FYLSX Torts: Negligence and Causation 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A defendant is sued for negligence. The plaintiff's expert testifies that the defendant's act was a cause-in-fact of harm. The defendant's expert disagrees. The jury finds for the plaintiff. On appeal, which standard of proof applies to causation?
- Beyond a reasonable doubt
- Clear and convincing evidence
- Preponderance of the evidence (Correct answer)
- Substantial evidence with reasonable certainty
Correct answer: Preponderance of the evidence
In civil negligence cases, all elements including causation must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence — more likely true than not.
Question 2: A defendant hospital discharges a patient prematurely. The patient collapses at home and dies. The patient's family argues this death would not have occurred with proper hospital care. What causation test applies first?
- Market share liability because multiple hospitals could have caused the harm
- Res ipsa loquitur because deaths in hospitals imply negligence
- But-for causation — would the patient have survived with proper care? (Correct answer)
- Substantial factor test because hospital negligence is always a substantial factor
Correct answer: But-for causation — would the patient have survived with proper care?
The threshold causation test in negligence is but-for causation: would the harm have occurred but for the defendant's breach?
Question 3: A property owner fails to fix a broken step on a stairway open to the public. A business visitor trips and breaks her wrist. The visitor sues. Which standard of care applies to the property owner?
- Strict liability for all injuries on premises
- Reasonable care to inspect and repair known and discoverable dangerous conditions (Correct answer)
- Only duty to warn of hidden traps, not obvious dangers
- No duty because the visitor assumed the risk by entering
Correct answer: Reasonable care to inspect and repair known and discoverable dangerous conditions
An invitee (business visitor) is owed the highest duty — the owner must inspect for and remedy dangerous conditions that are known or should be discovered.
Question 4: A drunk driver causes an accident injuring a plaintiff. The plaintiff's doctor negligently treats the injury, worsening the outcome. Is the drunk driver liable for the doctor's malpractice?
- No, because medical malpractice is always a superseding cause
- No, because the driver had no control over medical care
- Yes, because negligent medical treatment of an original injury is a foreseeable intervening cause (Correct answer)
- Yes, but only if the driver had prior knowledge that the plaintiff would seek medical care
Correct answer: Yes, because negligent medical treatment of an original injury is a foreseeable intervening cause
Negligent medical treatment is a foreseeable consequence of causing injury; therefore it is a dependent intervening cause that does not break the chain of proximate causation.
Question 5: A chemical plant emits pollutants in violation of an environmental statute. A nearby farmer's crops are destroyed. The farmer sues in negligence using negligence per se. For the statute to establish the standard of care, what must be true?
- The statute must be a federal law, not a state regulation
- The harm must be of the type the statute was designed to prevent, and the plaintiff must be in the protected class (Correct answer)
- The defendant must have been criminally charged for the statutory violation
- The statute must expressly provide for civil liability
Correct answer: The harm must be of the type the statute was designed to prevent, and the plaintiff must be in the protected class
Negligence per se requires that the statute was designed to prevent the type of harm that occurred and that the plaintiff belongs to the class the statute intended to protect.
Question 6: A plaintiff was injured when scaffolding collapsed at a construction site. The plaintiff cannot identify which of three independent contractors erected the scaffold. The court declines to apply alternative liability. Which doctrine might still help plaintiff?
- Res ipsa loquitur, if the general contractor controlled the site (Correct answer)
- Strict products liability against the scaffold manufacturer
- Enterprise liability, shifting the burden to the industry collectively
- Last clear chance doctrine, if any contractor could have prevented the collapse
Correct answer: Res ipsa loquitur, if the general contractor controlled the site
Res ipsa loquitur can establish an inference of negligence against the party who had control over the instrumentality — here, the general contractor overseeing the site.
Question 7: A driver sees a child dart into the road but has insufficient time to stop. The driver brakes hard but still hits the child. The child's guardian argues the driver was negligent for speeding. The driver proves she was within the speed limit. How should the jury evaluate negligence?
- The driver is automatically not negligent because she obeyed the speed limit
- Compliance with a statute sets a floor but does not conclusively establish reasonable care — the jury evaluates all circumstances (Correct answer)
- The speed limit establishes an absolute defense to negligence claims
- The driver is strictly liable for hitting a child regardless of care taken
Correct answer: Compliance with a statute sets a floor but does not conclusively establish reasonable care — the jury evaluates all circumstances
Compliance with a statute is evidence of due care but not conclusive — the reasonable person standard may require more than the statutory minimum in some circumstances.
FYLSX Torts: Negligence and Causation 4
A defendant is sued for negligence.
The plaintiff's expert testifies that the defendant's act was a cause-in-fact of harm.
The defendant's expert disagrees.
The jury finds for the plaintiff.
On appeal, which standard of proof applies to causation?