Torts Flashcards
7 cards from real MO BAR practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Torts flashcards as text
A plaintiff sues a defendant for negligence after slipping on a wet floor in a store. To establish a prima facie case, which element does the plaintiff NOT need to prove?
Answer: Defendant's intent to cause harm
Negligence does not require proof of intent; the plaintiff must only show duty, breach, causation, and damages.
Under the 'but-for' test of actual causation, a defendant's conduct is the cause-in-fact of plaintiff's injury when:
Answer: The injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent conduct
The but-for test asks whether the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent act.
Which of the following best describes the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?
Answer: Negligence may be inferred when the injury is of a type that ordinarily does not occur without negligence
Res ipsa loquitur allows negligence to be inferred when the harm is of a type that would not ordinarily occur absent negligence and the instrumentality was in the defendant's control.
A battery claim requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant:
Answer: Intended to cause harmful or offensive contact and contact resulted
Battery requires intentional harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff's person.
Under pure comparative fault, a plaintiff who is 60% at fault for their own injury and suffered $100,000 in damages would recover:
Answer: $40,000
Under pure comparative fault, a plaintiff recovers damages reduced by their own percentage of fault regardless of how large that percentage is, so $100,000 × (1 − 0.60) = $40,000.
Which standard of care applies to a licensed professional such as a physician accused of malpractice?
Answer: The standard of care of a reasonably competent professional in the same field
Professionals are held to the standard of care of a reasonably competent member of their profession under the same or similar circumstances.
The 'eggshell plaintiff' (thin skull) rule provides that:
Answer: A defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them and is liable for full extent of harm even if unforeseeable
Under the eggshell plaintiff rule, a defendant is fully liable for all harm caused even if the plaintiff's unusual susceptibility made the harm far greater than expected.