CO Bar Torts and Negligence 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A dog owner in Colorado is sued after her dog bites a lawful visitor, causing serious bodily injury. Under Colorado's dog bite statute, the owner is:
- Strictly liable for economic damages regardless of the dog's prior viciousness (Correct answer)
- Liable only if she knew of the dog's dangerous propensities
- Liable only if the visitor can prove negligence
- Immune because the visitor assumed the risk
Correct answer: Strictly liable for economic damages regardless of the dog's prior viciousness
Colorado's dog bite statute imposes strict liability for economic damages when a dog causes serious bodily injury to a person lawfully on public or private property, regardless of the dog's prior behavior.
Question 2: A blasting company uses dynamite in a rural Colorado area, and debris damages a neighbor's barn despite all possible precautions. The neighbor's best theory of recovery is:
- Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity (Correct answer)
- Negligence per se
- Private nuisance
- Trespass to chattels
Correct answer: Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity
Blasting is a classic abnormally dangerous activity subjecting the actor to strict liability regardless of the care exercised.
Question 3: A pedestrian watches from across the street as a negligent driver strikes and kills her spouse. She suffers severe emotional distress with physical manifestations. Under the bystander theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress, she must generally show:
- She was closely related to the victim, present at the scene, and personally observed the injury (Correct answer)
- She suffered any emotional upset, regardless of relationship
- The driver intended to cause her distress
- She was also physically injured by the vehicle
Correct answer: She was closely related to the victim, present at the scene, and personally observed the injury
Bystander NIED recovery typically requires a close relationship with the victim, presence at the scene, and contemporaneous observation of the injury.
Question 4: Two hunters negligently fire their shotguns simultaneously, and one pellet strikes the plaintiff, but it cannot be determined whose gun fired it. Under Summers v. Tice alternative liability, the burden of proof on causation:
- Shifts to each defendant to prove he did not cause the harm (Correct answer)
- Remains with the plaintiff, who therefore loses
- Is eliminated entirely
- Shifts only if the defendants acted in concert by agreement
Correct answer: Shifts to each defendant to prove he did not cause the harm
When two or more defendants are negligent but only one caused the harm and the plaintiff cannot identify which, the burden shifts to each defendant to exculpate himself.
Question 5: A driver negligently blocks a highway. A second driver, speeding recklessly, swerves around the blockage and crashes into the plaintiff. In determining whether the first driver remains liable, the key question is whether the second driver's conduct was:
- A foreseeable intervening cause or an unforeseeable superseding cause (Correct answer)
- Intentional or negligent
- Criminal in nature
- Committed within the same county
Correct answer: A foreseeable intervening cause or an unforeseeable superseding cause
An intervening act cuts off the original tortfeasor's liability only if it is unforeseeable and thus superseding; foreseeable intervening negligence does not break the causal chain.
Question 6: Colorado caps noneconomic damages in most tort actions. A jury awards a plaintiff substantial noneconomic damages for pain and suffering in an ordinary negligence case. The trial court will most likely:
- Reduce the award to comply with the statutory cap unless an exception applies (Correct answer)
- Let the full award stand because juries have unlimited discretion
- Vacate all damages including economic losses
- Double the award as a penalty against the defendant
Correct answer: Reduce the award to comply with the statutory cap unless an exception applies
Colorado statutorily caps noneconomic damages in tort actions, and courts must reduce jury awards exceeding the applicable cap absent a statutory exception.
Question 7: A tavern in Colorado continues serving alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron who later causes a fatal car crash. Under Colorado's dram shop act, the tavern may be liable to the victim if it:
- Willfully and knowingly served a visibly intoxicated person or a minor (Correct answer)
- Served any alcohol at all to the driver
- Failed to provide free taxi service
- Was open past midnight
Correct answer: Willfully and knowingly served a visibly intoxicated person or a minor
Colorado's dram shop statute limits liquor licensee liability to cases of willfully and knowingly serving a visibly intoxicated person or someone under 21.
CO Bar Torts and Negligence 3
A dog owner in Colorado is sued after her dog bites a lawful visitor, causing serious bodily injury.
Under Colorado's dog bite statute, the owner is: