CP Torts and Personal Injury Questions and Answers

Question 1

A delivery driver, while looking at their phone, runs a red light and hits a pedestrian who was crossing the street legally. The pedestrian suffers a broken leg and incurs $50,000 in medical bills. In a negligence claim against the driver, which element is BEST demonstrated by the driver looking at their phone and running the red light?

Accepted Answer

Breach of Duty

Answer

The driver had a legal duty to operate the vehicle with reasonable care. By looking at a phone and running a red light, the driver failed to meet this standard of care, which constitutes a breach of that duty.

Question 2

Which of the following legal theories would most likely apply to a case where a person is injured by a tiger that escaped from a private, licensed sanctuary, regardless of the precautions the owner took to secure the enclosure?

Accepted Answer

Strict Liability

Answer

Strict liability holds a party responsible for their actions or products, without the plaintiff having to prove negligence. Keeping wild animals is considered an ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activity, making the owner strictly liable for any harm caused.

Question 3

In a personal injury lawsuit in a state that follows the doctrine of pure comparative negligence, a jury finds the plaintiff was 70% at fault for their own injuries and the defendant was 30% at fault. The total damages are determined to be $100,000. Which of the following outcomes is correct?

Accepted Answer

The plaintiff recovers $30,000.

Answer

Under a pure comparative negligence system, a plaintiff's damages are reduced by their own percentage of fault, but they can still recover even if they are mostly at fault. In this case, the total damages of $100,000 are reduced by the plaintiff's 70% fault ($70,000), allowing them to recover the remaining 30% ($30,000) from the defendant.

Question 4

A store security guard has a reasonable suspicion that a customer has shoplifted. The guard stops the customer and escorts them to a back room. The guard locks the door and refuses to let the customer leave for three hours, long after it has become clear the customer did not steal anything. The customer may have a valid claim against the store for which intentional tort?

Accepted Answer

False Imprisonment

Answer

False imprisonment is the intentional confinement of a person against their will without legal justification. While stores have a 'shopkeeper's privilege' to detain suspected shoplifters, the detention must be for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner. A three-hour detention after the suspicion is cleared is almost certainly unreasonable.

Question 5

The legal doctrine of *respondeat superior* is most closely associated with which of the following concepts?

Accepted Answer

An employer is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of an employee acting within the scope of their employment.

Answer

*Respondeat superior*, a Latin phrase for 'let the master answer,' is a form of vicarious liability. It holds an employer legally responsible for torts committed by an employee if the acts occur within the scope of the employment.

(CP) NALA Certified Paralegal Practice Test

(CP) NALA Certified Paralegal Practice Test

CP Torts and Personal Injury Questions and Answers