FYLSX Torts: Negligence and Causation 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A driver runs a red light and strikes a pedestrian who had jaywalked into the intersection. The jurisdiction applies pure comparative fault. The pedestrian is found 40% at fault. How is damages recovery affected?
- Pedestrian recovers nothing due to contributory negligence
- Pedestrian recovers 60% of total damages (Correct answer)
- Pedestrian recovers 100% because driver was more at fault
- Pedestrian recovers 40% of total damages
Correct answer: Pedestrian recovers 60% of total damages
Under pure comparative fault, a plaintiff recovers damages reduced by their own percentage of fault, so 40% fault = 60% recovery.
Question 2: A landowner's tree has a large dead branch visibly overhanging the public sidewalk. After a storm, the branch falls and injures a passerby. Which element of negligence is most directly established by the visible dead branch?
- Causation-in-fact
- Actual damages
- Breach of duty (Correct answer)
- Legal causation
Correct answer: Breach of duty
The visible dead branch shows the landowner knew or should have known of the risk and failed to act, establishing breach of the duty of reasonable care.
Question 3: A pharmacist fills a prescription with double the ordered dosage. The patient suffers harm. The prescribing doctor had written the correct dosage. Who is liable?
- Only the doctor, because the prescription originated with them
- Only the patient, for failing to read the label
- The pharmacist, for negligently dispensing the wrong dosage (Correct answer)
- Neither party, because prescriptions are filled at patient's risk
Correct answer: The pharmacist, for negligently dispensing the wrong dosage
A pharmacist owes a duty of care to accurately fill prescriptions, and dispensing the wrong dosage breaches that duty, making the pharmacist liable.
Question 4: Two hunters simultaneously and negligently fire shots, one of which blinds the plaintiff. It is impossible to determine whose bullet caused the injury. Under the alternative liability doctrine, what result?
- Plaintiff recovers nothing because causation cannot be proven
- Each hunter is liable for 50% of damages
- Both hunters are jointly and severally liable, and the burden shifts to each to exculpate themselves (Correct answer)
- The hunter with deeper pockets pays all damages
Correct answer: Both hunters are jointly and severally liable, and the burden shifts to each to exculpate themselves
Under Summers v. Tice alternative liability, when both defendants acted negligently and one caused harm, the burden shifts to defendants to prove they were not the cause.
Question 5: A grocery store employee mops a floor but fails to put up a wet floor sign. A customer slips and falls 45 minutes later. What doctrine most efficiently establishes the store's negligence?
- Res ipsa loquitur
- Negligence per se
- General duty of care with actual or constructive notice (Correct answer)
- Strict liability for ultrahazardous conditions
Correct answer: General duty of care with actual or constructive notice
A store has a duty to maintain safe premises and is liable when it has actual or constructive notice of a hazard, such as a wet floor the employee created.
Question 6: A defendant's negligence causes a minor car accident, but the plaintiff had an undetected aneurysm that ruptures from the slight impact and causes death. Which rule governs?
- Plaintiff cannot recover because the aneurysm was a superseding cause
- The 'eggshell skull' rule makes defendant liable for full extent of harm (Correct answer)
- Defendant is liable only for the damages a normal person would have suffered
- Defendant is not liable because the death was unforeseeable
Correct answer: The 'eggshell skull' rule makes defendant liable for full extent of harm
The eggshell skull (thin skull) rule holds defendants liable for all damages caused by their negligence, even if the plaintiff was unusually susceptible.
Question 7: A city fails to repair a pothole it knew about for months. A driver swerves to avoid the pothole, strikes a cyclist, and injures her. Is the city's negligence a proximate cause of the cyclist's injury?
- No, because the driver's action was a superseding intervening cause
- No, because the city owed no duty to cyclists
- Yes, because hitting a cyclist while avoiding a road hazard is a foreseeable consequence of an unrepaired pothole (Correct answer)
- Yes, but only if the driver was also negligent
Correct answer: Yes, because hitting a cyclist while avoiding a road hazard is a foreseeable consequence of an unrepaired pothole
Proximate cause exists when the harm that occurred is a foreseeable consequence of the negligent act, and a traffic accident caused by an unrepaired pothole is foreseeable.
FYLSX Torts: Negligence and Causation 2
A driver runs a red light and strikes a pedestrian who had jaywalked into the intersection.
The jurisdiction applies pure comparative fault.
The pedestrian is found 40% at fault.
How is damages recovery affected?