OK Bar Torts and Negligence 2 โ Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under Oklahoma's modified comparative negligence rule, a plaintiff is barred from recovery when their own fault is:
- Greater than 25% of the combined negligence
- Any percentage at all
- Exactly equal to or greater than 75%
- Greater than 50% of the combined negligence (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Greater than 50% of the combined negligence
Oklahoma bars recovery when the plaintiff's negligence exceeds 50% of the combined negligence of all parties.
Question 2: A landowner in Oklahoma keeps a vicious dog that has previously bitten two people. The dog escapes and bites a pedestrian on a public sidewalk. What is the owner's most likely liability theory?
- No liability because the bite occurred off the owner's property
- Trespass to chattels
- Strict liability based on known dangerous propensities (Correct answer)
- Negligence per se only
Correct answer: Strict liability based on known dangerous propensities
An owner who knows of an animal's dangerous propensities is strictly liable for injuries it causes.
Question 3: A defendant negligently causes a car accident, and the plaintiff's injuries are worsened by a doctor's ordinary malpractice during treatment. Is the original defendant liable for the aggravated injuries?
- No, because the doctor's negligence is a superseding cause
- No, because the plaintiff assumed the risk of treatment
- Yes, but only if the defendant chose the doctor
- Yes, because ordinary medical malpractice is a foreseeable intervening cause (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Yes, because ordinary medical malpractice is a foreseeable intervening cause
Ordinary medical negligence in treating a tortiously caused injury is foreseeable and does not break the causal chain.
Question 4: In Oklahoma, a store owner's duty to an invitee who slips on a spilled liquid requires the plaintiff to prove:
- Only that the fall occurred on the premises
- The owner intentionally created the hazard
- The owner had actual or constructive notice of the hazard and failed to remedy it (Correct answer)
- The owner carried no liability insurance
Correct answer: The owner had actual or constructive notice of the hazard and failed to remedy it
Premises liability to invitees requires proof the owner knew or should have known of the dangerous condition.
Question 5: Which element distinguishes false imprisonment from other intentional torts?
- Physical contact that is harmful or offensive
- Apprehension of imminent harmful contact
- Entry onto the land of another
- Confinement of the plaintiff within a bounded area with no reasonable means of escape (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Confinement of the plaintiff within a bounded area with no reasonable means of escape
False imprisonment requires intentional confinement within fixed boundaries with no reasonable escape known to the plaintiff.
Question 6: A blasting company uses dynamite near a residential area in Oklahoma and debris damages a nearby home despite all precautions. The company is:
- Not liable because it exercised reasonable care
- Not liable absent a written contract with the homeowner
- Liable only under negligence per se
- Strictly liable because blasting is an abnormally dangerous activity (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Strictly liable because blasting is an abnormally dangerous activity
Abnormally dangerous activities like blasting impose strict liability regardless of the care exercised.
Question 7: Under Oklahoma law, the statute of limitations for most negligence-based personal injury actions is:
- Five years from the date of injury
- One year from the date of injury
- Two years from the date the cause of action accrues (Correct answer)
- Six months if the defendant is a private party
Correct answer: Two years from the date the cause of action accrues
Oklahoma applies a two-year statute of limitations to most personal injury negligence claims under 12 O.S. ยง 95.
Under Oklahoma's modified comparative negligence rule, a plaintiff is barred from recovery when their own fault is: