Torts & Personal Injury Law Flashcards

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which element does the plaintiff NOT need to independently prove?

Answer: That the defendant owed a duty of care

Res ipsa loquitur allows negligence to be inferred from the circumstances, but duty of care is a separate element the plaintiff must still establish independently.

A plaintiff sues for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Which conduct best satisfies the 'extreme and outrageous' standard?

Answer: A defendant falsely telling a mother her child had just been killed in an accident

Falsely informing a parent their child has died is a classic example of extreme and outrageous conduct that exceeds all bounds tolerated by civilized society.

In products liability, a manufacturing defect claim differs from a design defect claim because a manufacturing defect:

Answer: Occurs when a specific product deviates from its intended design

A manufacturing defect occurs when a specific unit deviates from the intended design, making that unit more dangerous than the properly manufactured products.

Which statement correctly describes 'assumption of the risk' as a defense in a personal injury case?

Answer: The plaintiff must have known of the risk and voluntarily chose to encounter it

Assumption of the risk requires that the plaintiff subjectively knew of the specific risk and voluntarily and unreasonably chose to encounter it.

A legal assistant is preparing a demand letter for a slip-and-fall case on a commercial property. Which type of plaintiff status typically results in the highest duty of care owed by the landowner?

Answer: Invitee

Invitees—those who enter property for business purposes or on a public invitation—are owed the highest duty of care, requiring the landowner to inspect and repair dangerous conditions.

The 'thin skull' (or 'eggshell plaintiff') rule in tort law means that:

Answer: A defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them, even if injuries are more severe than expected

The eggshell plaintiff rule holds defendants fully liable for all resulting harm even if the plaintiff's pre-existing vulnerability caused injuries far greater than would normally occur.

In a negligence case, 'proximate cause' is best described as:

Answer: The legal limitation on how far liability extends from the defendant's conduct

Proximate cause (legal cause) limits a defendant's liability to foreseeable consequences of their conduct, preventing unlimited liability for all downstream effects.