Multistate Bar Exam Torts 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A newspaper publishes a false story stating that a local businesswoman embezzled funds. The businesswoman is not a public figure. To recover for defamation, which standard of fault must she prove?
- Strict liability
- Negligence (Correct answer)
- Actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard)
- Gross negligence
Correct answer: Negligence
Under Gertz v. Robert Welch, private figures need only prove negligence to recover for defamation, not actual malice.
Question 2: A landlord fails to repair a broken stair railing despite multiple tenant complaints. A guest of a tenant falls and is injured. The jurisdiction follows the modern trend regarding landlord liability. Which result is most likely?
- The landlord is not liable because guests are licensees.
- The landlord is not liable because tenants assumed the risk.
- The landlord is liable for failure to maintain common areas in reasonably safe condition. (Correct answer)
- The landlord is liable only if he personally observed the defect.
Correct answer: The landlord is liable for failure to maintain common areas in reasonably safe condition.
Under the modern trend, landlords owe a duty of reasonable care to maintain common areas, extending protection to tenant guests.
Question 3: A defendant publishes truthful but highly private facts about a plaintiff's past drug addiction on a public website. The plaintiff sues for invasion of privacy. Which tort theory is most applicable?
- False light invasion of privacy
- Appropriation of name or likeness
- Public disclosure of private facts (Correct answer)
- Intrusion upon seclusion
Correct answer: Public disclosure of private facts
Public disclosure of private facts involves publishing true but private information that a reasonable person would find highly offensive.
Question 4: A manufacturer produces a painkiller that causes liver damage when taken as directed. No manufacturing defect exists; the drug is made exactly as designed. Plaintiffs sue under products liability. Which theory is most applicable?
- Manufacturing defect
- Design defect (Correct answer)
- Failure to warn
- Breach of implied warranty only
Correct answer: Design defect
When a product is made as designed but the design itself causes harm, the appropriate theory is design defect.
Question 5: A plaintiff asserts intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) against a debt collector who called her daily for six months using profanity and threats. Which element is most likely satisfied here?
- Transferred intent
- Extreme and outrageous conduct (Correct answer)
- Offensive contact
- False imprisonment
Correct answer: Extreme and outrageous conduct
Persistent, abusive harassment by a creditor can constitute extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient for IIED.
Question 6: A driver negligently causes an accident, injuring a bystander. An off-duty nurse stops to help and negligently provides first aid, worsening the injury. Which doctrine best addresses the original driver's liability for the nurse's negligent act?
- The driver is not liable because the nurse's act was a superseding cause.
- The driver remains liable because negligent medical treatment is a foreseeable intervening cause. (Correct answer)
- The driver is liable only if he directed the nurse to help.
- The driver is immune under Good Samaritan statutes.
Correct answer: The driver remains liable because negligent medical treatment is a foreseeable intervening cause.
Negligent medical treatment of an accident victim is a foreseeable intervening cause that does not break the chain of causation from the original tortfeasor.
Question 7: Two hunters simultaneously and independently fire negligently in a field. One bullet strikes the plaintiff, but it cannot be determined whose bullet caused the injury. Under the alternative liability doctrine, what is the result?
- Neither hunter is liable because causation cannot be proven.
- Both hunters are jointly and severally liable, and the burden shifts to them to exculpate themselves. (Correct answer)
- Each hunter pays 50% regardless of whose bullet actually hit.
- The plaintiff cannot recover without proving which bullet struck him.
Correct answer: Both hunters are jointly and severally liable, and the burden shifts to them to exculpate themselves.
Under Summers v. Tice, when all negligent defendants are before the court and causation is uncertain, the burden shifts to defendants to prove they did not cause the harm.
Multistate Bar Exam Torts 3
A newspaper publishes a false story stating that a local businesswoman embezzled funds.
The businesswoman is not a public figure.
To recover for defamation, which standard of fault must she prove?