Torts Practice Exam Questions

1. 1.Driver's negligence: Duty (all drivers owe duty of reasonable care), breach (running red light, texting while driving), causation (actual and proximate cause of Pedestrian's injuries), damages (broken leg).
2. 2.Respondeat superior: Despite the 'independent contractor' label, Speedy likely controls the manner of work (strict time windows, GPS tracking). Courts look at the actual relationship, not labels. Speedy is vicariously liable if Driver is an employee acting within the scope of employment.
3. 3.Scope of employment: Driver was making a delivery (within scope). The texting is a deviation but likely a minor one -- the journey itself was within scope.
4. 4.Negligent hiring/supervision: Even if Driver is an independent contractor, Speedy may be directly liable for creating dangerous incentives (strict time windows encouraging speeding).
5. 5.City's liability: The city had notice of the traffic light malfunction (three complaints). Potential negligence in maintaining infrastructure. Discuss governmental immunity and exceptions.
6. 6.Comparative/contributory negligence analysis: Pedestrian was lawfully in the crosswalk. No apparent comparative fault. Discuss joint and several liability between Driver/Speedy and the City.

1. 1.Manufacturing defect (strict liability): The thermostat defect departed from HeatCo's own design specifications. Under Restatement Third, HeatCo is strictly liable regardless of fault. Customer must show the product was defective when it left the manufacturer's control.
2. 2.Design defect: The absence of a $2 thermal fuse that is standard in the industry suggests a design defect under both the consumer expectations test and the risk-utility test. The cost of the safety feature ($2) versus the magnitude of potential harm (fire, burns) strongly favors liability.
3. 3.Failure to warn: The warning about 3-foot distance may be adequate for the flammable materials risk. However, the warning did not address the risk of thermostat malfunction. Discuss adequacy of warnings.
4. 4.MegaMart's liability: As a commercial seller in the chain of distribution, MegaMart is strictly liable for defective products under Restatement Section 402A. MegaMart may seek indemnification from HeatCo.
5. 5.Customer's comparative fault: Placing the heater 18 inches from curtains violated the warning label. This may reduce recovery under comparative fault principles. However, the manufacturing defect was an independent cause.
6. 6.Causation: Both the defect and the misplacement contributed to the fire. Discuss concurrent causation and whether Customer's misuse was foreseeable.

1. 1.Defamation elements: (1) Defamatory statement of fact (accusation of bribery), (2) Publication (posted on website), (3) Concerning the plaintiff (Judge Wilson named), (4) Falsity (no bribe occurred), (5) Fault, (6) Damages.
2. 2.Public figure analysis: Judge Wilson is likely a public official or limited-purpose public figure. Under New York Times v. Sullivan, she must prove actual malice -- knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
3. 3.Actual malice analysis: BloggerX relied on a single anonymous, unverified email. Failure to investigate alone is not actual malice (St. Amant v. Thompson), but publishing with serious doubts about truth or with an awareness of probable falsity can establish reckless disregard. The totality of circumstances (anonymous source, serious allegation, no corroboration) may support actual malice.
4. 4.Defenses: Truth (fails -- the statement was false). Opinion (fails -- the statement was presented as fact, not opinion). Privilege (no applicable privilege for bloggers publishing unverified accusations).
5. 5.Damages: Presumed damages may be available if actual malice is shown (Gertz v. Robert Welch). Special damages: lost promotion. General damages: reputational harm, emotional distress. The ethics investigation and hate mail demonstrate concrete harm.
6. 6.Libel vs. slander: Written publication on a website is libel. Libel per se (accusation of a crime) may allow presumed damages even without proof of actual malice in some jurisdictions.

Correct Answer: D

A principal who hires an independent contractor to perform inherently dangerous (abnormally dangerous) activities retains liability for harm caused by those activities. The duty is non-delegable. Using explosives in a residential area is a classic example of an abnormally dangerous activity under Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 519-520.

Correct Answer: B

A business owner owes a duty to invitees, including a duty to render aid after an injury occurs on the premises. The store owner's failure to help the customer or warn others created a foreseeable risk that the customer would suffer additional harm. The shopping cart collision was a foreseeable result of leaving an injured person on a store floor.

Correct Answer: B

In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, both parties' negligence is assessed. The golfer owed a duty of care that may not have been satisfied merely by yelling 'Fore!' if the shot was hit toward a public path. The jogger's wearing of headphones near a golf course may constitute comparative negligence, reducing recovery by the jogger's percentage of fault.

Correct Answer: C

Under the common law one-bite rule, strict liability does not apply because the dog had no known dangerous propensities. However, the owner had actual knowledge of the broken fence and failed to repair it, which is negligence. The owner's negligence in maintaining the fence was the actual and proximate cause of the dog escaping and biting the mail carrier.

Correct Answer: C

The emergency or implied consent doctrine applies when a surgeon discovers an unexpected, life-threatening condition during authorized surgery. If obtaining consent is impracticable and a reasonable person would consent to the procedure, the surgeon is privileged to extend the operation. The cancerous mass presented an immediate medical necessity discovered during authorized surgery.