MD Bar Torts and Negligence 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A Maryland driver violates a statute requiring headlights after dusk and collides with another car. What is the effect of the statutory violation in the negligence suit?
- It is evidence of negligence for the jury to consider (Correct answer)
- It is negligence per se establishing liability conclusively
- It is irrelevant unless the driver was also cited by police
- It shifts the burden of proof to the defendant on damages
Correct answer: It is evidence of negligence for the jury to consider
In Maryland, violation of a statute is evidence of negligence rather than negligence per se, and the jury decides its weight along with causation.
Question 2: A barrel rolls out of a warehouse window and injures a passerby who cannot identify any specific negligent act. Which doctrine permits an inference of negligence in Maryland?
- Res ipsa loquitur (Correct answer)
- Respondeat superior
- Last clear chance
- Negligent entrustment
Correct answer: Res ipsa loquitur
Res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence when the event ordinarily does not occur without negligence, the instrumentality was in the defendant's exclusive control, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the injury.
Question 3: A contributorily negligent pedestrian is trapped on Maryland train tracks, and the engineer sees him in time to stop but fails to do so. Which doctrine may still allow the pedestrian to recover?
- Last clear chance (Correct answer)
- Assumption of the risk
- Sudden emergency doctrine
- Avoidable consequences
Correct answer: Last clear chance
Maryland's last clear chance doctrine permits a contributorily negligent plaintiff to recover if the defendant had a fresh opportunity to avoid the harm after the plaintiff's peril arose and negligently failed to use it.
Question 4: A pizza delivery driver negligently injures a pedestrian while making a delivery on his assigned route. Under Maryland law, when is the pizza company liable?
- When the driver was acting within the scope of employment (Correct answer)
- Only if the company was independently negligent in hiring
- Never, because employees are always independent actors
- Only if the driver is insolvent
Correct answer: When the driver was acting within the scope of employment
Under respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for torts committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment.
Question 5: A homeowner's dog bites a mail carrier who was lawfully on the property in Maryland. Under Maryland's dog bite statute, what is the effect on the owner's liability?
- There is a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew the dog had vicious propensities (Correct answer)
- The owner is strictly liable with no defenses available
- The carrier must prove two prior bites by the dog
- The owner is immune because the dog was on its own property
Correct answer: There is a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew the dog had vicious propensities
Maryland's statute creates a rebuttable presumption that the owner knew or should have known of the dog's vicious or dangerous propensities in personal injury actions.
Question 6: A blasting company conducting demolition in a Maryland suburb damages a neighboring home despite using all possible care. What is the basis of liability?
- Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity (Correct answer)
- Negligence per se
- Ordinary negligence requiring proof of fault
- No liability because due care was used
Correct answer: Strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity
Blasting is an abnormally dangerous activity, so the actor is strictly liable for resulting harm regardless of the level of care exercised.
Question 7: Two defendants are jointly liable for a Maryland plaintiff's injury, and one pays the entire judgment. What right does the paying defendant have against the other under Maryland's Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tort-Feasors Act?
- Contribution for the other tortfeasor's pro rata share (Correct answer)
- Full indemnification automatically
- No recourse, because payment extinguishes all claims
- Subrogation to the plaintiff's punitive damages
Correct answer: Contribution for the other tortfeasor's pro rata share
The UCATA gives a joint tortfeasor who pays more than his pro rata share a right of contribution from the other joint tortfeasors.
MD Bar Torts and Negligence 3
A Maryland driver violates a statute requiring headlights after dusk and collides with another car.
What is the effect of the statutory violation in the negligence suit?