Torts: Negligence and Causation Flashcards

A social host serves alcohol to a visibly intoxicated adult guest who later drives and kills a pedestrian. Under traditional common law, is the social host liable to the pedestrian's family?

Answer: No, traditional common law imposes no liability on social hosts for serving alcohol to adults

Under traditional common law, social hosts owe no duty of care to third parties injured by adult guests served alcohol; dram shop liability typically applies to commercial sellers.

A plaintiff slips on ice that formed naturally on a defendant's private parking lot. The defendant argues it had no duty to remove naturally occurring ice. What is the modern trend?

Answer: Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to maintain their premises, including addressing natural accumulations of ice in areas where invitees are expected

The modern trend imposes on property owners a general duty of reasonable care toward invitees, which may include addressing natural accumulations of ice in foreseeable traffic areas.

An employee negligently injures a customer during the course of employment. Under respondeat superior, which statement is correct?

Answer: The employer is vicariously liable because the tort occurred within the scope of employment

Under respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for an employee's negligent acts committed within the scope of employment, regardless of the employer's own fault.

A manufacturer sells a ladder with a defective rung. The buyer lends the ladder to a neighbor who is injured when the rung breaks. The neighbor sues the manufacturer in negligence. Does the manufacturer owe the neighbor a duty?

Answer: Yes, under MacPherson v. Buick, manufacturers owe a duty to foreseeable users of their products, not just purchasers

MacPherson v. Buick abolished the privity requirement in products negligence cases — manufacturers owe a duty of care to all foreseeable users of their products.

A city fails to maintain a streetlight in a high-crime area. A pedestrian is attacked at night and sues the city for negligence. Which doctrine most often shields the city from liability?

Answer: Governmental immunity for discretionary functions

Government entities retain immunity for discretionary functions — policy decisions like where to place and maintain streetlights are typically shielded from negligence liability.

A plaintiff was injured by a product manufactured by one of several companies, but cannot identify the specific manufacturer. Market share liability (Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories) allows recovery. What is the result?

Answer: Defendants pay in proportion to their market share of the product at the time of injury

Under market share liability, each defendant manufacturer is liable for a percentage of the plaintiff's damages proportional to its share of the relevant market.

A plaintiff is injured partly due to the defendant's negligence and partly due to plaintiff's own failure to wear a seatbelt. In a modified comparative fault (51% bar) jurisdiction, the jury finds plaintiff 55% at fault. What is the outcome?

Answer: Plaintiff recovers nothing because she exceeds 50% fault

Under the 51% (modified comparative fault) bar rule, a plaintiff who is 51% or more at fault is barred from any recovery — here 55% exceeds the bar.