Hypotheticals

Question 1

P, an animal control officer, quaratnines a dog who had bitten a child. P allows the owner to take the dog home after a week, in violation of a quarantine statute that requires her to hold the dog for fourteen days. The next day, the dog runs in front of J’s car. J swerves to avoid the dog and is injured.

Answer 1

The statute was likely enacted to protect dogs from biting other people. The class of person it was intended to protect was people who are bit by dogs. Therefore, it is probably not negligence per se because the purpose of the statute was not violated.

Question 2

Statute says if you see an emergency vehicle, a driver must pull over to the side of the road and remain there until the emergency vehicle has passed safely. Driver D observes an ambulance approaching with its lights flashing and sirens sounding, but failed to comply with this statute. B, a person in D’s car is injured in the resulting collision.

Answer 2

D will try to say that the statute was enacted to prevent accidents to people in emergency vehicles (like police officers or people in ambulances). B will likely say the statute was enacted to prevent accidents in general, and the class of people to be protected are all people on the road. B’s argument is more persuasive, and it is likely negligence per se on D.

Question 3

Statute requires a fence at least 4 feet high around private pools. B has a pool with a 4 foot fence. A, a child of 7, climbs over the fence, jumps in the pool, and drowns. A’s parents sue B for negligence in failing to prevent children from entering the pool. What will B argue, and what will the judge instruct the jury?

Answer 3

B would argue that because she followed the statute, she is therefore not negligent. The judge will instruct the jury to find if B followed the statute or not.

Question 4

A’s front tire blows out while he is driving down Sunset Blvd. He sues Firewall Tire, the manufacturer of the tire. Does he have a res ipsa case?

Answer 4

Probably not. Tires can blow for any number of reasons, not just the manufacturer making a defect product.

Question 5

C, a three-year old toddler, comes home from daycare. Throughout the evening, he complains of a sore arm. His parents finally take him to the ER, where an x-ray reveals his left arm is broken. The parents sue the daycare center for negligence. Do they have a res ipsa case?

Answer 5

Likely not. C is a three-year-old toddler, and three y/o’s often like to play and can get around. Arms can break for any number of things other than negligence.

Question 6

C, a three-month-old toddler, comes home from daycare. Throughout the evening, he complains of a sore arm. His parents finally take him to the ER, where an x-ray reveals his left arm is broken. The parents sue the daycare center for negligence. Do they have a res ipsa case?

Answer 6

Yes, an accident of this nature would not happen to a child without negligence.

Question 7

While walking along the sidewalk in front of a hotel, P was struck on head by a chair that was apparently thrown out a hotel window. Plaintiff sued the hotel, charging negligence. Is there a res ipsa case here?

Answer 7

No. The negligence is likely not attributable to the hotel. (Exclusive control)

Question 8

A fire negligently started by defendant destroys most of a city block. Plaintiff business owner suffers burns. As a result, plaintiff must shut down business for 2 weeks. Can plaintiff recover for lost profits?

Answer 8

Yes, because there were physical damages as well as economic ones.

Question 9

A fire negligently started by defendant destroys most of a city block. Plaintiff business suffers smoke damage. As a result, plaintiff must shut down business for 2 weeks. Can plaintiff recover for lost profits?

Answer 9

Yes, because there was actual property damage as well as economic loss.

Question 10

A fire negligently started by defendant destroys most of a city block. Plaintiff and her business are spared damage. However, as result of the fire, no customers come to plaintiff’s business for 2 weeks. Can plaintiff recover for lost profits?

Answer 10

No, the damages are purely economical. No property or physical damages. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot recover.

Question 11

A is burnings brush on his farm, at a place 100ft from public highway. High winds blow smoke to high and obstruct view of passing motorists. Two motorists, B and C, are off the premises and collide in the smoke and are injured even though they exercised reasonable care in driving their cars

Answer 11

Because A was doing an activity on his premises, there was a duty owed to the motorists off the premises.

Question 12

A owns land with wooded area in which he knows people occasionally trespass during hunting season. A fires at a bird without looking to see if any trespasser is there, and shoots B, a trespasser, whose presence A could have discovered if he had taken the slightest pains to do so. Did A owe B a duty?

Answer 12

B is not a known trespasser but he did not know he was on the land. A is not required to check for trespassers or try to find out if a trespasser is there. Therefore, A did not owe B a duty.

Question 13

A invited B to lunch. A knows that this private road has been so damaged by recent rains as to be dangerous, but does not warn B of this condition, reasonably believing that B will see the bad condition of the road and will drive with sufficient care to avoid harm. B’s attention is diverted from the road, he fails to see the bad condition of the road, and he skids off the road into a tree. Is there a duty owed?

Answer 13

B is a licensee because he is a social guest. If the damages are non-obvious, a duty of reasonable care is owed because A would have known about it. If the damages are obvious, then A does not have a duty to warn B of the harm.

Question 14

A invited B to lunch. A did not know that this private road had been so damaged by recent rains as to be dangerous, but could have easily discovered it. B’s attention is diverted from the road, he fails to see the bad condition of the road, and he skids off the road into a tree. Is there a duty owed?

Answer 14

A does not owe B a duty of reasonable care because B is a licensee, and A does not need to inspect the road for B.

Question 15

A is a veterinarian and B is bringing his dog to A for shots. A knows that this private road has been so damaged by recent rains as to be dangerous, but does not warn B of this condition, reasonably believing that B will see the bad condition of the road and will drive with sufficient care to avoid harm. B’s attention is diverted from the road, he fails to see the bad condition of the road, and he skids off the road into a tree. Is there a duty owed?

Answer 15

There is a duty of reasonable care owed to warn or make safe of dangerous condition because B is an invitee of A.

Question 16

Polluters A and B negligently released chemicals into C’s pond. As result, all of C’s fish died. Testimony establishes that both companies released amounts of pollution that would have killed the fish. What type of cause is this, and what is the result? (Multiple sufficient, multiple insufficient, or other?)

Answer 16

Multiple sufficient cause, and A & B will be jointly and severally held liable.

Question 17

Cleaning service negligent leaves the door to plaintiffs business unlocked. Security guard, who is required to check all doors, negligently omits to check this one. What type of cause is this, and what is the result? (Multiple sufficient, multiple insufficient, or other?)

Answer 17

Multiple insufficient cause because they are each a “but-for” cause. The security guard and the cleaning service agent will be jointly and severally held liable.

Question 18

A and B negligently started separate fires. The fire started by A reached C’s property and burned C’s house to the ground. Moments later, the fire started by B reached C’s property. Either fire alone would have been sufficient to completely burn C’s House. Which party(s) will be liable?

Answer 18

A will be liable because A’s caused the fire, which was what caused the actual harm. B’s fire did not do any damage. Therefore, A will be completely liable because A is the cause and B had no joint cause.

Question 19

A is driving on a snowy night, and B comes around the corner and nearly crashes into A. A’s car is stuck in the snow, and so A has to get out to get it going. While A is in the road, C comes around the corner, slams on his breaks, and skids into A. Assuming that B was negligent in his driving, is B liable for A’s injury?

Answer 19

Yes, B’s negligence is the proximate cause for A’s injury. It is foreseeable that B’s negligence would cause A to have to get his car out of the snow, and that he could be hit in the process of doing that. Therefore, B satisfies the cause part of negligence and would be liable.

Question 20

T was working in a small room with an open flame and forced to use gasoline to clean a machine. A gasoline soaked rat in the room darted into the flame and there was an explosion, killing T. Did T’s employer proximately cause the injury to T?

Answer 20

Yes. Even though the manner in which the explosion happened (the gasoline soaked rat) was unusual, the foreseeable risk in this scenario is that the gasoline could come into contact with the open flame. That is precisely what happened. Assuming the other elements of negligence are met, T’s employer would be held liable for the injury.

Question 21

Steve, a raging alcoholic, is hit by a taxi in New York. While in the hospital recovering from his injuries, Steve dies from alcohol withdrawals. Steve probably would have died from his alcoholism at some point, but being hit by the taxi hastened his death. Is the taxi driver liable for Steve’s death?

Answer 21

Yes, this is an example of the “thin skull” rule. The taxi driver has to take the plaintiff as they find them. Even though Steve would have died, his death was still hastened by the accident, therefore the driver is liable.

Question 22

IN 1809 John is working on his property and had to lay a pole across the road in front of his house. There is room around each side of the pole for people riding by on horses to go around. Frank is drunk and riding his horse hard down the road by John’s home. He does not see the pole both because he is riding too fast and is drunk. He runs over the pole, falls off his horse, and breaks his arm and a leg. Is Frank liable to John for negligence?

Answer 22

Probably not. If Frank was taking ordinary care while riding his horse, he would have seen the pole and would have gone around it, thus avoiding all injury. Though John was the one who obstructed the road, Frank could have gone around it with no problems and there would not have been an injury. Therefore, John is likely not liable to Frank because Frank’s negligence contributed to the accident. (Butterfield v. Forrester, 1809)

Question 23

P sues D for injuries from skiing accident. D files counterclaim for injuries in the same accident. A jury finds P suffered $75,000 in damages and the D suffered $30,000 in damages. The jury also finds that the plaintiff was 2/3 at fault and the defendant was 1/3 at fault. What will P recover in a state that follows pure comparative fault rules? Modified?

Answer 23

Pure: P recovers $25,000 (which is their total damages reduced by P’s 2/3 negligence)
50-50 Modified: P recovers nothing because they are more than 50% at fault.
49-51 Modified: P recovers nothing because they are more than 50% at fault.

Question 24

P sues D for injuries from skiing accident. D files counterclaim for injuries in the same accident. A jury finds P suffered $75,000 in damages and the D suffered $30,000 in damages. The jury also finds that the plaintiff was 2/3 at fault and the defendant was 1/3 at fault. What will D recover in a state that follows pure comparative fault rules? Modified?

Answer 24

Pure: D recovers $20,000 (which is their total damages reduced by D’s 1/3 negligence)
50-50 Modified: D recovers $20,000 because they are less than 50% at fault. Their own negligent conduct will reduce their total damages by 1/3 (since they share 1/3 of the fault).
49-51 Modified: D recovers $20,000 because they are less than 50% at fault. Their own negligent conduct will reduce their total damages by 1/3 (since they share 1/3 of the fault).