Torts Principles & Liability Rules Flashcards

A defendant who acted negligently argues the plaintiff's own negligence bars recovery entirely. In a pure comparative fault jurisdiction, the result is:

Answer: Plaintiff's damages are reduced proportionally regardless of their percentage of fault

Under pure comparative fault, the plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault but is never entirely barred.

A contractor excavates near a public road, and a pedestrian falls into the unguarded trench at night. Which type of negligence per se standard is most applicable?

Answer: Violation of a safety statute requiring guards on open excavations establishes negligence per se

When a defendant violates a safety statute designed to protect the class of persons harmed, negligence per se replaces the ordinary reasonable care standard.

A plaintiff's injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent act. However, a second independent negligent act by a third party also contributed to the same indivisible injury. Under joint and several liability, the plaintiff can:

Answer: Recover the full amount of damages from either defendant

Under joint and several liability, each defendant whose negligence was a cause of an indivisible injury is liable for the entire amount of damages.

A newspaper publishes a true story about a private individual's past arrest that occurred 15 years ago and is now a matter of public record. The individual sues for invasion of privacy. Which tort claim is most viable?

Answer: Public disclosure of private facts, but may fail because the information is public record

Public disclosure of private facts fails when the disclosed information is already a matter of public record, defeating the privacy element.

Under the 'eggshell skull' (thin skull) rule, a defendant who negligently injures a plaintiff with an unusually fragile medical condition is:

Answer: Fully liable for all harm suffered, even if far greater due to the plaintiff's condition

The eggshell skull rule holds defendants liable for the full extent of harm even if the plaintiff's unusual vulnerability made the injury far worse than expected.

A defendant stores large quantities of dynamite in a residential neighborhood. The dynamite explodes, injuring a neighbor. The defendant argues it exercised all possible care. Under Rylands v. Fletcher strict liability, the result is:

Answer: Defendant is liable because storing dynamite is an abnormally dangerous activity

Storing explosives is a classic example of an abnormally dangerous activity imposing strict liability regardless of the defendant's exercise of care.

A defendant committed fraud inducing the plaintiff to enter a contract. The plaintiff seeks punitive damages. Under tort law, punitive damages are typically awarded when:

Answer: The defendant's conduct was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights

Punitive damages require proof that the defendant's conduct was malicious, fraudulent, oppressive, or recklessly indifferent to others' rights.