MN Bar Torts 1 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under Minnesota's comparative fault statute (Minn. Stat. § 604.01), a plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages when their fault is:
- Greater than the fault of the defendant (Correct answer)
- Equal to the fault of the defendant
- More than 25% of total fault
- More than 10% of total fault
Correct answer: Greater than the fault of the defendant
Minnesota's modified comparative fault rule bars recovery only when the plaintiff's fault is greater than (not merely equal to) the defendant's fault, so a 50/50 split still allows recovery.
Question 2: Which element of a negligence claim addresses whether the defendant's conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent person?
- Breach of duty (Correct answer)
- Actual causation
- Proximate causation
- Damages
Correct answer: Breach of duty
Breach of duty is the element that measures whether the defendant's conduct fell below the applicable standard of care, typically judged against a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.
Question 3: Negligence per se is established when a defendant violates a statute, provided the plaintiff shows that:
- The statute was designed to prevent the type of harm suffered and the plaintiff is within the class the statute was meant to protect (Correct answer)
- Any statute was violated, regardless of its purpose or the parties involved
- The statute imposed criminal liability on the defendant for the same conduct
- The plaintiff suffered purely economic damages as a direct result
Correct answer: The statute was designed to prevent the type of harm suffered and the plaintiff is within the class the statute was meant to protect
Negligence per se requires that the statute aimed to prevent the specific type of harm at issue and that the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons the statute was designed to protect.
Question 4: The res ipsa loquitur doctrine permits a jury to infer negligence from circumstantial evidence when:
- The accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur without negligence and the instrumentality was in the defendant's exclusive control (Correct answer)
- The defendant cannot offer any explanation for how the accident occurred
- Expert testimony conclusively establishes the standard of care was violated
- The plaintiff suffered severe injuries while in the defendant's presence
Correct answer: The accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur without negligence and the instrumentality was in the defendant's exclusive control
Res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence when the type of accident ordinarily implies negligence and the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality causing harm.
Question 5: Under the 'but for' test of actual causation, a defendant's negligent act is the cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injury if:
- The injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligence (Correct answer)
- The defendant's negligence was a significant contributing factor among many causes
- The injury occurred within the zone of danger created by the defendant's act
- The defendant was the last actor to engage in conduct before the injury occurred
Correct answer: The injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligence
The 'but for' test asks whether the plaintiff's injury would have occurred absent the defendant's negligent conduct; if the injury would not have happened without that conduct, causation is established.
Question 6: The 'eggshell skull' (thin skull) rule requires a negligent defendant to:
- Pay for the full extent of the plaintiff's injury even if the plaintiff had an unusual vulnerability that made the harm unforeseeable in scope (Correct answer)
- Compensate only for injuries a person of ordinary health would have suffered
- Prove the plaintiff's pre-existing condition was the primary cause of harm
- Limit liability to injuries that were objectively foreseeable at the time of the negligent act
Correct answer: Pay for the full extent of the plaintiff's injury even if the plaintiff had an unusual vulnerability that made the harm unforeseeable in scope
The eggshell skull rule holds that a defendant takes the plaintiff as found and is liable for the full extent of harm, even when the plaintiff's pre-existing condition made the injury far more severe than expected.
Question 7: Under the rescue doctrine, a defendant who negligently created a dangerous situation is liable for injuries sustained by a rescuer who:
- Was injured while attempting to save a person endangered by the defendant's negligence (Correct answer)
- Voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of the dangerous situation before acting
- Was a professional first responder acting within the scope of official duties
- Acted in a grossly negligent manner during the rescue attempt itself
Correct answer: Was injured while attempting to save a person endangered by the defendant's negligence
The rescue doctrine holds that it is foreseeable someone will attempt to rescue a person endangered by negligence, so the defendant is liable for injuries the rescuer sustains in the attempt.
MN Bar Torts 1
Under Minnesota's comparative fault statute (Minn.
Stat. § 604.01), a plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages when their fault is: