CP CP Torts & Personal Injury 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: California's 'premises liability' doctrine holds landowners responsible for injuries based primarily on:
- Whether the injured person was an invitee, licensee, or trespasser (status-based analysis)
- A general reasonable-care standard applicable to all entrants under Rowland v. Christian (1968) (Correct answer)
- Only injuries caused by hidden manufactured defects
- The age of the property's construction
Correct answer: A general reasonable-care standard applicable to all entrants under Rowland v. Christian (1968)
In Rowland v. Christian (1968), the California Supreme Court abolished the traditional invitee/licensee/trespasser categories and imposed a general duty of reasonable care on landowners toward all entrants.
Question 2: The 'eggshell plaintiff' (thin skull) rule in California tort law means that a defendant:
- Is not liable for injuries to plaintiffs with pre-existing conditions
- Is liable for the full extent of a plaintiff's injury, even if the plaintiff had a pre-existing vulnerability that made the harm worse (Correct answer)
- Can reduce damages if the plaintiff was unusually fragile
- Is only liable for foreseeable harm to an average person
Correct answer: Is liable for the full extent of a plaintiff's injury, even if the plaintiff had a pre-existing vulnerability that made the harm worse
The eggshell plaintiff rule holds a defendant liable for the full extent of harm caused, even if the plaintiff had a pre-existing condition that made the injuries unusually severe.
Question 3: In a California wrongful death action under Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60, who has standing to bring the claim?
- Only the decedent's surviving spouse
- The decedent's surviving spouse, children, and other persons who would inherit under California intestate succession (Correct answer)
- Any person who knew the decedent
- Only the decedent's estate through a personal representative
Correct answer: The decedent's surviving spouse, children, and other persons who would inherit under California intestate succession
CCP § 377.60 grants wrongful death standing to the surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and others who would take under intestate succession.
Question 4: Which California statute provides the primary remedy for plaintiffs injured by defective consumer products through a strict liability theory?
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products established the common law rule; no specific statute (Correct answer)
- California Products Liability Act of 1971
- California Consumer Product Safety Act § 6000
- California Commercial Code § 2-314
Correct answer: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products established the common law rule; no specific statute
California products liability strict liability is based on common law established in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963) and further developed in Barker v. Lull Engineering (1978), not a specific statute.
Question 5: A California paralegal preparing a personal injury demand letter should include which key document to support the damages claim?
- Only the police report
- Medical records, medical bills, lost wage documentation, and a summary of damages (Correct answer)
- Expert opinions alone
- Only a narrative description of the accident
Correct answer: Medical records, medical bills, lost wage documentation, and a summary of damages
An effective demand letter must be supported by medical records, bills, lost wage evidence, and a comprehensive damages summary to substantiate the claimed amounts.
Question 6: California's comparative fault principles also apply to cases involving:
- Contract disputes between businesses
- Strict products liability cases, reducing plaintiff's recovery by their percentage of fault (Correct answer)
- Criminal assault resulting in civil damages
- Professional malpractice by licensed professionals only
Correct answer: Strict products liability cases, reducing plaintiff's recovery by their percentage of fault
California courts apply comparative fault principles to strict products liability cases (Daly v. General Motors Corp.), reducing recovery by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
CP CP Torts & Personal Injury 2
California's 'premises liability' doctrine holds landowners responsible for injuries based primarily on: