LA Bar Torts and Negligence 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under Louisiana's pure comparative fault system (Civil Code Art. 2323), a plaintiff found 65% at fault for their $100,000 in damages may recover:
- Nothing, as the plaintiff bears the majority of fault
- $65,000, reflecting the plaintiff's percentage of fault
- $35,000, reflecting the defendants' percentage of fault (Correct answer)
- $100,000 because Louisiana allows full recovery regardless of fault
Correct answer: $35,000, reflecting the defendants' percentage of fault
Louisiana's pure comparative fault system reduces the plaintiff's recovery by their fault percentage, so a 65%-at-fault plaintiff recovers only 35% of total damages.
Question 2: An employee makes a significant personal detour to visit a friend across town while on a work delivery route and negligently causes an accident. Under Louisiana respondeat superior, the employer is:
- Liable because the employee was using a company vehicle
- Not liable because the substantial detour constitutes a frolic outside the scope of employment (Correct answer)
- Liable if the personal trip occurred during paid work hours
- Liable only if negligent supervision is independently shown
Correct answer: Not liable because the substantial detour constitutes a frolic outside the scope of employment
A substantial deviation from employment duties for personal purposes is a 'frolic' that removes the employee from the scope of employment, eliminating the employer's vicarious liability.
Question 3: Following Louisiana's 1996 Civil Code amendments, what standard governs a building owner's liability under Article 2322 for damage caused by a building's ruin?
- Strict liability regardless of the owner's knowledge of the defect
- Liability only when the owner intentionally failed to make repairs
- Negligence per se upon proof of any building code violation
- Liability if the owner knew or should have known of the ruin and failed to exercise reasonable care (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Liability if the owner knew or should have known of the ruin and failed to exercise reasonable care
The 1996 amendments converted Art. 2322 from strict liability to a negligence-based standard requiring actual or constructive knowledge of the ruin.
Question 4: A jury allocates fault as follows: Plaintiff 0%, Defendant A 45%, Defendant B 55%. Under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2324, which statement is correct?
- Both A and B are jointly and severally liable for full damages
- Only Defendant B is jointly and severally liable; Defendant A pays only their proportionate share (Correct answer)
- Neither defendant is jointly and severally liable because plaintiff has zero fault
- Defendants A and B split liability equally at 50% each regardless of the jury's allocation
Correct answer: Only Defendant B is jointly and severally liable; Defendant A pays only their proportionate share
Art. 2324 imposes joint and several liability only on a tortfeasor found 50% or more at fault; Defendant A's 45% fault means A pays only their proportionate share, while Defendant B's 55% makes B solidarily liable.
Question 5: Under Louisiana's duty-risk analysis, a negligence plaintiff must establish not only that the defendant breached a duty but also that:
- The defendant acted with conscious disregard of the plaintiff's rights
- The plaintiff suffered a diagnosable physical injury as a direct result of the breach
- The particular risk that caused harm fell within the scope of the defendant's duty (Correct answer)
- The defendant was the sole contributing cause of the plaintiff's injury
Correct answer: The particular risk that caused harm fell within the scope of the defendant's duty
Louisiana's duty-risk analysis requires that the specific risk which materialized and caused harm was within the ambit of the duty the defendant owed, not just that a duty existed.
Question 6: Under the original pre-1996 version of Louisiana Civil Code Article 2317 (strict liability for things in one's custody), what did a plaintiff need to prove to establish liability?
- The defendant's negligence in maintaining the thing in a safe condition
- The defendant's actual knowledge of the specific dangerous condition
- Intentional conduct by the defendant in creating or maintaining the defect
- The thing's defective condition, the defendant's custody over it, and that the defect caused the damage (Correct answer)
Correct answer: The thing's defective condition, the defendant's custody over it, and that the defect caused the damage
Under pre-1996 Art. 2317, the plaintiff needed only to prove the thing's vice or defect, the defendant's custody, and causation — no proof of the defendant's knowledge or negligence was required.
Question 7: Which element is essential to establish an employer's vicarious liability (respondeat superior) for an employee's negligent act under Louisiana law?
- The employer gave express or implied authority for the specific negligent act
- The employee was acting within the course and scope of employment when the tort occurred (Correct answer)
- The employer was independently negligent in hiring or supervising the employee
- The employee's act directly and financially benefited the employer
Correct answer: The employee was acting within the course and scope of employment when the tort occurred
Vicarious liability under respondeat superior requires that the employee was acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of the tortious act.
LA Bar Torts and Negligence 2
Under Louisiana's pure comparative fault system (Civil Code Art. 2323), a plaintiff found 65% at fault for their $100,000 in damages may recover: