OH Bar Torts and Negligence 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under Ohio's comparative negligence statute, a plaintiff found 51% at fault for her own injuries will recover what portion of her damages?
- Nothing, because her fault exceeds 50% (Correct answer)
- 49% of her damages
- 51% of her damages
- Full damages reduced by a jury discretion factor
Correct answer: Nothing, because her fault exceeds 50%
Ohio follows modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar, so a plaintiff more than 50% at fault recovers nothing.
Question 2: A landowner in Ohio owes a licensee (a social guest) which duty of care?
- To warn of or make safe known hidden dangers (Correct answer)
- To inspect the premises for unknown dangers
- Only to refrain from intentional harm
- The same duty owed to a business invitee
Correct answer: To warn of or make safe known hidden dangers
Ohio retains the common-law categories, and a licensee is owed a warning of known latent dangers but no duty of inspection.
Question 3: A dog bites a delivery driver in Ohio. Under R.C. 955.28, the owner's liability is best described as:
- Strict liability regardless of the dog's prior behavior (Correct answer)
- Liability only if the owner knew the dog was vicious
- Liability only for negligence in restraining the dog
- No liability unless the dog was a designated dangerous breed
Correct answer: Strict liability regardless of the dog's prior behavior
Ohio's dog-bite statute imposes strict liability on owners without requiring prior knowledge of viciousness (no 'one free bite' rule).
Question 4: In an Ohio negligence action, the statute of limitations for bodily injury generally requires filing within:
- Two years from when the cause of action accrues (Correct answer)
- One year from the date of injury
- Four years from the date of injury
- Six years from discovery of the injury
Correct answer: Two years from when the cause of action accrues
R.C. 2305.10 sets a two-year limitations period for bodily injury claims in Ohio.
Question 5: A defendant negligently blocks a road, and the plaintiff is injured when a drunk driver swerves around the blockage and hits him. The drunk driver's act is best analyzed as:
- A foreseeable intervening cause that does not cut off liability (Correct answer)
- A superseding cause that always absolves the defendant
- An independent tort making the defendant an accomplice
- Contributory negligence imputed to the plaintiff
Correct answer: A foreseeable intervening cause that does not cut off liability
Negligent or even criminal third-party conduct does not supersede the original tortfeasor's liability if it was a foreseeable result of the negligence.
Question 6: Under Ohio law, punitive damages in a tort action require the plaintiff to prove the defendant acted with:
- Actual malice, by clear and convincing evidence (Correct answer)
- Ordinary negligence, by a preponderance of the evidence
- Gross negligence, by a preponderance of the evidence
- Recklessness, beyond a reasonable doubt
Correct answer: Actual malice, by clear and convincing evidence
Ohio requires clear and convincing evidence of actual malice (or aggravated/egregious fraud) to support punitive damages.
Question 7: A surgeon leaves a sponge inside a patient. Which doctrine most directly allows the jury to infer negligence without direct proof of the surgeon's specific careless act?
- Res ipsa loquitur (Correct answer)
- Negligence per se
- Respondeat superior
- The rescue doctrine
Correct answer: Res ipsa loquitur
Res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence where the injury ordinarily does not occur absent negligence and the instrumentality was in the defendant's control.
OH Bar Torts and Negligence 2
Under Ohio's comparative negligence statute, a plaintiff found 51% at fault for her own injuries will recover what portion of her damages?