TX Bar Torts and Personal Injury 2

Question 1

Under res ipsa loquitur in Texas, a plaintiff uses the doctrine to:

Accepted Answer

Create an inference of negligence when the injury type wouldn't normally occur without it and the instrumentality was under the defendant's control

Answer

Prove the defendant's specific negligent act beyond reasonable doubt

Answer

Establish strict liability without any proof of fault

Answer

Shift the burden of proving damages entirely to the defendant

Question 2

Texas follows the '51% bar' rule for modified comparative negligence. Under this rule, a plaintiff found to be 51% at fault:

Accepted Answer

Is completely barred from any recovery

Answer

Recovers 49% of their damages from the defendant

Answer

Recovers nothing but may seek contribution from other defendants

Answer

May still recover if the defendant acted with gross negligence

Question 3

When a defendant's violation of a safety statute constitutes negligence per se, which elements of a negligence case does it establish?

Accepted Answer

The duty and breach elements

Answer

Only the damages element

Answer

Only actual and proximate causation

Answer

All four elements — duty, breach, causation, and damages

Question 4

A social host throws a party, knowingly allows a visibly intoxicated adult guest to drive away, and the guest causes a crash. Under Texas law, the social host is:

Accepted Answer

Subject to very limited liability because Texas social host law does not impose broad duties for serving alcohol to adults

Answer

Strictly liable under the Texas Dram Shop Act for serving alcohol

Answer

Automatically liable for all injuries caused by the intoxicated guest

Answer

Liable only if the host also provided the vehicle to the guest

Question 5

Which scenario best illustrates the 'but-for' test for actual causation in a negligence claim?

Accepted Answer

The plaintiff's injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent act

Answer

The plaintiff would have been injured regardless of the defendant's conduct

Answer

The defendant's negligence was one of many contributing factors to the injury

Answer

The defendant's conduct was a foreseeable cause of the plaintiff's type of injury

Question 6

A negligent fire at a hair salon spreads to a neighboring pharmacy, whose stock of flammable chemicals explodes and injures a pedestrian two blocks away. The proximate cause analysis focuses on:

Accepted Answer

Whether the pedestrian's injury was a reasonably foreseeable result of negligently starting the fire

Answer

Whether the salon is strictly liable because it started the chain of events

Answer

Whether fire ever creates foreseeable risks to neighboring properties

Answer

Whether intervening causes always eliminate the original tortfeasor's liability

Question 7

Which type of intervening cause most likely constitutes a superseding cause that relieves the original tortfeasor of liability?

Accepted Answer

An unforeseeable criminal act by a third party triggered by the original defendant's negligence

Answer

An emergency responder's foreseeable negligent response to the original hazard

Answer

A third party's negligent act that was a predictable response to the original danger

Answer

A treating physician's medical error occurring during treatment of the original injury