IN Bar Torts and Negligence 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under Indiana's Comparative Fault Act, a plaintiff is barred from recovery in a negligence action against a non-governmental defendant when the plaintiff's fault is:
- Greater than 50% of the total fault (Correct answer)
- 50% or more of the total fault
- Any percentage of the total fault
- Greater than 75% of the total fault
Correct answer: Greater than 50% of the total fault
Indiana's modified comparative fault system bars recovery only when the plaintiff's fault exceeds 50%, so a plaintiff at exactly 50% may still recover.
Question 2: A plaintiff sues an Indiana city for negligence after tripping on a broken sidewalk. Which fault rule applies to the claim against the governmental entity?
- Contributory negligence, barring recovery for any plaintiff fault (Correct answer)
- Modified comparative fault with a 51% bar
- Pure comparative fault
- Strict liability regardless of plaintiff conduct
Correct answer: Contributory negligence, barring recovery for any plaintiff fault
Indiana's Comparative Fault Act excludes governmental entities, so common-law contributory negligence still applies and any plaintiff fault bars recovery.
Question 3: A surgeon leaves a sponge inside a patient during an operation. The patient wants to rely on res ipsa loquitur. Which element is essential to invoke the doctrine?
- The injury is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur without negligence (Correct answer)
- The defendant admitted fault in the medical record
- The plaintiff can identify the exact negligent act
- An expert witness personally observed the surgery
Correct answer: The injury is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur without negligence
Res ipsa loquitur requires an injury that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence and an instrumentality under the defendant's exclusive control.
Question 4: A landowner in Indiana keeps a vicious dog that has previously bitten two people. The dog escapes and bites a jogger. The owner's best-known theory of liability is:
- Common-law strict liability based on the owner's knowledge of the animal's dangerous propensities (Correct answer)
- Negligence per se based on federal law
- Trespass to chattels
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Correct answer: Common-law strict liability based on the owner's knowledge of the animal's dangerous propensities
An owner who knows of a domestic animal's dangerous propensities is strictly liable for injuries the animal causes.
Question 5: Under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, before filing most malpractice suits in court, a plaintiff generally must first:
- Present the proposed complaint to a medical review panel (Correct answer)
- Obtain a certificate of merit from the attorney general
- Post a bond covering the defendant's costs
- Arbitrate the claim before the state medical board
Correct answer: Present the proposed complaint to a medical review panel
The Act requires most claims to be submitted to a medical review panel, which issues an opinion before the case proceeds in court.
Question 6: A driver negligently strikes a pedestrian, who suffers a broken leg. Because the pedestrian has brittle bone disease, the fracture is far worse than normal. The driver is liable for:
- The full extent of the pedestrian's injuries, even if unforeseeable in severity (Correct answer)
- Only the injuries a healthy person would have suffered
- Nothing, because the condition was a superseding cause
- Only the medical bills, not pain and suffering
Correct answer: The full extent of the pedestrian's injuries, even if unforeseeable in severity
Under the eggshell plaintiff rule, a tortfeasor takes the victim as found and is liable for the full extent of the harm.
Question 7: A store customer slips on a grape that had been on the floor for several hours. To hold the Indiana store liable for premises liability, the customer as an invitee must generally show the store:
- Had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard and failed to exercise reasonable care (Correct answer)
- Guaranteed the safety of all customers as an insurer
- Intentionally placed the grape on the floor
- Violated a specific criminal statute
Correct answer: Had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard and failed to exercise reasonable care
A landowner owes invitees reasonable care, which requires actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, but is not an insurer of safety.
IN Bar Torts and Negligence 2
Under Indiana's Comparative Fault Act, a plaintiff is barred from recovery in a negligence action against a non-governmental defendant when the plaintiff's fault is: