Torts Flashcards

The 'eggshell skull' rule in tort law provides that:

Answer: A defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them and is fully liable for all harm, even if the plaintiff had a pre-existing condition that made them unusually susceptible

The eggshell skull (thin skull) rule holds a tortfeasor fully liable for all harm caused to the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff's pre-existing vulnerability made the injury far worse than it would be for an average person.

Under Massachusetts Chapter 93A, which conduct is actionable?

Answer: Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce

M.G.L. c. 93A prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce, and multiple damages and attorney's fees may be awarded for willful or knowing violations.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) requires conduct that is:

Answer: Extreme and outrageous, beyond all bounds of decency

IIED requires that the defendant's conduct be extreme and outrageous—going beyond all possible bounds of decency—and that it intentionally or recklessly cause severe emotional distress.

For a negligence per se claim, a plaintiff must show the defendant violated a statute and that:

Answer: The plaintiff was in the class of persons the statute was designed to protect and the harm was the type the statute was designed to prevent

Negligence per se requires that the plaintiff belong to the class of persons the statute was designed to protect and that the injury be of the type the statute was designed to prevent.

Which defense, if successfully raised, completely bars the plaintiff's tort recovery in a contributory negligence jurisdiction?

Answer: Contributory negligence

In a pure contributory negligence jurisdiction, any negligence by the plaintiff, however slight, completely bars recovery—a harsh rule that most states (including Massachusetts) have replaced with comparative fault.

Under Massachusetts law, a defendant's liability for the negligence of an independent contractor is:

Answer: Generally not imposed, with exceptions for non-delegable duties or inherently dangerous activities

Massachusetts generally does not hold employers vicariously liable for independent contractors' negligence, but exceptions apply for non-delegable duties and inherently dangerous activities.