OR Bar Torts and Negligence 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under Oregon law, which standard of care applies to a defendant who holds themselves out as having special expertise in a particular field?
- The reasonable person standard
- The standard of a reasonably competent specialist in that field (Correct answer)
- A heightened strict liability standard
- The custom of the local community only
Correct answer: The standard of a reasonably competent specialist in that field
A professional or specialist is held to the standard of a reasonably competent member of that profession or specialty.
Question 2: A landowner in Oregon knows that neighborhood children regularly trespass to use an old abandoned swimming pool on the property. The landowner takes no steps to fence or drain the pool. A child drowns. Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, the landowner is MOST LIKELY:
- Not liable because trespassers assume the risk
- Not liable because the child was old enough to appreciate the danger
- Liable because the conditions for attractive nuisance are met (Correct answer)
- Liable only under strict liability for ultrahazardous activities
Correct answer: Liable because the conditions for attractive nuisance are met
The attractive nuisance doctrine imposes liability on landowners who fail to protect child trespassers from artificial conditions posing unreasonable risk when the cost of protection is slight relative to the risk.
Question 3: In a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's breach was the 'cause-in-fact' of the injury. Which test is primarily used in Oregon for this element?
- The 'substantial factor' test exclusively
- The 'but-for' test, with the substantial factor test applied when multiple sufficient causes exist (Correct answer)
- The 'risk-utility' balancing test
- The 'foreseeability' test alone
Correct answer: The 'but-for' test, with the substantial factor test applied when multiple sufficient causes exist
Oregon applies the 'but-for' test as the primary cause-in-fact standard, reserving the substantial factor test for cases involving concurrent sufficient causes.
Question 4: Under Oregon's comparative fault system, a plaintiff who is found 51% at fault for their own injuries:
- Recovers nothing because they are more than 50% at fault (Correct answer)
- Recovers full damages because pure comparative fault applies
- Recovers 49% of their damages
- Recovers damages reduced only if a jury so decides
Correct answer: Recovers nothing because they are more than 50% at fault
Oregon follows a modified comparative fault system barring recovery when the plaintiff's fault equals or exceeds 51% (ORS 31.600).
Question 5: Which of the following best describes the 'eggshell skull' (thin skull) rule in Oregon tort law?
- A defendant is only liable for foreseeable injuries
- A defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them and is liable for the full extent of harm even if unforeseeable (Correct answer)
- A defendant's liability is capped at the typical harm for such incidents
- A defendant is not liable if the plaintiff had a pre-existing condition that contributed to the injury
Correct answer: A defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them and is liable for the full extent of harm even if unforeseeable
The eggshell skull rule holds that a tortfeasor is liable for the full extent of a plaintiff's injuries even if the plaintiff is unusually susceptible and the extent of harm was unforeseeable.
Question 6: Res ipsa loquitur allows a plaintiff to establish a negligence inference without direct proof of breach. Which element is NOT required for res ipsa loquitur in Oregon?
- The event must be of a type that ordinarily does not occur without negligence
- The instrumentality must have been in the defendant's exclusive control
- The plaintiff must show they did not contribute to the accident
- The plaintiff must show the defendant acted with actual malice (Correct answer)
Correct answer: The plaintiff must show the defendant acted with actual malice
Res ipsa loquitur does not require proof of malice — it is a doctrine that infers negligence from the circumstances of the accident itself.
Question 7: A driver runs a red light and strikes a pedestrian who was jaywalking. In Oregon, how will the court apportion liability?
- The driver bears 100% liability because running a red light is a statutory violation
- The pedestrian bears 100% liability because jaywalking is illegal
- Fault will be apportioned between both parties under Oregon's comparative fault statute (Correct answer)
- Neither party recovers because both were negligent per se
Correct answer: Fault will be apportioned between both parties under Oregon's comparative fault statute
Oregon's comparative fault statute (ORS 31.600) requires apportioning fault among all parties, even when both commit statutory violations.
OR Bar Torts and Negligence 2
Under Oregon law, which standard of care applies to a defendant who holds themselves out as having special expertise in a particular field?