Torts

Question 1

Guest Statutes

Answer 1

In most jurisdictions, automobile drivers owe a duty of ordinary care to guests (who ride free) and passengers (who pay money for the ride). But a minority of jurisdictions have enacted “guest statutes,” under which an automobile driver’s only duty to guests is to refrain from gross or wanton and willful misconduct.

Question 2

Strict Product Liability - Commercial Supplier

Answer 2

The commercial supplier of a component that is integrated into a defective product is subject to strict liability when (1) the component is defective or (2) the supplier substantially participated in the process of integrating the component into the product’s design and the component’s integration caused that product to be defective.

Question 3

Negligence Per Se - Minority Approach

Answer 3

Under the minority approach for negligence per se, a defendant’s violation of a statute or ordinance creates a rebuttable presumption (as opposed to a conclusive presumption) that the defendant breached a duty of care.

Question 4

Negligence - Damages Factors

Answer 4

In a negligence action, a plaintiff can recover compensatory damages based on: (1) the plaintiff’s initial physical harm, (2) any subsequent harm traceable to that initial harm, and (3) steps taken to mitigate the initial harm. But the plaintiff’s actions prior to the defendant’s negligent act are not a factor in determining damages.

Question 5

Negligent Misrepresentation

Answer 5

A plaintiff cannot prevail on a claim of negligent misrepresentation if it used the erroneous information for a purpose other than the one for which the information was provided.

Question 6

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Answer 6

In order for a person who is not within the zone of danger to recover under a theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress, she must (i) be closely related to the person injured by the defendant, (ii) be present at the scene of the injury, and (iii) personally observe (or otherwise perceive) the injury.

Question 7

Assumption of Risk

Answer 7

In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, assumption of the risk is not recognized as a separate defense—it has been merged into the comparative-fault analysis and merely reduces recovery. The plaintiff’s awareness of the risk of her conduct is generally taken into account in determining the degree to which she is at fault, but it can also be considered in determining the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s or the defendant’s actions.