Torts

Question 1

Negligence

Answer 1

Negligence requires a showing of a duty, breach, causation, and damages.

Question 2

Negligence: Duty

Answer 2

A duty is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs. Under the majority rules, foreseeable plaintiffs are those who fall within the zone of foreseeable harm. Under the minority rule, foreseeable plaintiffs are anyone who is injured.

Question 3

Negligence: Affirmative Duty to Act

Answer 3

Generally, there is no duty to act. However, a person who places another in peril is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent further harm by rendering care or aid. Similarly, a person who voluntarily aids or rescues another has a duty to act with reasonable care in the performance of that aid or rescue.

Question 4

Negligence: Standard of Care: Business Invitee

Answer 4

A business invitee is someone invited to enter or remain on land for a purpose connected to business dealing with the land possessor.

The land possessor owes a duty to use reasonable care to inspect the property, discover unreasonably dangerous conditions, and protect the invitee from them.

Question 5

Negligence: Breach

Answer 5

A breach occurs when the defendant’s conduct falls below the applicable standard of care.

Question 6

Negligence: Actual Cause

Answer 6

The defendant is the actual cause of plaintiff’s injuries if the injury would not have occurred but for the act.

Question 7

Negligence: Proximate Cause

Answer 7

The defendant’s conduct must be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Proximate cause requires the plaintiff suffer a foreseeable harm that is not too remote from the defendant’s conduct.

Question 8

Negligence: Damages

Answer 8

The plaintiff must prove actual harm, such as personal injury or property damage.

Question 9

Negligence Defense: Contributory Negligence

Answer 9

At common law, a plaintiff’s contributory negligence completely barred their right to recover.

Question 10

Negligence Defense: Comparative Fault

Answer 10

A plaintiff’s contributory negligence is normally not a complete bar to recovery but may reduce the amount of the recoverable damages.

Question 11

Negligence Defense: Assumption of the Risk

Answer 11

Assumption of the risk is a complete bar to recovery in contributory negligence jurisdictions and some comparative fault jurisdictions. It requires the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assume the risk. The plaintiff must proceed in the face of a known risk.

Question 12

Strict Liability: Domestic Animals

Answer 12

The owner of a domestic animal is strictly liable for injuries caused by that animal only if he knows or has reason to know the animal has abnormally dangerous propensities.

Question 13

Strict Liability: Wild Animals

Answer 13

An animal is wild if it has not been generally domesticated in the United States and is likely to cause personal injury unless restrained.

The owner of a wild animal is strictly liable for harm done by that animal, in spite of any precautions the owner has taken, if the harm arises from the dangerous nature of the wild animal.

Question 14

Animal Strict Liability Defense: Trespasser

Answer 14

A landowner is not strictly liable for injuries inflicted by his animals against a trespasser.

Question 15

Strict Liability Defense: Contributory Negligence and Comparative Fault

Answer 15

Contributory fault is not a defense to strict liability. Some comparative-fault jurisdictions will not reduce a plaintiff’s recovery under a strict-liability claim. Others will allow recovery to be reduced by the comparative fault of the plaintiff.

Question 16

Strict Liability Defense: Assumption of the Risk

Answer 16

A plaintiff’s assumption of the risk acts as a complete bar to recovery in strict liability claims. The plaintiff must voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk, in that they proceed in the face of a known risk.