FYLSX Torts: Negligence and Causation 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A social host serves alcohol to a visibly intoxicated adult guest who later drives and kills a pedestrian. Under traditional common law, is the social host liable to the pedestrian's family?
- Yes, social hosts are strictly liable for serving alcohol to intoxicated guests
- No, traditional common law imposes no liability on social hosts for serving alcohol to adults (Correct answer)
- Yes, because the pedestrian was a foreseeable victim
- No, only if the guest was a minor is there social host liability
Correct answer: No, traditional common law imposes no liability on social hosts for serving alcohol to adults
Under traditional common law, social hosts owe no duty of care to third parties injured by adult guests served alcohol; dram shop liability typically applies to commercial sellers.
Question 2: A plaintiff slips on ice that formed naturally on a defendant's private parking lot. The defendant argues it had no duty to remove naturally occurring ice. What is the modern trend?
- Property owners have strict liability for all ice on their property
- No duty exists for naturally occurring conditions on private property
- Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to maintain their premises, including addressing natural accumulations of ice in areas where invitees are expected (Correct answer)
- Duty exists only if a prior slip-and-fall occurred on the same ice patch
Correct answer: Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to maintain their premises, including addressing natural accumulations of ice in areas where invitees are expected
The modern trend imposes on property owners a general duty of reasonable care toward invitees, which may include addressing natural accumulations of ice in foreseeable traffic areas.
Question 3: An employee negligently injures a customer during the course of employment. Under respondeat superior, which statement is correct?
- The employer is liable only if it had direct knowledge of the employee's negligent tendency
- The employer is vicariously liable because the tort occurred within the scope of employment (Correct answer)
- The employee's personal liability is extinguished once the employer is held liable
- Respondeat superior applies only to intentional torts by employees
Correct answer: The employer is vicariously liable because the tort occurred within the scope of employment
Under respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for an employee's negligent acts committed within the scope of employment, regardless of the employer's own fault.
Question 4: A manufacturer sells a ladder with a defective rung. The buyer lends the ladder to a neighbor who is injured when the rung breaks. The neighbor sues the manufacturer in negligence. Does the manufacturer owe the neighbor a duty?
- No, duty in negligence extends only to the direct purchaser under privity of contract
- Yes, under MacPherson v. Buick, manufacturers owe a duty to foreseeable users of their products, not just purchasers (Correct answer)
- No, the neighbor assumed the risk by using a borrowed ladder
- Yes, but only if the manufacturer had prior notice of the defect
Correct answer: Yes, under MacPherson v. Buick, manufacturers owe a duty to foreseeable users of their products, not just purchasers
MacPherson v. Buick abolished the privity requirement in products negligence cases — manufacturers owe a duty of care to all foreseeable users of their products.
Question 5: A city fails to maintain a streetlight in a high-crime area. A pedestrian is attacked at night and sues the city for negligence. Which doctrine most often shields the city from liability?
- Assumption of risk by using a public street at night
- Governmental immunity for discretionary functions (Correct answer)
- Contributory negligence because pedestrian should have known the area was dangerous
- Comparative fault allocating responsibility to the criminal attacker
Correct answer: Governmental immunity for discretionary functions
Government entities retain immunity for discretionary functions — policy decisions like where to place and maintain streetlights are typically shielded from negligence liability.
Question 6: A plaintiff was injured by a product manufactured by one of several companies, but cannot identify the specific manufacturer. Market share liability (Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories) allows recovery. What is the result?
- Each defendant pays 100% of damages
- Defendants pay in proportion to their market share of the product at the time of injury (Correct answer)
- Liability is split equally among all named defendants regardless of market share
- Plaintiff recovers nothing because specific causation cannot be proven
Correct answer: Defendants pay in proportion to their market share of the product at the time of injury
Under market share liability, each defendant manufacturer is liable for a percentage of the plaintiff's damages proportional to its share of the relevant market.
Question 7: A plaintiff is injured partly due to the defendant's negligence and partly due to plaintiff's own failure to wear a seatbelt. In a modified comparative fault (51% bar) jurisdiction, the jury finds plaintiff 55% at fault. What is the outcome?
- Plaintiff recovers 45% of damages
- Plaintiff recovers nothing because she exceeds 50% fault (Correct answer)
- Plaintiff recovers 55% of damages equal to her fault share
- Plaintiff recovers full damages because defendant was also at fault
Correct answer: Plaintiff recovers nothing because she exceeds 50% fault
Under the 51% (modified comparative fault) bar rule, a plaintiff who is 51% or more at fault is barred from any recovery — here 55% exceeds the bar.
FYLSX Torts: Negligence and Causation 5
A social host serves alcohol to a visibly intoxicated adult guest who later drives and kills a pedestrian.
Under traditional common law, is the social host liable to the pedestrian's family?