FYLSX Torts: Negligence and Causation 2

Question 1

A driver runs a red light and strikes a pedestrian who had jaywalked into the intersection.
The jurisdiction applies pure comparative fault.
The pedestrian is found 40% at fault.
How is damages recovery affected?

Accepted Answer

Pedestrian recovers 60% of total damages

Answer

Pedestrian recovers nothing due to contributory negligence

Answer

Pedestrian recovers 100% because driver was more at fault

Answer

Pedestrian recovers 40% of total damages

Question 2

A landowner's tree has a large dead branch visibly overhanging the public sidewalk. After a storm, the branch falls and injures a passerby. Which element of negligence is most directly established by the visible dead branch?

Accepted Answer

Breach of duty

Answer

Causation-in-fact

Answer

Actual damages

Answer

Legal causation

Question 3

A pharmacist fills a prescription with double the ordered dosage. The patient suffers harm. The prescribing doctor had written the correct dosage. Who is liable?

Accepted Answer

The pharmacist, for negligently dispensing the wrong dosage

Answer

Only the doctor, because the prescription originated with them

Answer

Only the patient, for failing to read the label

Answer

Neither party, because prescriptions are filled at patient's risk

Question 4

Two hunters simultaneously and negligently fire shots, one of which blinds the plaintiff. It is impossible to determine whose bullet caused the injury. Under the alternative liability doctrine, what result?

Accepted Answer

Both hunters are jointly and severally liable, and the burden shifts to each to exculpate themselves

Answer

Plaintiff recovers nothing because causation cannot be proven

Answer

Each hunter is liable for 50% of damages

Answer

The hunter with deeper pockets pays all damages

Question 5

A grocery store employee mops a floor but fails to put up a wet floor sign. A customer slips and falls 45 minutes later. What doctrine most efficiently establishes the store's negligence?

Accepted Answer

General duty of care with actual or constructive notice

Answer

Res ipsa loquitur

Answer

Negligence per se

Answer

Strict liability for ultrahazardous conditions

Question 6

A defendant's negligence causes a minor car accident, but the plaintiff had an undetected aneurysm that ruptures from the slight impact and causes death. Which rule governs?

Accepted Answer

The 'eggshell skull' rule makes defendant liable for full extent of harm

Answer

Plaintiff cannot recover because the aneurysm was a superseding cause

Answer

Defendant is liable only for the damages a normal person would have suffered

Answer

Defendant is not liable because the death was unforeseeable

Question 7

A city fails to repair a pothole it knew about for months. A driver swerves to avoid the pothole, strikes a cyclist, and injures her. Is the city's negligence a proximate cause of the cyclist's injury?

Accepted Answer

Yes, because hitting a cyclist while avoiding a road hazard is a foreseeable consequence of an unrepaired pothole

Answer

No, because the driver's action was a superseding intervening cause

Answer

No, because the city owed no duty to cyclists

Answer

Yes, but only if the driver was also negligent