Multistate Bar Exam Torts 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A plaintiff sues a contractor for negligence after a building collapses injuring her. The contractor argues the building was completed and accepted by the owner 10 years earlier. Under the traditional completed and accepted work doctrine, what is the likely result?
- The contractor remains liable indefinitely for construction defects.
- The contractor's liability ends once the owner accepts the work. (Correct answer)
- The contractor is strictly liable regardless of acceptance.
- The contractor is liable only if the statute of repose has not run.
Correct answer: The contractor's liability ends once the owner accepts the work.
Under the traditional rule, a contractor is absolved of third-party liability once the owner accepts the completed work, as acceptance shifts liability to the owner.
Question 2: A defendant publishes an editorial falsely accusing a county sheriff of accepting bribes. The sheriff sues for defamation. Which fault standard applies?
- Negligence, because the sheriff is a private individual
- Strict liability, because the accusation is per se defamatory
- Actual malice, because the sheriff is a public official (Correct answer)
- Recklessness, because the accusation involves criminal conduct
Correct answer: Actual malice, because the sheriff is a public official
Under New York Times v. Sullivan, public officials must prove actual malice—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth—in defamation cases.
Question 3: A defendant, intending to frighten a plaintiff, fires a gun near her ear. The plaintiff does not see or hear the gun but suffers a heart attack from the noise. Has assault been committed?
- Yes, because the defendant intended to cause apprehension.
- No, because the plaintiff did not have apprehension of imminent harmful contact. (Correct answer)
- Yes, because the defendant's act caused physical harm.
- No, because the harm was unforeseeable.
Correct answer: No, because the plaintiff did not have apprehension of imminent harmful contact.
Assault requires that the plaintiff have apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact; if the plaintiff was unaware of the threatening act, no assault occurred.
Question 4: A grocery chain faces a products liability suit after a customer is injured by a defective can opener sold under the store's private label but manufactured by a third party. Is the grocery chain strictly liable?
- No, because it did not manufacture the product.
- No, because it merely sold the product and had no duty to inspect.
- Yes, because commercial sellers in the chain of distribution face strict liability. (Correct answer)
- Yes, only if the store knew of the defect.
Correct answer: Yes, because commercial sellers in the chain of distribution face strict liability.
Under strict products liability, all commercial sellers in the distribution chain—including retailers—may be held strictly liable for defective products.
Question 5: A defendant is charged with conversion after taking the plaintiff's rare coin collection and selling it. The plaintiff seeks damages. What is the proper measure of damages for conversion?
- Cost of repair
- Rental value of the chattel during dispossession
- Fair market value of the chattel at the time of conversion (Correct answer)
- Nominal damages only
Correct answer: Fair market value of the chattel at the time of conversion
Conversion damages equal the fair market value of the chattel at the time of conversion, effectively forcing a judicial sale.
Question 6: A plaintiff suffers injuries in a car accident and, during treatment, receives negligent medical care that worsens her condition. The original negligent driver argues he should not be liable for the additional harm caused by the doctor's malpractice. Which result is most accurate?
- The driver is not liable for the doctor's malpractice as it is a superseding cause.
- The driver is liable for the aggravation because negligent medical treatment is a foreseeable consequence of causing injury. (Correct answer)
- The driver and doctor are each liable only for the discrete harm they caused.
- The driver is only liable if the doctor's malpractice was gross negligence.
Correct answer: The driver is liable for the aggravation because negligent medical treatment is a foreseeable consequence of causing injury.
Negligent medical treatment received for accident injuries is a foreseeable consequence, making the original tortfeasor liable for the full extent of harm including medical aggravation.
Question 7: A defendant operates a construction crane adjacent to a public street. A cable snaps due to inadequate maintenance, injuring a pedestrian. A city ordinance required monthly cable inspections. The defendant had not inspected in three months. How does the ordinance affect the negligence analysis?
- It establishes strict liability regardless of fault.
- It is irrelevant because only common law standards govern negligence.
- Violation of the ordinance constitutes negligence per se if the plaintiff is in the protected class and the harm is of the type the statute was designed to prevent. (Correct answer)
- It creates only a rebuttable presumption of negligence.
Correct answer: Violation of the ordinance constitutes negligence per se if the plaintiff is in the protected class and the harm is of the type the statute was designed to prevent.
Negligence per se applies when a defendant violates a safety statute designed to protect the class of persons and prevent the type of harm that occurred.
Multistate Bar Exam Torts 5
A plaintiff sues a contractor for negligence after a building collapses injuring her.
The contractor argues the building was completed and accepted by the owner 10 years earlier.
Under the traditional completed and accepted work doctrine, what is the likely result?