Exam 8: Negligence and Strict Liability

Liability for the negligent conduct of a defendant requires not only that the conduct in fact caused injury to the plaintiff but also that it was the proximate cause of the injury.

Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself" and it permits the jury to infer negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain types of events.

In the majority of states, a defendant is liable for negligently inflicted emotional distress, even in the absence of resultant physical harm.

Jack is a trucker who makes his living moving modular homes. This is a dangerous business in that the portions of the houses, when on the truck, are wider than the road lanes. One day Jack, on his way to Atlanta with a modular home in tow, found himself approaching a truck coming from the opposite direction with the words "High Museum Exhibits" on the truck panels. When Jack swerves to avoid a bicyclist, the High Museum truck runs off the road and tumbles down an embankment. No one is harmed, but the painting exhibit being transported is damaged. Discuss the various theories of negligence that might be applied here and why they would be appropriate.

Ruby, who was driving too fast for conditions, collided with a truck carrying explosives. The truck was unmarked, so Ruby had no way of knowing what it contained. The collision caused an explosion, which shattered glass in a building a block away. The glass injured Ida, who was working inside the building. John, who was walking down the street near the site of the collision, was seriously burned as a result of the explosion. In this case:

A ninety-year-old patient walked away from a nursing home and wandered onto some nearby railroad tracks. Once on the tracks, the patient stumbled and sprained his ankle. A few minutes later a train approached. The engineer saw the man on the track and could have stopped, but the train's brakes were defective. As a result, the train hit and killed the man. His family is suing the railroad for negligence in a state that follows the contributory negligence doctrine. In this case,

Violation of a statute designed to protect underage, unlicensed drivers, as well as innocent third parties, from the consequences of juvenile car theft and "joy riding," by prohibiting car owners from leaving the keys in their car if the car is unattended, is likely to be characterized as:

If a statute is found to be applicable to a fact situation, then the courts will hold that an unexcused violation of that statute which causes an injury to another is:

Abnormally dangerous activity strict liability is imposed for any activity that (1) creates a highly significant risk of harm and (2) is one of common usage.

A person is not under a general duty to avoid the unintentional infliction of economic loss.

In which of the following situations would a court be likely to find that the witness to the situation had an affirmative duty to act?

Seventeen-year-old Brice has just received his driver's license. He is driving a little too fast one day and slams into the back of another car, which has just stopped for a stop sign. In most states:

The local supermarket has a large, glass front door which is well lighted and plainly visible. Nelson, who is new in the neighborhood, mistook the glass for an open doorway and walked into it, shattering the door and injuring himself. Under the Restatement  Second   Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm , the store:

A violation of a statute constitutes negligence per se regardless of whether the injured party is a member of the class protected by the statute.

A reasonable person, as used in the law of torts, is a fictitious individual who is always careful, prudent, and never negligent.

Pat and Sally started a charcoal fire for Sally's backyard barbecue and left it uncovered. Then Sally went into the kitchen to make hamburger patties. While Sally was inside, Pat backed up to catch a football and hit the grill, knocking the coals onto his feet. In a pure comparative negligence state, who is liable?

While driving his car five miles over the speed limit, Carl struck Darla, who was jaywalking across the street. When the case came to trial, the jury determined that Carl was 40% negligent and that Darla was 60% negligent. Darla's injuries are $10,000. If this accident occurred in a state following the modified comparative negligence theory of recovery, Darla will:

All intervening events that occur subsequent to the defendant's negligent conduct will relieve the defendant of liability.

Negligence per se is a defense in a negligence case.

A tiger gets loose from the tent of a circus and mauls a passerby. The circus claims it has always treated the animal well and that it was not at all negligent in its handling of the animal. The circus has no liability for the injury caused by the animal.