NALA Torts & Personal Injury Law 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which element does the plaintiff NOT need to independently prove?
- That the defendant owed a duty of care (Correct answer)
- That the accident is the type that ordinarily doesn't happen without negligence
- That the instrumentality was under the defendant's exclusive control
- That the plaintiff did not contribute to the accident
Correct 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.
Question 2: A plaintiff sues for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Which conduct best satisfies the 'extreme and outrageous' standard?
- A supervisor giving an employee a negative performance review
- A creditor calling a debtor repeatedly during business hours
- A defendant falsely telling a mother her child had just been killed in an accident (Correct answer)
- A neighbor making loud noise during daytime hours
Correct 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.
Question 3: In products liability, a manufacturing defect claim differs from a design defect claim because a manufacturing defect:
- Requires proof of negligence by the manufacturer
- Occurs when a specific product deviates from its intended design (Correct answer)
- Applies only when the product lacks adequate warnings
- Affects every unit of the product line equally
Correct 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.
Question 4: Which statement correctly describes 'assumption of the risk' as a defense in a personal injury case?
- It is only available in negligence cases, not intentional tort cases
- The plaintiff must have known of the risk and voluntarily chose to encounter it (Correct answer)
- It completely bars recovery in all comparative fault jurisdictions
- It applies only when the plaintiff signed a written waiver
Correct 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.
Question 5: 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?
- Trespasser
- Licensee
- Invitee (Correct answer)
- Social guest
Correct 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.
Question 6: The 'thin skull' (or 'eggshell plaintiff') rule in tort law means that:
- Defendants are only liable for foreseeable injuries
- A defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them, even if injuries are more severe than expected (Correct answer)
- Damages are reduced if the plaintiff had a pre-existing condition
- The rule applies only in intentional tort cases
Correct 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.
Question 7: In a negligence case, 'proximate cause' is best described as:
- The physical cause closest in time to the injury
- The legal limitation on how far liability extends from the defendant's conduct (Correct answer)
- The requirement that the defendant intended the harmful result
- The standard used to measure the defendant's breach of duty
Correct 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.
NALA Torts & Personal Injury Law 4
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which element does the plaintiff NOT need to independently prove?