AR Bar Torts 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under Arkansas comparative fault law, a plaintiff is barred from recovery when their fault:
- Exceeds 25% of total fault
- Is greater than zero percent
- Equals or exceeds 50% of total fault (Correct answer)
- Exceeds 75% of total fault
Correct answer: Equals or exceeds 50% of total fault
Arkansas follows modified comparative fault with a 50% bar, meaning a plaintiff may not recover if their fault equals or exceeds the defendant's fault.
Question 2: The 'but for' test in negligence law is used to establish which element?
- Duty of care owed to the plaintiff
- Breach of the standard of care
- Actual (factual) causation (Correct answer)
- Proximate (legal) causation
Correct answer: Actual (factual) causation
The 'but for' test is the standard test for actual (factual) causation, asking whether the plaintiff's injury would have occurred but for the defendant's negligent conduct.
Question 3: Under the 'eggshell plaintiff' rule, a defendant is liable for:
- Only the foreseeable extent of harm to an average person
- All damages caused, even if magnified by the plaintiff's pre-existing condition (Correct answer)
- A proportional share based on the plaintiff's pre-existing vulnerability
- No damages if the plaintiff's condition was a superseding cause
Correct answer: All damages caused, even if magnified by the plaintiff's pre-existing condition
The eggshell plaintiff rule holds that a defendant is liable for all damages caused, even if the extent of harm was unforeseeable due to the plaintiff's pre-existing vulnerability.
Question 4: Res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence when:
- Multiple defendants all had the opportunity to cause harm
- The injury is of a type that ordinarily would not occur without negligence and was in the defendant's control (Correct answer)
- The defendant admits to being careless in their operations
- Expert testimony establishing the standard of care is unavailable
Correct answer: The injury is of a type that ordinarily would not occur without negligence and was in the defendant's control
Res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence when the accident is of a type that ordinarily would not occur without negligence and the instrumentality was in the defendant's exclusive control.
Question 5: Which of the following creates an affirmative duty to act under tort law, overcoming the general no-duty-to-rescue rule?
- Witnessing a stranger in a life-threatening emergency
- The defendant's own prior conduct created the peril facing the plaintiff (Correct answer)
- The harm to the plaintiff was highly foreseeable
- The plaintiff is a minor child
Correct answer: The defendant's own prior conduct created the peril facing the plaintiff
A recognized exception to the no-duty-to-act rule arises when the defendant created the peril placing the plaintiff in danger, thereby imposing an affirmative duty to render aid.
Question 6: Negligence per se substitutes the breach element when a defendant violates:
- A common law reasonable person standard
- A statute designed to protect against the type of harm suffered by the plaintiff (Correct answer)
- General industry customs and practices
- A contractual provision owed to the plaintiff
Correct answer: A statute designed to protect against the type of harm suffered by the plaintiff
Negligence per se applies when a defendant violates a statute designed to protect a class of persons that includes the plaintiff from the type of harm that occurred, establishing breach as a matter of law.
Question 7: Which of the following most accurately states the standard of care owed by a professional (e.g., an attorney) in a negligence case?
- The care of an ordinarily prudent layperson
- The care of a reasonably competent professional in the same field (Correct answer)
- A strict liability standard regardless of custom
- The care of the most highly skilled practitioner in the profession
Correct answer: The care of a reasonably competent professional in the same field
Professionals are held to the standard of a reasonably competent professional in the same field, not the ordinary layperson or the most skilled practitioner.
AR Bar Torts 2
Under Arkansas comparative fault law, a plaintiff is barred from recovery when their fault: