July-August 2017 LACBA MCLE Test and Answer Sheet

Test No. 269: TAKING IT HOME

To access the article related to this test, please click here.
  
Instructions for Obtaining MCLE Credit

The Los Angeles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour. To apply for credit, please follow the instructions.

1. Study the CLE article.

2. Answer the test questions by marking the appropriate boxes. Each question has only one answer.

3. Photocopies of this answer sheet may be submitted; however, this form should not be enlarged or reduced. Mail the answer sheet and the $20 testing fee ($25 for non-LACBA members) to:

Los Angeles Lawyer
MCLE Test
P.O. Box 55020
Los Angeles, CA 90055

Make checks payable to Los Angeles Lawyer.

4. You can also fill in the test form and submit it directly to LACBA by clicking "Submit." To submit your test answers online you will need to pay by credit card. After submitting your answers you will be presented with a screen requesting payment information. This information will be submitted in a secure mode which will allow you to safely transmit your credit card number over the Internet. If you prefer not to pay by credit card, please print this answer sheet and submit your responses by regular mail.

5. Within six weeks, Los Angeles Lawyer will return your test with the correct answers, a rationale for the correct answers, and a certificate verifying the CLE credit you earned through this self-study activity.

6. For future reference, please retain the CLE test materials returned to you.


 

Test Sheet
 



  
Mark your answers to the test by clicking next to your choice.  All questions must be answered.  Each question has only one answer. This test is worth 1 hour of credit.*

1. Under California law, there is a general duty of care under which a person is responsible for injuries caused by his or her negligence.


2. The factors identified in Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108, 112-13 (1968), are used to determine whether there has been a breach of the duty of care in a negligence action.


3. Secondary or “take-home” exposure to asbestos, in the context of asbestos personal injury litigation, generally refers to a person’s exposure to asbestos from physical proximity to or contact with another person who was exposed to asbestos in the course of that person’s work activities.


4. Under California law, employers and landowners owe a duty of care to prevent take-home exposure to asbestos.


5. Under California law, the duty of care to prevent take-home exposure to asbestos extends to all persons injured from such exposure.


6. Whether a person is a member of a worker’s household, for purposes of the duty of care to prevent take-home exposure to asbestos, depends solely on whether the person has a traditional family or biological relationship with the worker.


7. California is the only state that recognizes a duty of care to prevent take-home exposure to asbestos.


8. The sophisticated intermediary doctrine addresses the circumstances under which a product supplier can discharge its duty to warn end users about the hazards of its product by conveying warnings to an intermediary purchaser or by selling to a sophisticated purchaser.


9. The sophisticated intermediary doctrine is an affirmative defense that the product supplier has the burden of proving.


10. To discharge its duty to warn under the sophisticated intermediary doctrine, a product supplier must always provide an adequate warning to the intermediary purchaser about the product’s particular hazards.


11. To discharge its duty to warn under the sophisticated intermediary doctrine, a product supplier is only required to show that it provided an adequate warning to the intermediary purchaser or sold to a sophisticated purchaser.


12. In a claim for injury by an employee of an intermediary purchaser, a product supplier can establish a defense under the sophisticated intermediary doctrine based solely on evidence that the purchaser-employer was sophisticated.


13. Either direct or indirect (circumstantial) evidence can be used to prove the reliance element of the sophisticated intermediary doctrine.


14. Under the sophisticated intermediary doctrine, whether a product supplier actually and reasonably relied on an intermediary to convey warnings to end users typically raises questions of fact for the jury to determine.


15. To prove causation in an asbestos-related injury case, the plaintiff must first prove some exposure to asbestos from the defendant’s product and must then prove that the exposure was, in reasonable medical probability, a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.


16. To establish causation in an asbestos-related cancer case, the plaintiff is required to prove that asbestos fibers from the defendant’s product were the fibers, or among the fibers, that actually started the process of malignant cellular growth.


17. Causation in an asbestos-related cancer case can be proven by competent expert testimony that every exposure to asbestos contributes to the risk of developing the disease


18. To prove causation in an asbestos-related injury case, the plaintiff must provide an estimate of the dose of asbestos received from the defendant’s product.


19. In determining causation in an asbestos-related injury case, the jury is required to consider the length, frequency, proximity, and intensity of exposure from the defendant’s product, the particular properties of the product, and any other potential causes of the injury.


20. Only the testimony of a medical doctor can establish causation in an asbestos-related injury case.

 


Before clicking the Submit button, please verify that all questions have been answered. An error message will appear if not all questions are answered.

* The Los Angeles County Bar Association has been approved as a continuing legal education provider of Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California. This self-assessment activity will qualify for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one hour.