CAIA Liability and Negligence Principles 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A plaintiff sues both Driver A and Driver B for injuries from a collision. A judgment is entered against both. Under joint and several liability, how can the plaintiff collect?
- Only from Driver A, as the primary at-fault party
- Only from Driver B, who has higher insurance limits
- From either defendant for the full amount, regardless of each one's percentage of fault (Correct answer)
- Only in proportion to each driver's percentage of fault
Correct answer: From either defendant for the full amount, regardless of each one's percentage of fault
Under joint and several liability, each defendant is fully responsible for the entire judgment, allowing the plaintiff to collect the full amount from any one defendant.
Question 2: What is the primary purpose of a 'reservation of rights' letter sent by an insurer during a liability investigation?
- To deny the claim outright
- To notify the insured that coverage issues exist while the investigation continues without waiving policy defenses (Correct answer)
- To admit liability on behalf of the insured
- To demand a recorded statement from the claimant
Correct answer: To notify the insured that coverage issues exist while the investigation continues without waiving policy defenses
A reservation of rights letter preserves the insurer's ability to deny coverage later while still investigating the claim, preventing waiver of policy defenses.
Question 3: Which of the following best describes 'assumption of risk' as an affirmative defense in auto liability cases?
- The plaintiff voluntarily encountered a known danger, relieving the defendant of liability (Correct answer)
- The defendant was unaware of the risk they created
- The risk was created by a third party, not the defendant
- The plaintiff failed to mitigate their damages
Correct answer: The plaintiff voluntarily encountered a known danger, relieving the defendant of liability
Assumption of risk applies when the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily accepted the risk that led to their injury, which can reduce or eliminate the defendant's liability.
Question 4: Under the 'eggshell skull' (thin skull) rule, a defendant in an auto accident is responsible for a plaintiff's injuries even if those injuries were far greater than expected because of a pre-existing condition. This rule applies because:
- Defendants must purchase higher insurance limits for plaintiffs with known conditions
- Defendants take their victims as they find them, pre-existing conditions included (Correct answer)
- Pre-existing conditions eliminate comparative fault
- The plaintiff must prove the pre-existing condition was hidden
Correct answer: Defendants take their victims as they find them, pre-existing conditions included
The eggshell skull rule requires a defendant to compensate for all harm caused, even if the plaintiff's pre-existing vulnerability made injuries unexpectedly severe.
Question 5: A parked car without emergency brakes engaged rolls downhill and strikes another vehicle. No driver is present. Under which doctrine might liability be established without proving specific negligent acts?
- Res ipsa loquitur (Correct answer)
- Comparative negligence
- Joint enterprise
- Respondeat superior
Correct answer: Res ipsa loquitur
Res ipsa loquitur ('the thing speaks for itself') allows negligence to be inferred when an accident ordinarily would not occur absent negligence and the instrumentality was under the defendant's control.
Question 6: An adjuster determines that a vehicle owner lent their car to a friend knowing the friend had a suspended license. This is most directly relevant to which theory of liability?
- Strict products liability
- Negligent entrustment (Correct answer)
- Implied assumption of risk
- Respondeat superior
Correct answer: Negligent entrustment
Negligent entrustment attaches when a vehicle owner lends their car to a person they know (or should know) is incompetent or unlicensed to drive.
Question 7: A bicyclist is struck by an insured vehicle. The cyclist had no helmet and suffered a head injury. In a modified comparative fault state with a 50% bar, the cyclist is found 20% at fault. What is the result?
- The cyclist recovers nothing due to failure to wear a helmet
- The cyclist's damages are reduced by 20% (Correct answer)
- The cyclist recovers full damages because they are under 50% at fault
- The cyclist and driver split damages 50/50 regardless of fault percentages
Correct answer: The cyclist's damages are reduced by 20%
Under modified comparative fault, a plaintiff under the fault threshold recovers damages reduced by their percentage of fault, so 20% fault means 20% reduction in the award.
CAIA Liability and Negligence Principles 4
A plaintiff sues both Driver A and Driver B for injuries from a collision.
A judgment is entered against both.
Under joint and several liability, how can the plaintiff collect?