sure he is home by 10 p.m. during the school week, they do not really enforce any sort of curfew on their son during the weekend. One Saturday night, when Danny’s parents went to bed at midnight, Danny was still out. About 2 a.m., Danny and two other children were arrested by the police for breaking the windows and causing other damage to Bernadette's antique Cord automobile.

53.In a suit by Bernadette against Danny for the damages he caused to her automobile, Bernadette should:（B）

A.Prevail, because Danny, at the age of 10, should have been aware of the consequences of his action.

B.Prevail, because Danny deliberately damaged her car.

C.Not prevail, because Danny is presumed to be under care of his parents and, therefore, is not legally responsible for his tortuous conduct.

D.Not prevail, unless she can show that Danny was mature enough to be aware of the consequences of his action.

54.Assume that the jurisdiction has no statute regarding parental liability. In a suit by Bernadette against Danny's parents for the damages caused to her automobile, Bernadette should:（C）

A.Prevail, because a minor's parents are vicariously liable anytime the minor commits a tortuous act.

B.Prevail, because Danny's parents did not ensure that Danny was home at a reasonable hour.

C.Not prevail, unless she can show that Danny's parents were aware that Danny has done this sort of act before.

D.Not prevail, because there is no reason to assume that Danny's parents could know that Danny might damage Bernadette's automobile.

Questions 55-56 are based on the following fact situation: Clara has been having a running battle with her neighbor, Duncan, for several months over the fact that when he operates his ham radio at night, it interferes with her television reception. One night at about 2 a.m., Clara was watching one of her favorite old movies on television when Duncan started transmitting on his radio. Furious that he was again causing her to miss something she wanted to watch on television. Clara decided to fix him by cutting down his radio antenna. She got the ladder from her garage and climbed on top of Duncan’s two-story house. However, just as she got to the antenna, her foot slipped and if she had not been able to grab hold of one of the support cables, she would have fallen to the street below. Duncan was unable to hear her cries for help because he was using earphones. Fortunately for Clara, the driver of a passing car, Eldon, saw her hanging from Duncan’s roof. Eldon immediately came to her rescue and pulled her back onto the roof. However, as he straightened up after getting Clara back on the roof*, he accidentally touched Duncan’s antenna and suffered an electric shock. He fell from the roof and suffered severe burns on his back and a broken hip.

55.Eldon sued Clara for the injuries he suffered. Eldon should:（C）

A.Not prevail, because he voluntarily assumed the risk of injury.

B.Not prevail, because the rescue of Clara was already over before he was injured.

C.Prevail, because Clara was at fault in slipping from Duncan's roof.

D.Prevail, because Clara may have been killed if she had fallen to the street.

56.Can Eldon assert a valid claim against Duncan for the injuries he suffered while trying to rescue Clara?（D）

A.Yes, because Duncan’s refusal to take steps to insure that his radio would not interfere with Clam's television created this problem.

B.Yes, if the facts show that Duncan could have taken steps to prevent his antenna from shocking anyone.

C.No, because Eldon voluntarily assumed the risks.

D.No, because Duncan was not at fault.

57.Worker entered into a written contract with Owner to install aluminum siding onto Owner's house. The contract called for all work to be completed by the following Tuesday. On that date, Worker finished installing the siding rather late in the afternoon. Wishing to get home as soon as possible, Worker decided that he would come back the next day and pick up his ladder and tools. Worker could not tell Owner of this plan, however, because Owner was out of town overnight on business. During the night, a thief used Worker’s ladder and tools to gain entrance to Owner's home and steal Owner's television set and stereo. Owner had asserted a claim against Worker for damages for the loss of the television and the stereo. In his claim against Worker, Owner will:（A）

A.Prevail, because by leaving the ladder and tools out, Worker created the risk that a person might unlawfully enter the house.

B.Prevail, because Worker failed to get Owner's permission to leave his ladder and tools on Owner's property overnight.

C.Not prevail, because the act of the thief was an independent superseding cause.

D.Not prevail, because Owner's only recovery would be by way of an action for breach of contract.

58.A city ordinance required that all dogs be leashed when taken outside of an enclosed area. Bee often allowed her dog, Bop, to run loose in front of Bee's house. One day, when Bop was running loose, Dina was driving her car up the street in front of Bee's house. The day was clear and sunny and Dina was driving carefully at a speed somewhat below the posted limit. Bop dashed out into the street from between two parked cars. Dina alertly applied her brakes, but could not avoid striking Bop. Pris, driving another vehicle behind Dina, promptly applied her brakes as soon as she saw the red lights glow on the rear of Dina's vehicle. However, Pris's vehicle struck the rear of Dina's vehicle. Both of the vehicles suffered damage and both drivers suffered minor injuries which required X-rays and other medical attention. If Pris sues Dina for her vehicle damage and personal injuries, Pris will:（D）

A.Prevail, because the ordinance was designed to prevent dogs from being hit by cars.

B.Prevail, because Dina was a proximate cause of the accident.

C.Not prevail, because Dina obeyed the traffic laws.

D.Not prevail, unless Dina herself was negligent.

59.Parker was enjoying a steak in a local restaurant when he stated to choke. A waiter saw that Dr. Macmillan was sitting at a nearby table and the waiter ran over to ask her to help him save Parker. Dr. Macmillan stood up and told the waiter that she did not want to become involved, and she left the restaurant. Soon afterwards, the paramedics arrived and they were able to save Parker's life. Unfortunately, he suffered brain damage due to lack of oxygen. Parker brings a suit against Dr. Macmillan seeking damages for his injuries. Parker’s medical expert testified that had Parker received prompt medical attention there would have been no injuries at all. Can Parker recover damages from Dr. Macmillan?（C）

A.Yes, if the jurisdiction in which this accident occurred had a statute relieving doctors from malpractice claims when they give emergency first aid.

B.Yes, if a reasonable doctor in Dr. Macmillan's position would have rendered first aid.

C.No, because Dr. Macmillan was not responsible for Parker's condition.

D.No, unless it can be shown that Dr. Macmillan knew that Parker was substantially certain to suffer injury unless he received medical assistance from a doctor.

60.Paine and Duncan were playing tennis. Duncan became highly irritated because every time Duncan prepared to serve, Paine started talking loudly. Paine's loud talk distracted Duncan from his game, and Duncan usually faulted on his serves. Duncan told Paine to "cut it out" , but Paine persisted in the behavior. Standing several feet away, Duncan swung his tennis racket toward Pain's head. However, Duncan slipped as he swung the racket and it flew out of his hand as he lost his balance. The racket flew through the air and struck Paine in the head. Has Paine grounds for a battery action against Duncan?（A）

A.Yes, if Duncan intended to create a reasonable apprehension in Paine.

B.Yes, because the racket struck Paine.

C.No, because Duncan did not intend the racket to strike Paine.

D.No, but only if Duncan can prove that the owner of the tennis court had not maintained the court properly and this caused Duncan to slip.