CAS Bar Torts and Negligence 3

Question 1

The 'but-for' test for actual causation asks whether:

Accepted Answer

Harm would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent conduct

Answer

But-for causation is established when the plaintiff proves the injury would not have occurred absent the defendant's negligence.

Question 2

California uses the 'substantial factor' test for causation primarily when:

Accepted Answer

Multiple independent causes each sufficient alone combine to produce an indivisible injury

Answer

When multiple independently sufficient causes make but-for causation unworkable (such as duplicative causation), California uses the substantial factor test.

Question 3

California's system of comparative fault is best described as:

Accepted Answer

Pure comparative fault — plaintiff recovers reduced damages even if 99% at fault

Answer

Under Li v. Yellow Cab Co., California adopted pure comparative fault, allowing plaintiffs to recover regardless of their degree of fault, with damages reduced proportionally.

Question 4

Under Proposition 51 (Civil Code §1431.2), a defendant is only severally liable — not jointly liable — for:

Accepted Answer

Non-economic damages such as pain and suffering

Answer

Proposition 51 abolished joint and several liability for non-economic damages; each defendant pays only their proportionate share of pain and suffering, but remains jointly and severally liable for economic damages.

Question 5

A superseding intervening cause breaks the causal chain when the intervening act is:

Accepted Answer

Unforeseeable and independent such that holding the original defendant liable would be unfair

Answer

A superseding cause must be so unforeseeable that attributing the ultimate harm to the original defendant would be unjust; foreseeable intervening acts do not break the chain.

(CAS Bar) California State Bar Exam Practice Test

(CAS Bar) California State Bar Exam Practice Test

CAS Bar Torts and Negligence 3