More multiple-choice questions about negligence

Which of the following is a true statement about the extent to which circumstantial evidence can be used in a negligence case?

Negligence claims must be proven by trustworthy evidence, so circumstantial evidence is not a valid way to prove a negligence claim.

Circumstantial evidence can be used to prove a negligence claim only if the requirements for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are satisfied.

Circumstantial evidence can be used to prove the breach element, but not the other elements of a negligence claim.

The evidence used to prove a tort claim can be direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of the two.

The evidence used to prove a tort claim can be direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of the two.

When people think of circumstantial evidence being used in a negligence case, they often think of res ipsa loquitur. But res ipsa loquitur is just one particular type of situation where circumstantial evidence might come into play. It applies in situations where circumstantial evidence suggests the defendant was probably negligent, but the plaintiff does not know what happened that was negligent. While res ipsa loquitur is one situation where circumstantial evidence is used, it is not the exclusive avenue for the use of circumstantial evidence in negligence cases. Circumstantial evidence, direct evidence, or a combination of the two might be used to prove various things in a negligence case, just as in any other sort of case.

Which of the following is a correct statement about the "duplicative causation" rule?

It covers situations in which there multiple things that combined to cause the plaintiff's injury, and each of them was sufficient to cause the injury.

It covers situations in which there were multiple things that combined to cause the plaintiff's injury, and each of them was necessary to cause the injury.

It covers situations in which there were multiple things that could have caused the plaintiff's injury, and it is unclear which of them actually caused the injury.

It covers situations in which there were multiple things that could have caused the plaintiff's injury, and they were all under one defendant's control.

It covers situations in which there multiple things that combined to cause the plaintiff's injury, and each of them was sufficient to cause the injury.

Duplicative causation is where there are multiple sufficient causes.

Which of the following is the best statement of the reasoning underlying the court's decision to invent the doctrine of "alternative liability" in Summers v. Tice (Cal. 1948)?

Where there is uncertainty about whether the harm suffered by the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable, the could should consider alternative bases for imposing liability.

If the negligence of several defendants combine to cause harm to the plaintiff, the liability for the harm should be fairly allocated among the defendants.

When it is unclear which of several wrongdoers caused the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff should not be deprived of a remedy for the injury.

The traditional all-or-nothing approach to tort recovery unfairly prevents plaintiffs from recovering in situations where the defendant was probably negligent but the precise nature of that negligence is unknown.

When it is unclear which of several wrongdoers caused the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff should not be deprived of a remedy for the injury.

Alternative liability is for situations where the plaintiff cannot determine which of several wrongdoers was the actual cause of the harm. The language in this answer comes from the Summers v. Tice opinion.

Which of the following is the best statement of the rule that the Third Restatement recommends as a replacement for the traditional approaches to proximate cause?

A defendant's conduct is a legal cause of the plaintiff's alleged harm if the harm would not have occurred but for the negligent character of the defendant's conduct.

A defendant's liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the defendant's conduct tortious.

A negligent act has a reasonable connection to a plaintiff's injury if the act was a substantial factor that contributed to the occurrence of the harm.

A plaintiff must show that there was a natural and continuous causal connection between the plaintiff's injuries and the defendant's negligence.

A defendant's liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the defendant's conduct tortious.

The Third Restatement would replace proximate cause with the approach that asks if what happened was within the scope of the risks that made us say the defendant's conduct was negligent.

What did Judge Cardozo mean when he wrote that "danger invites rescue"?

People have a duty to rescue others who are in imminent peril, if they can do so without unduly endangering themselves.

Rescues should always be treated as foreseeable, because dangerous situations create the need for rescues.

One who voluntarily agrees to attempt a rescue cannot blame others for harm suffered during the rescue attempt, because rescues occur in situations inherently fraught with danger.

Those who seek to rescue others from danger must exercise reasonable care in doing so, and the more dangerous the situation will be, the more care that is required.

Rescues should always be treated as foreseeable, because dangerous situations create the need for rescues.

"Danger invites rescue" was a famous phrase from Judge Cardozo's decision in Wagner v. International Railway Co. He was talking about the rescue doctrine, and how rescues should be treated as foreseeable, because dangerous situations create the need for rescues.

Which of the following things may be treated as being foreseeable, for purposes of proximate cause, even when it actually was not foreseeable?

A criminal attack.

A rescue attempt.

A false statement.

A memory lapse.

A rescue attempt.

A rescue attempt is something that may be treated as being foreseeable, even if it is really not. That is the "rescue doctrine."

The driver of a car negligently hit a pedestrian who was crossing a street. Which of the following would automatically be regarded as a foreseeable result of the driver's negligence?

The fact that the pedestrian became severely depressed after the accident, and the pedestrian eventually died by suicide.

The fact that the pedestrian had to be rushed to a hospital by helicopter, the helicopter crashed, and the pedestrian died in the crash.

The fact that the pedestrian was carrying a box of dynamite, which exploded when the pedestrian was hit by the driver's car.

The fact that a bystander suffered severe emotional distress because of seeing the car hit the pedestrian.

The fact that the pedestrian had to be rushed to a hospital by helicopter, the helicopter crashed, and the pedestrian died in the crash.

Subsequent accidents are deemed to be foreseeable, even if they really were not.

Lisa worked at a small airport outside a large city. She had access to a storage area where sky diving equipment was kept. Without authorization, she took a skydiving container. She went to the roof of the tallest building in the city and jumped off the building. She pulled the ripcord, but the parachute had not been properly packed into the container, so it did not open properly, and Lisa plummeted to her death. A lawsuit was brought against the skydiving company, by Lisa's family, alleging that the improper packing of the parachute was negligent. If the parachute had been packed correctly, it would have opened properly. Lisa probably would have died anyway, bc the parachute was for higher altitudes.

Which element of a negligence claim will the plaintiff have the most difficulty proving here?

Duty.

Breach.

Actual cause.

Proximate cause.

Actual cause.

The plaintiff in this case would have a real problem with the actual cause element here. Experts on both sides of the case agree that even if the parachute had worked properly, Lisa would have died anyway. So but for the negligence, the result would have been the same.

Shortly after Patrick locks up his tavern for the night, a fire burns the tavern to the ground. The fire investigators determine that the blaze was started by a cigarette left on a couch located against the tavern's back wall, behind the pool tables. All witnesses agree that three people were sitting on the couch at closing time, and that two of them were smoking. It is legal to smoke in bars, but investigators determine that all three of these people were underage and used fake IDs to get into the bar. If Patrick sues the two people who sat on the couch and were smoking, which legal rule is most likely to apply to his case?

Negligence per se.

Duplicative causation.

Alternative liability.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Res ipsa loquitur.

This is a very tough question. I think res ipsa loquitur is the best answer, but none of the answers are clearly or completely correct. Negligence per se would not apply because fires are not a risk meant to be prevented by the law against minors drinking in bars. Duplicative causation does not apply, because there's no reason to believe more than one cigarette started the fire. And alternative liability doesn't apply, because Patrick cannot prove that each one of the three people did something negligent (because it was apparently only one them who negligently left the cigarette that started the fire). That leaves just one option. It's not clear that res ipsa loquitur would apply (or that you'd need it), but it's at least possible. This would be sort of like the situation where you have surgery and something happens while you're unconscious, and there were multiple doctors and nurses involved and you're not sure who was negligent. It's a situation where it seems like someone must have been negligent, but it's hard to say who it probably was. And you might have res ipsa loquitur in that situation. Again, courts would be most likely to allow res ipsa loquitur in a situation involving joint control (like the surgery), and some courts would permit in situations involving consecutive control, so if you could convince the court that this was a situation analogous to the surgery scenario, then res ipsa loquitur could apply.

A grocery store buys its squash from two large farms, Squash Acres and Squash Fields. Both farms spray their squash crops with a dangerous, illegal pesticide. Phillip buys squash at the grocery store, eats it, and dies because of the pesticide.

If Phillip's estate sues both farms for negligence, which of the following facts would make this a "duplicative causes" (or "multiple sufficient causes") case?

Both farms grow green and yellow squash, Phillip ate just one squash, and it was green.

Squash Acres grows only green squash, Squash Fields grows only yellow squash, Phillip ate one green squash and one yellow squash, and the pesticide in either squash was enough to kill Phillip.

Squash Acres grows only green squash, Squash Fields grows only yellow squash, Phillip ate one green squash and one yellow squash, and it took the pesticide in two squash to kill Phillip.

Squash Acres grows only green squash, Squash Fields grows only yellow squash, Phillip ate one green squash and one yellow squash, and the pesticide in either squash was enough to kill Phillip.

This scenario involves duplicative causation because it involves two causes, each of which would be sufficient to cause the entire harm. It is like the two fires coming together, and either would be sufficient to burn the property.

A grocery store buys its zucchini from two large farms, Zucchini Acres and Zucchini Fields. Both farms spray their zucchini crops with a dangerous, illegal pesticide. Phyllis buys zucchini at the market, eats it, and dies because of the pesticide.Which of the following facts would make this an "alternative liability" case?

Both farms grow green and yellow zucchini, Phyllis ate just one zucchini, and it was green.

Zucchini Acres grows only green zucchini, Zucchini Fields grows only yellow zucchini, Phyllis ate one green zucchini and one yellow zucchini, and the pesticide in either zucchini was enough to kill Phillip.

Zucchini Acres grows only green zucchini, Zucchini Fields grows only yellow zucchini, Phyllis ate one green zucchini and one yellow zucchini, and it took the pesticide in two zucchini to kill Phyllis.

Both farms grow green and yellow zucchini, Phyllis ate just one zucchini, and it was green.

This scenario involves alternative liability because there is only one squash that caused the harm, but it could have come from either farm, and we can't be sure which it came from. So it is like the two shots fired by the hunters in Summers v. Tice, and we aren't sure who fired the shot that hit the plaintiff.

Dr. Davis negligently fails to diagnose and treat a disease in two different patients, Morris and Lester, both of whom die from the disease. If Morris had been properly diagnosed and treated, he would have had an 85% chance of surviving the disease. Lester's illness was more advanced when he went to the doctor, and he would have had only a 25% chance of surviving if he had been properly diagnosed and treated. Neither patient was negligent. Based on a "lost chance" theory, which of the following is Davis most likely to be liable for?

All of the damages for Morris's death, and 25% of the damages for Lester's death.

All of the damages for Morris's death, and none of the damages for Lester's death.

85% of the damages for Morris's death, and 25% of the damages for Lester's death.

85% of the damages for Morris's death, and none of the damages for Lester's death.

85% of the damages for Morris's death, and 25% of the damages for Lester's death.

Under a lost chance theory, there is a proportional recovery, even if the odds of causation are below 50 percent.

Which of the following is a true statement about the "but for" test?

The "but for" test looks at whether the plaintiff's injury would have been avoided if the defendant had exercised reasonable care.

The "but for" test looks at whether the defendant would have acted with reasonable care if the defendant had average mental and physical abilities.

The "but for" test looks at whether the plaintiff's injury would have been reasonably foreseeable to a person in the defendant's situation.

The "but for" test looks at whether the defendant would have owed a duty to the plaintiff if there was a special relationship between the plaintiff and defendant.

The "but for" test looks at whether the plaintiff's injury would have been avoided if the defendant had exercised reasonable care.

The "but for" test is about whether the plaintiff's injury would have happened but for the defendant's negligence. In other words, it is about whether the injury would have been avoided if the defendant had exercised reasonable care.

Preston hires a crop duster to spray the field, but the crop duster mistakenly sprays a strong herbicide, rather than a pesticide, and kills all the corn plants in Preston's field. Several days later, a construction company building a house near Preston's field negligently hits a gas line and starts a fire that burns everything in the area. Result of negligence claim against the crop duster and the construction company?

Only the crop duster is liable, because its negligence destroyed the corn crop before the construction company's negligence occurred.

Only the construction company is liable, because its negligence would have destroyed Preston's corn crop no matter what the crop duster did.

Both the crop duster and the construction company are liable, because each engaged in a negligent action that was sufficient to destroy Preston's corn crop.

Neither is liable, because neither is a "but for" cause of the

Only the crop duster is liable, because its negligence destroyed the corn crop before the construction company's negligence occurred.

This is the doctrine of preemptive causation, under which something is not an actual cause if it never takes effect or takes effect only after the harm is complete.

Buckingham has a crappy building and doesn't want to fix it. Tom drives a gasoline truck and illegally parks the truck next to Buckingham's building. A weak equake happens and only Buckingham building falls on top of Tom's truck. Gasoline spills out and into a storm drain. the gasoline empties into a small lake on the outskirts of town. Paul, in the lake, tosses a lit cigarette butt into the lake, igniting the gasoline. Causes paul to fall and drown.

If Paul's estate sues Buckingham for negligence, what is the most likely result?

Paul's estate wins, because Paul would not have been harmed if Buckingham fixed walls.

Paul's estate wins, because a minor earthquake was reasonably foreseeable.

Paul's estate loses, because Paul voluntarily chose to assume the risks of smoking cigarettes.

Paul's estate loses, because Paul's drowning was not a reasonably foreseeable.

Paul's estate loses, because Paul's drowning was not a reasonably foreseeable result of Buckingham's carelessness.

This is a fairly drastic example of a situation in which proximate cause would not exist. If you heard that a building collapsed because of the owner's negligence, you would not foresee that someone fishing on a lake on the other side of town was going to drown.

Doug is an electrician. While doing electrical work on a movie set, he leaves a wire exposed that will shock anyone who steps on it. The voltage is enough to knock down and slightly burn an average person. An actor steps on the wire and receives a shock, which is fatal because the actor happens to have a metal plate in his head from an old war injury. Doug did not know the actor or know about the plate in his head.

If the actor's estate and family sue Doug, what is the most likely result?

Doug must pay damages for the actor's death.

Doug must pay damages for the harm the actor would have received if he had been knocked down and suffered a slight burn.

Doug does not have to pay any damages.

It depends on whether Doug knew that someone was substantially certain to step on the wire.

Doug must pay damages for the actor's death.

The defendant would be liable even if the harm was worse than one would have expected or foreseen. If it is an intentional tort, we'd invoke the "extended liability" concept. For negligence, we might call this the "thin skull" or "eggshell skull" rule. Either way, the defendant would be liable for the full amount of damages even though the person who suffered harm may have been unusually vulnerable to injury.

Which of the following is a true statement about the "firefighter's rule" and "rescue doctrine"?

The "firefighter's rule" protects professional rescuers from being held liable for negligence, while the "rescue doctrine" extends similar protection to amateur or non professional rescuers.

The majority of states have abandoned the "firefighter's rule" and replaced it with the "rescue doctrine."

The "firefighter's rule" is relevant only to intentional tort claims, while the "rescue doctrine" applies only to negligence claims.

The "firefighter's rule" provides that a person generally does not have a duty to prevent harm to a professional rescuer, while the "rescue doctrine" provides that it is reasonably foreseeable that someone will attempt a rescue when a danger exists.

The "firefighter's rule" provides that a person generally does not have a duty to prevent harm to a professional rescuer, while the "rescue doctrine" provides that it is reasonably foreseeable that someone will attempt a rescue when a danger exists.

The firefighter's rule means you do not have a duty to prevent harm to professional rescuers, and the rescue doctrine means that rescues are treated as being foreseeable.

A mechanic at Dave's Tire Shop negligently over-inflates the new tires he installs on Phil's car. While Phil is driving to work the next day, one of the tires blows out. Phil loses control of the car, hits a guard rail by the side of the road, and suffers a broken leg.

If Phil sues Dave's Tire Shop for negligence, which of the following is the minimum that Phil must prove to establish the "actual causation" element of his claim?

If the mechanic had inflated the tires to the proper pressure, Phil definitely would not have had the tire blow out.

If the mechanic had inflated the tires to the proper pressure, Phil probably would not have had the tire blow out.

If the mechanic had inflated the tires to the proper pressure, there is a reasonable chance that Phil would not have had the tire blow out.

If the mechanic had inflated the tires to the proper pressure, there is a material possibility that Phil would not ha

If the mechanic had inflated the tires to the proper pressure, Phil probably would not have had the tire blow out.

The standard level of proof required in civil cases (including torts cases) is that the plaintiff must prove things by a preponderance of the evidence, which means it is more probable than not. The term "probably" may sound informal and therefore less likely to be the right answer, but "more probable than not" is the legal standard, so saying that something "probably" would have occurred comes closest, out of these choices, to stating the correct legal standard.

Mary forgot milk so drunk bob went to go get some, forgot to turn on headlights. Bob has no driver's license. Bob stopped at a stop sign. As he waited for a pedestrian to cross the street, the wind blew and a limb fell onto the car and glass cut the face of the pedestrian.

Which of the following factors is an "actual cause" of the pedestrian's injury?The fact that Bob was intoxicated rather than sober.

The fact that Bob's driver's license was expired rather than valid.

The fact that Bob had forgotten to turn on his car's headlights.

The fact that Mary had forgotten to buy milk.

The fact that Mary had forgotten to buy milk.

Remember that actual causation is another way of asking what are the "but for" causes of the harm. But for Bob's intoxication, what happens? Does anything change? No, nothing changes. The pedestrian would still get hit by the glass, whether Bob is intoxicated or sober. Now, some may say, "well, if this guy had stayed home instead of driving drunk, then that would have prevented the injury." That's true. So if there was an answer choice that said "Bob's drunk driving" or "Bob's decision to drive while intoxicated," those might be good answers, because but for Bob's driving, the harm would not have occurred. But Bob's intoxication, by itself, is not the but for cause of this harm. Same for Bob's lack of a driver's license. What would have happened to this plaintiff if Bob had a valid driver's license in his wallet? That would not have made any difference. And it's even more clear that it makes no difference if his headlights are on or not. But what happens but for Mary forgetting to buy milk? The guy would have stayed home, and he would not have been driving there, and the plaintiff would not have been hit by the glass. This question is tricky, but it's a reminder that you just have to answer the question that is asked. Obviously Mary is not going to be liable for this for forgetting to buy milk. There is no proximate cause, and no breach of a duty to exercise reasonable care. But the question only asks about actual cause. And you have to answer the question that is asked, even if it does not address all possible issues that would determine liability.

Tom went to the bathroom and slipped on wet floor. A restaurant employee had mopped the floor because some food had been spilled there and had briefly left the hallway to get a "caution - wet floor." Tom suffered an injury to his knee when he fell. The restaurant has a policy of marking the floor with a warning sign whenever it is mopped, but there is no statute or regulation that requires this.

If Tom brings a negligence lawsuit, which of the following is true?

Tom will prevail, because he can rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Tom might prevail if he sues the employee, but not if he brings his lawsuit only against the restaurant.

Tom might prevail if the jury believes that a reasonable worker in a restaurant would not have left the slippery floor unattended and unmarked even for a brief amount of time.

Tom will lose, because there is no law requiring a warning sign to be posted when the floor is mopped.

Tom might prevail if the jury in his case believes that a reasonable worker in a restaurant would not have left the slippery floor unattended and unmarked even for a brief amount of time.

Negligence cases usually come down to a decision by the jury, about whether the plaintiff's injury was caused by the defendant failing to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. That is likely to be true here. It would just come down to whether the jury decides that the restaurant employee was negligent.