CLA/CP Exam Torts: Negligence and Liability 2 ā Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under the 'res ipsa loquitur' doctrine, which condition must the plaintiff establish first?
- The accident was caused by intentional misconduct
- The accident is the kind that ordinarily does not occur without negligence (Correct answer)
- The defendant had actual notice of the defect
- The plaintiff suffered economic damages
Correct answer: The accident is the kind that ordinarily does not occur without negligence
Res ipsa loquitur requires showing the accident is of the type that ordinarily does not happen without negligence, the instrumentality was in defendant's exclusive control, and plaintiff did not contribute.
Question 2: A landowner owes the highest duty of care to which category of entrant?
- Trespassers
- Licensees
- Invitees (Correct answer)
- Discovered trespassers
Correct answer: Invitees
Inviteesāthose who enter with the owner's express or implied invitation for a business or public purposeāare owed the highest duty: reasonable inspection and repair of dangerous conditions.
Question 3: Which element distinguishes proximate cause from actual cause in negligence analysis?
- Proximate cause requires a showing of intent
- Proximate cause asks whether the harm was a foreseeable result of the negligent act (Correct answer)
- Proximate cause focuses on whether the act caused the harm in fact
- Proximate cause is only relevant in strict liability cases
Correct answer: Proximate cause asks whether the harm was a foreseeable result of the negligent act
Proximate (legal) cause limits liability to harms that were a foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, while actual cause (but-for causation) is simply factual linkage.
Question 4: Under the 'eggshell skull' rule, a defendant who negligently injures a plaintiff with an unknown pre-existing condition is liable for:
- Only the harm a normal person would have suffered
- Half the damages because of the pre-existing condition
- The full extent of the plaintiff's actual injuries (Correct answer)
- No damages because the condition was unforeseeable
Correct answer: The full extent of the plaintiff's actual injuries
The eggshell skull rule holds defendants liable for the full extent of harm even if the plaintiff's unusual vulnerability made the injury far worse than expected.
Question 5: In a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, a plaintiff found 70% at fault for an accident may recover:
- Nothing, because the plaintiff is majority at fault
- 30% of the total damages (Correct answer)
- 70% of the total damages
- 100% of damages reduced by court discretion
Correct answer: 30% of the total damages
Under pure comparative negligence, recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault, so a 70% at-fault plaintiff recovers 30% of total damages.
Question 6: Which of the following best describes 'negligence per se'?
- Negligence that is so obvious no expert testimony is needed
- A defendant's violation of a statute that automatically establishes the duty and breach elements (Correct answer)
- A strict liability standard applied to ultrahazardous activities
- Negligence inferred from the type of accident alone
Correct answer: A defendant's violation of a statute that automatically establishes the duty and breach elements
Negligence per se occurs when a defendant violates a statute designed to protect a class of persons from the type of harm suffered, establishing duty and breach as a matter of law.
Question 7: A superseding cause will generally relieve the original tortfeasor of liability only if it is:
- A foreseeable response to the defendant's negligence
- An unforeseeable, independent act that breaks the causal chain (Correct answer)
- Any act by a third party after the original negligence
- A natural event following the defendant's act
Correct answer: An unforeseeable, independent act that breaks the causal chain
A superseding cause must be unforeseeable to break the causal chain; foreseeable intervening acts do not relieve the original defendant of liability.
CLA/CP Exam Torts: Negligence and Liability 2
Under the 'res ipsa loquitur' doctrine, which condition must the plaintiff establish first?