Free CLA/CP Torts: Negligence and Liability Questions and Answers — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A driver, distracted by a text message, runs a red light and strikes a pedestrian who was crossing the street legally. The pedestrian suffers a broken leg and incurs significant medical bills. In a negligence claim against the driver, the act of running the red light while distracted primarily represents which element?
- Damages
- Breach of Duty (Correct answer)
- Causation
- Duty of Care
Correct answer: Breach of Duty
The driver had a legal duty to operate the vehicle with reasonable care. Texting while driving and running a red light is a failure to meet that standard of care, thus constituting a breach of that duty. The broken leg represents damages, and the link between the breach and the injury is causation.
Question 2: A delivery driver for a national courier service negligently causes a car accident while on a scheduled delivery route. The injured party sues both the driver and the courier company. On what legal theory is the courier company most likely to be held liable for its driver's negligence?
- Strict Liability
- Respondeat Superior (Correct answer)
- Negligence Per Se
- Premises Liability
Correct answer: Respondeat Superior
The doctrine of respondeat superior, a form of vicarious liability, holds an employer legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee if such acts occur within the scope of their employment. [7, 8, 15] Since the driver was performing their job duties, the employer can be held liable.
Question 3: Which of the following situations is most likely to be governed by the principles of strict liability?
- A surgeon accidentally leaves a medical instrument inside a patient.
- A homeowner fails to clear an icy patch on their private driveway, and a guest slips and falls.
- A company that uses dynamite for quarrying operations causes damage to a nearby home from the concussions, despite taking all reasonable safety precautions. (Correct answer)
- A distracted driver causes a multi-car pile-up on the freeway.
Correct answer: A company that uses dynamite for quarrying operations causes damage to a nearby home from the concussions, despite taking all reasonable safety precautions.
Strict liability is imposed for activities that are considered inherently or abnormally dangerous (ultrahazardous), regardless of the level of care taken. [5, 13, 20] The use of explosives is a classic example of such an activity. The other options describe situations governed by negligence, where a failure to exercise reasonable care must be proven.
Question 4: In a jurisdiction that follows the doctrine of pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff is found to be 70% at fault for their own injuries in an accident, and the defendant is 30% at fault. The plaintiff's total damages are $200,000. What is the likely outcome?
- The plaintiff will recover nothing because they were more than 50% at fault.
- The plaintiff will recover the full $200,000.
- The plaintiff will recover $60,000. (Correct answer)
- The plaintiff will recover $140,000.
Correct answer: The plaintiff will recover $60,000.
Under a pure comparative negligence system, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, no matter how high it is. [2, 10, 21] Therefore, the plaintiff can recover the portion of damages for which the defendant was at fault (30% of $200,000), which amounts to $60,000.
Question 5: A patient undergoes abdominal surgery and weeks later experiences severe pain. An X-ray reveals that a surgical clamp was left inside their body. The patient has no way of knowing which specific member of the surgical team was responsible. Which legal doctrine would be most useful for the plaintiff to establish negligence?
- Negligence per se
- Assumption of risk
- Caveat emptor
- Res ipsa loquitur (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Res ipsa loquitur
Res ipsa loquitur, Latin for 'the thing speaks for itself,' is a doctrine that allows an inference of negligence when the event is of a kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence, the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality causing the injury, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the injury. [1, 3, 6] It is often applied in cases like this where direct evidence of the negligent act is unavailable to the plaintiff.
Question 6: A negligent driver crashes into a utility pole, causing a power outage in the neighborhood. An hour later, before power is restored, a burglar takes advantage of the darkness and breaks into a nearby home. The homeowner sues the driver for the value of the stolen items. Why is the driver likely NOT liable for the theft?
- The driver owed no duty to the homeowner.
- The theft was a superseding cause. (Correct answer)
- The homeowner assumed the risk of burglary.
- The driver did not breach their duty of care.
Correct answer: The theft was a superseding cause.
The criminal act of the burglar is generally considered an unforeseeable, independent event that breaks the chain of causation from the driver's initial negligence. [4, 23, 24] This type of intervening event is called a 'superseding cause,' and it cuts off the original defendant's liability for the subsequent harm because it was not a foreseeable consequence of the car crash.
Free CLA/CP Torts: Negligence and Liability Questions and Answers
A driver, distracted by a text message, runs a red light and strikes a pedestrian who was crossing the street legally.
The pedestrian suffers a broken leg and incurs significant medical bills.
In a negligence claim against the driver, the act of running the red light while distracted primarily represents which element?