LA Bar Torts and Negligence 2

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:

Accepted Answer

$35,000, reflecting the defendants' percentage of fault

Answer

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:

Accepted Answer

Not liable because the substantial detour constitutes a frolic outside the scope of employment

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

Liability if the owner knew or should have known of the ruin and failed to exercise reasonable care

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

Only Defendant B is jointly and severally liable; Defendant A pays only their proportionate share

Answer

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:

Accepted Answer

The particular risk that caused harm fell within the scope of the defendant's duty

Answer

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.

(LA Bar) Louisiana Bar Exam Practice Test

(LA Bar) Louisiana Bar Exam Practice Test

LA Bar Torts and Negligence 2