CO Bar Torts and Negligence 3

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:

Accepted Answer

Strictly liable for economic damages regardless of the dog's prior viciousness

Answer

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:

Accepted Answer

Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity

Answer

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:

Accepted Answer

She was closely related to the victim, present at the scene, and personally observed the injury

Answer

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:

Accepted Answer

Shifts to each defendant to prove he did not cause the harm

Answer

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:

Accepted Answer

A foreseeable intervening cause or an unforeseeable superseding cause

Answer

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.

(CO Bar) Colorado Bar Exam Practice Test

(CO Bar) Colorado Bar Exam Practice Test

CO Bar Torts and Negligence 3