FYLSX Torts Principles & Liability Rules 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A defendant who acted negligently argues the plaintiff's own negligence bars recovery entirely. In a pure comparative fault jurisdiction, the result is:
- Plaintiff is completely barred from recovery if more than 50% at fault
- Plaintiff's damages are reduced proportionally regardless of their percentage of fault (Correct answer)
- Plaintiff is barred if any negligence is found on their part
- Defendant is fully liable regardless of plaintiff's fault
Correct answer: Plaintiff's damages are reduced proportionally regardless of their percentage of fault
Under pure comparative fault, the plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault but is never entirely barred.
Question 2: A contractor excavates near a public road, and a pedestrian falls into the unguarded trench at night. Which type of negligence per se standard is most applicable?
- The contractor is strictly liable because excavations are inherently dangerous
- Violation of a safety statute requiring guards on open excavations establishes negligence per se (Correct answer)
- The contractor is liable only if the pedestrian was an invitee
- No liability because the pedestrian should have seen the trench
Correct answer: Violation of a safety statute requiring guards on open excavations establishes negligence per se
When a defendant violates a safety statute designed to protect the class of persons harmed, negligence per se replaces the ordinary reasonable care standard.
Question 3: A plaintiff's injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent act. However, a second independent negligent act by a third party also contributed to the same indivisible injury. Under joint and several liability, the plaintiff can:
- Recover only from the defendant whose act was more substantial
- Recover the full amount of damages from either defendant (Correct answer)
- Recover only 50% from each defendant
- Not recover because multiple causes defeat but-for causation
Correct answer: Recover the full amount of damages from either defendant
Under joint and several liability, each defendant whose negligence was a cause of an indivisible injury is liable for the entire amount of damages.
Question 4: A newspaper publishes a true story about a private individual's past arrest that occurred 15 years ago and is now a matter of public record. The individual sues for invasion of privacy. Which tort claim is most viable?
- Defamation, because the story is harmful
- Public disclosure of private facts, but may fail because the information is public record (Correct answer)
- False light, because the story is old
- Intrusion upon seclusion, because the publisher investigated the plaintiff
Correct answer: Public disclosure of private facts, but may fail because the information is public record
Public disclosure of private facts fails when the disclosed information is already a matter of public record, defeating the privacy element.
Question 5: Under the 'eggshell skull' (thin skull) rule, a defendant who negligently injures a plaintiff with an unusually fragile medical condition is:
- Liable only for harm a normal person would have suffered
- Fully liable for all harm suffered, even if far greater due to the plaintiff's condition (Correct answer)
- Liable for 50% of the excess harm caused by the condition
- Not liable if the condition was pre-existing and not caused by the defendant
Correct answer: Fully liable for all harm suffered, even if far greater due to the plaintiff's condition
The eggshell skull rule holds defendants liable for the full extent of harm even if the plaintiff's unusual vulnerability made the injury far worse than expected.
Question 6: A defendant stores large quantities of dynamite in a residential neighborhood. The dynamite explodes, injuring a neighbor. The defendant argues it exercised all possible care. Under Rylands v. Fletcher strict liability, the result is:
- Defendant is not liable because it took all reasonable precautions
- Defendant is liable because storing dynamite is an abnormally dangerous activity (Correct answer)
- Defendant is liable only if the plaintiff proves negligence
- Defendant is not liable because dynamite is legally stored
Correct answer: Defendant is liable because storing dynamite is an abnormally dangerous activity
Storing explosives is a classic example of an abnormally dangerous activity imposing strict liability regardless of the defendant's exercise of care.
Question 7: A defendant committed fraud inducing the plaintiff to enter a contract. The plaintiff seeks punitive damages. Under tort law, punitive damages are typically awarded when:
- The defendant's conduct was merely negligent
- The defendant's conduct was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights (Correct answer)
- The plaintiff suffered severe economic harm
- The defendant had a prior history of contract breaches
Correct answer: The defendant's conduct was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights
Punitive damages require proof that the defendant's conduct was malicious, fraudulent, oppressive, or recklessly indifferent to others' rights.
FYLSX Torts Principles & Liability Rules 4
A defendant who acted negligently argues the plaintiff's own negligence bars recovery entirely.
In a pure comparative fault jurisdiction, the result is: