NYLE Torts & Tort Damages 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: In New York, which of the following most accurately describes a 'superseding cause' that would break the chain of proximate causation?
- Any intervening act by a third party
- An unforeseeable intervening act that alone produces the plaintiff's harm (Correct answer)
- The plaintiff's own negligence contributing to the injury
- A natural event that was statistically possible
Correct answer: An unforeseeable intervening act that alone produces the plaintiff's harm
A superseding cause is an intervening act that is so unforeseeable that it is unjust to hold the original defendant liable for the resulting harm.
Question 2: Under New York's wrongful death statute (EPTL § 5-4.1), who has standing to bring a wrongful death action?
- Any person who suffered economic loss from the decedent's death
- The personal representative of the decedent's estate, on behalf of distributees (Correct answer)
- Only the surviving spouse
- The decedent's creditors
Correct answer: The personal representative of the decedent's estate, on behalf of distributees
EPTL § 5-4.1 vests the right to bring a wrongful death action exclusively in the personal representative of the decedent's estate for the benefit of distributees.
Question 3: A New York court applies the 'eggshell plaintiff' (thin skull) rule. Which statement best captures its effect?
- Defendants are only liable for harms a reasonable person would have anticipated
- Defendants take the plaintiff as they find them and are liable for full damages even if a pre-existing condition made injuries far worse (Correct answer)
- Plaintiffs with pre-existing conditions cannot recover for aggravation of those conditions
- Damages are apportioned based on the plaintiff's pre-existing vulnerability
Correct answer: Defendants take the plaintiff as they find them and are liable for full damages even if a pre-existing condition made injuries far worse
The eggshell plaintiff rule holds defendants liable for the full extent of injuries even if the plaintiff's pre-existing condition made those injuries unforeseeable in their severity.
Question 4: In a New York strict products liability action based on design defect, the plaintiff must prove that a reasonable alternative design existed. This requirement reflects which test?
- The consumer expectations test
- The risk-utility test (Correct answer)
- The negligence per se test
- The res ipsa test
Correct answer: The risk-utility test
New York uses the risk-utility test for design defect claims, which requires showing that a reasonable alternative design would have reduced the risk without excessive cost or loss of utility.
Question 5: A defendant negligently injures a plaintiff who then refuses medically recommended surgery that would significantly reduce damages. Under New York law, this affects damages how?
- The plaintiff recovers all damages regardless
- The plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the damages that would have been avoided had the plaintiff undergone the reasonable treatment (Correct answer)
- The defendant is fully absolved of liability
- The court appoints a medical expert to determine appropriate treatment
Correct answer: The plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the damages that would have been avoided had the plaintiff undergone the reasonable treatment
New York's mitigation of damages doctrine requires plaintiffs to take reasonable steps to minimize their losses; failure to do so reduces recoverable damages accordingly.
Question 6: Under New York law, a plaintiff seeking to impose liability on a municipality for a dangerous sidewalk condition must establish:
- Only that the condition existed
- Prior written notice of the specific defect to the municipality, unless an exception applies (Correct answer)
- That the municipality acted with gross negligence
- That the plaintiff had no contributory fault
Correct answer: Prior written notice of the specific defect to the municipality, unless an exception applies
Most New York municipalities have prior written notice laws requiring plaintiffs to show the municipality received written notice of the specific defect before liability attaches.
Question 7: In New York, a plaintiff sues for negligent infliction of emotional distress after witnessing a family member injured by defendant's negligence. The plaintiff must generally show:
- That they were in the zone of physical danger or suffered contemporaneous observance of serious injury to a close family member (Correct answer)
- Only that they suffered severe emotional distress
- That they sustained a physical impact, without exception
- That the defendant intended to cause emotional harm
Correct answer: That they were in the zone of physical danger or suffered contemporaneous observance of serious injury to a close family member
New York recognizes NIED for bystanders who were in the zone of danger or who contemporaneously observed serious bodily injury to a close family member as a direct result of defendant's negligence.
NYLE Torts & Tort Damages 5
In New York, which of the following most accurately describes a 'superseding cause' that would break the chain of proximate causation?