MO Bar Torts 1 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: 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?
- Duty of care owed by defendant
- Breach of that duty
- Defendant's intent to cause harm (Correct answer)
- Causation and damages
Correct answer: Defendant's intent to cause harm
Negligence does not require proof of intent; the plaintiff must only show duty, breach, causation, and damages.
Question 2: Under the 'but-for' test of actual causation, a defendant's conduct is the cause-in-fact of plaintiff's injury when:
- The defendant acted unreasonably under the circumstances
- The injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent conduct (Correct answer)
- The injury was a foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct
- The defendant was the last person to act before the injury
Correct 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.
Question 3: Which of the following best describes the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?
- A defendant is strictly liable for any harm caused by their product
- Negligence may be inferred when the injury is of a type that ordinarily does not occur without negligence (Correct answer)
- A plaintiff need not prove damages to prevail in a negligence claim
- The defendant bears the burden of proving reasonable care
Correct 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.
Question 4: A battery claim requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant:
- Intended to cause harmful or offensive contact and contact resulted (Correct answer)
- Negligently touched the plaintiff without consent
- Created apprehension of imminent contact in the plaintiff's mind
- Caused the plaintiff severe emotional distress
Correct answer: Intended to cause harmful or offensive contact and contact resulted
Battery requires intentional harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff's person.
Question 5: Under pure comparative fault, a plaintiff who is 60% at fault for their own injury and suffered $100,000 in damages would recover:
- Nothing, because plaintiff is more than 50% at fault
- $40,000 (Correct answer)
- $60,000
- $100,000 reduced by a set-off
Correct 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.
Question 6: Which standard of care applies to a licensed professional such as a physician accused of malpractice?
- The reasonable person standard
- The standard of care of a reasonably competent professional in the same field (Correct answer)
- Strict liability regardless of how carefully the professional acted
- The standard of the most skilled professional in the relevant specialty
Correct 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.
Question 7: The 'eggshell plaintiff' (thin skull) rule provides that:
- Defendants are not liable for injuries to unusually fragile plaintiffs
- A defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them and is liable for full extent of harm even if unforeseeable (Correct answer)
- Damages are capped when the plaintiff had a pre-existing condition
- The plaintiff's fragility reduces the defendant's duty of care
Correct 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.
MO Bar Torts 1
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?