Blog

A landowner owned a large tract of mineral- rich land in a sparsely populated area. He entered into a lease with a prospector who was interested in developing the land for mining. The term of the lease was two years and gave the prospector an option to buy the property at any time after the first year. The prospector did not record the lease. Six months later, the prospector left the land for a period of time to prospect in Mexico, leaving no goods on the land that would identify him. The landowner then conveyed the property in fee simple to a developer, who had inspected the property while the prospector was in Mexico and was unaware of the prior transac- tion. The developer did not immediately record her deed. After three months in Mexico, the prospector returned to the land and encountered the developer. A statute in the jurisdiction provides, in part: “No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land, other than a lease for less than one year, is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof whose conveyance is first recorded.” If the developer brings an action to quiet title, how should the court rule?

A vintner whose winery building burned down sued a supply company, alleging that  two large tanks that he had purchased from the supply company a month earlier had overheated and caused the fire. The supply company’s defense is that the fire was caused by the vintner’s failure to install modern electrical wiring in the rather old building. At trial, the vintner seeks to establish that the tanks overheated by testifying that, two weeks after the tanks were installed, a supply company employee came to inspect the installation, and the vintner said to him, “You know, sometimes these tanks get awful hot.” Should the vintner be permitted to so testify?

Seventeen years ago, a lumberjack purchased Lot 1, which is adjacent to Lot 2 and Lot 3. A public road runs along the far side of Lots 2 and 3. At the time of the purchase, he asked the owner of Lot 2 to grant him an easement to use the paved way across Lot 2 to haul logs to the public road. The owner of Lot 2 agreed. The lumberjack paid nothing for the easement, and the deed granting the easement was properly recorded. For six months, the lumberjack hauled logs across Lot 2. The lumberjack then negotiated with the owner of Lot 3, and she granted him a license to haul logs on the gravel road across Lot 3 to the public road, a shorter distance than the route across Lot 2. The lumberjack paid the owner of Lot 3 a modest annual fee for this privilege. Since that time, the lumberjack has never used the paved way across Lot 2 for any purpose. Six months ago, the owner of Lot 2 conveyed the lot to a buyer, and two weeks ago, the buyer had a chain-link fence built around the perimeter of Lot 2, which blocked the lumber- jack’s access to the paved way crossing Lot 2. One week ago, acting within her rights, the owner of Lot 3 revoked the lumberjack’s license to use the gravel road crossing Lot 3. The next day, the lumberjack demanded that the buyer of Lot 2 remove the chain-link fence because of the easement, but the buyer refused. The state has a 15-year prescription and adverse possession period. Which of the following best represents the lumberjack’s rights under the circumstances?

A mother brought her nine-year-old son to an indoor shopping mall. She was not planning on making any purchases that day, just spending some time with her son. When her son needed to use the men’s restroom, his mother did some window shopping at the adjacent store. A criminal cornered the boy in the men’s room and assaulted him. The criminal then quickly left the mall and has not been apprehended. The mother filed suit against the mall’s owner on behalf of her son for the injuries he suffered. If the mall is found not liable, what is the likely reason?

A young boy was hospitalized after he accidentally swallowed a coin while playing. The boy recovered, but his mother began suffering feelings of anxiety, worrying that her child might be injured again. The mother went to a movie to relax and ordered some popcorn. While handling her change, the concession stand attendant carelessly dropped a quarter into the popcorn, which the mother did not notice until she bit the quarter. She did not swallow the quarter, nor did she bite on it hard enough to injure her teeth or gums, but the feel of the coin brought back all her anxieties about the boy’s injury. The mother sued the movie theater for her emotional distress. If the jury finds that a reasonable person would not have suffered similar distress under the circumstances, is the mother likely to prevail?

The nurse is preparing to administer medication to a patient. Which of the following demonstrates understanding of the seven rights of drug administration?

What four characteristics are you assessing when assessing repirations?    

Which statement made by the CNA, working in a nursing home, indicates the CNA is safe to administer an enema?  

Cold compresses are most often used :

A nurse is assessing a patient immediately after the placement of a colostomy. Which assessment finding would the nurse expect to see?