CO Bar Torts and Negligence 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A landowner in Colorado leaves an unfenced, water-filled excavation pit on property adjacent to an elementary school. A 7-year-old trespasses and drowns. Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, the landowner is most likely liable if:
- The landowner knew children were likely to trespass and the child could not appreciate the risk (Correct answer)
- The child's parents failed to supervise the child
- The pit was clearly visible during daylight hours
- The landowner posted a 'No Trespassing' sign
Correct answer: The landowner knew children were likely to trespass and the child could not appreciate the risk
Attractive nuisance liability requires that the landowner knew or should have known children were likely to trespass and that the children, due to their youth, could not appreciate the danger.
Question 2: A plaintiff sues a defendant for negligence in Colorado. The jury finds the plaintiff 50% at fault and the defendant 50% at fault. Under Colorado's modified comparative negligence statute, the plaintiff recovers:
- Nothing, because the plaintiff's fault is not less than the defendant's (Correct answer)
- 50% of the damages
- 100% of the damages
- Nothing, unless the defendant was grossly negligent
Correct answer: Nothing, because the plaintiff's fault is not less than the defendant's
Colorado follows a modified comparative negligence rule barring recovery when the plaintiff's fault is 50% or greater, so equal fault means no recovery.
Question 3: A surgeon operates on the wrong knee of an anesthetized patient. The patient cannot identify which member of the surgical team caused the error. Which doctrine most helps the patient establish negligence?
- Res ipsa loquitur (Correct answer)
- Negligence per se
- Assumption of risk
- Last clear chance
Correct answer: Res ipsa loquitur
Res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence when the injury would not ordinarily occur without negligence and the instrumentality was in the defendants' exclusive control.
Question 4: A driver violates a Colorado statute requiring headlights after dusk and collides with a pedestrian. The pedestrian invokes negligence per se. What is the effect of the statutory violation in most jurisdictions applying this doctrine?
- It conclusively establishes duty and breach if the statute was designed to protect this class of persons from this type of harm (Correct answer)
- It establishes liability including causation and damages
- It creates only a rebuttable presumption of causation
- It shifts the burden of proof on damages to the defendant
Correct answer: It conclusively establishes duty and breach if the statute was designed to protect this class of persons from this type of harm
Negligence per se establishes duty and breach when the plaintiff is in the protected class and suffers the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent, but causation and damages must still be proven.
Question 5: A defendant negligently starts a small fire. Firefighter Smith is injured battling the blaze and sues the defendant for negligence. Under the traditional 'firefighter's rule,' Smith will most likely:
- Be barred from recovery because professional rescuers assume risks inherent to their job (Correct answer)
- Recover fully because the defendant created the danger
- Recover under the rescue doctrine as a foreseeable rescuer
- Recover only punitive damages
Correct answer: Be barred from recovery because professional rescuers assume risks inherent to their job
The firefighter's rule generally bars professional rescuers from recovering for injuries caused by the very negligence that occasioned their professional response.
Question 6: A grocery store customer slips on a grape that had been on the floor for several hours. To establish premises liability against the store for the invitee's injury, the customer must generally show:
- The store had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and failed to remedy it (Correct answer)
- The store intended to harm customers
- Any dangerous condition existed regardless of notice
- The store violated a criminal statute
Correct answer: The store had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and failed to remedy it
A land possessor owes invitees a duty of reasonable care, which requires actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard, often shown by how long the condition existed.
Question 7: A defendant negligently injures a plaintiff who has an unusually fragile skull, resulting in catastrophic injury far exceeding what a normal person would suffer. The defendant is liable for:
- The full extent of the plaintiff's injuries under the eggshell plaintiff rule (Correct answer)
- Only the injuries a person of ordinary fortitude would have suffered
- Nothing, because the harm was unforeseeable
- Only medical expenses, not pain and suffering
Correct answer: The full extent of the plaintiff's injuries under the eggshell plaintiff rule
Under the eggshell plaintiff rule, a tortfeasor takes the victim as found and is liable for the full extent of harm even if unusually severe.
CO Bar Torts and Negligence 2
A landowner in Colorado leaves an unfenced, water-filled excavation pit on property adjacent to an elementary school.
A 7-year-old trespasses and drowns.
Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, the landowner is most likely liable if: