Multistate Bar Exam Torts 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A driver runs a red light and strikes a pedestrian who had jaywalked into the intersection. The pedestrian sues for negligence. The jurisdiction follows pure comparative fault. The jury finds the driver 70% at fault and the pedestrian 30% at fault. The pedestrian's total damages are $100,000. How much can the pedestrian recover?
- $100,000
- $70,000 (Correct answer)
- $30,000
- $0
Correct answer: $70,000
Under pure comparative fault, a plaintiff recovers damages reduced by their own percentage of fault, so $100,000 × 70% = $70,000.
Question 2: A homeowner hires an independent contractor to repair her roof. The contractor negligently drops a tool that injures a passerby on the public sidewalk. Which of the following is most accurate regarding the homeowner's liability?
- The homeowner is vicariously liable because she hired the contractor.
- The homeowner is not liable because independent contractors are not agents.
- The homeowner may be liable if the work was inherently dangerous. (Correct answer)
- The homeowner is strictly liable for all contractor acts on her property.
Correct answer: The homeowner may be liable if the work was inherently dangerous.
An employer is generally not liable for an independent contractor's negligence, but an exception exists for inherently dangerous activities.
Question 3: A defendant intentionally shoves a plaintiff, causing the plaintiff to fall and break her wrist. The defendant claims he only meant to scare the plaintiff, not injure her. Under the doctrine of transferred intent, which result is most likely?
- No battery because the defendant lacked intent to injure.
- Battery because intent to commit assault transfers to battery. (Correct answer)
- Assault only, since the defendant intended to frighten, not touch.
- Negligence because the injury was unforeseeable.
Correct answer: Battery because intent to commit assault transfers to battery.
Under transferred intent, intent to commit one intentional tort (assault) transfers to the resulting tort (battery), making the defendant liable for battery.
Question 4: A chemical plant lawfully stores large quantities of chlorine gas for industrial use. An earthquake causes a tank rupture, releasing gas that injures nearby residents. No negligence by the plant is proven. Which theory best supports the residents' claims?
- Negligence per se
- Private nuisance
- Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities (Correct answer)
- Trespass to land
Correct answer: Strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities
Storing large quantities of toxic gas is an abnormally dangerous activity, imposing strict liability regardless of negligence.
Question 5: A dog owner knows her dog has previously bitten a neighbor's child. The dog escapes and bites a mail carrier. Which statement best describes the owner's liability?
- The owner is liable only if she was negligent in restraining the dog.
- The owner is strictly liable because she had prior knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity. (Correct answer)
- The owner is not liable because mail carriers assume the risk of dog bites.
- The owner is liable only if the jurisdiction has a specific dog-bite statute.
Correct answer: The owner is strictly liable because she had prior knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity.
Under the 'one bite rule,' once an owner has knowledge of the animal's dangerous propensity, strict liability attaches for subsequent injuries.
Question 6: A plaintiff slips on a wet floor in a grocery store. The store manager mopped the floor 20 minutes earlier but left no warning signs. Which element of negligence is most directly at issue?
- Duty
- Breach (Correct answer)
- Causation
- Damages
Correct answer: Breach
The central question is whether failing to post warning signs after mopping constituted a breach of the reasonable care standard.
Question 7: A surgeon performs an operation on a patient's left knee, but the patient consented only to surgery on the right knee. The surgery is performed competently and the left knee improves. Can the patient sue for battery?
- No, because the surgery was beneficial and competently performed.
- No, because the patient consented to surgery in general.
- Yes, because the surgeon exceeded the scope of the patient's consent. (Correct answer)
- Yes, only if the patient suffered actual physical harm from the surgery.
Correct answer: Yes, because the surgeon exceeded the scope of the patient's consent.
Battery requires only an intentional, unconsented harmful or offensive contact; exceeding the scope of consent constitutes battery even if the outcome is beneficial.
Multistate Bar Exam Torts 2
A driver runs a red light and strikes a pedestrian who had jaywalked into the intersection.
The pedestrian sues for negligence.
The jurisdiction follows pure comparative fault.
The jury finds the driver 70% at fault and the pedestrian 30% at fault.
The pedestrian's total damages are $100,000.
How much can the pedestrian recover?