VA Bar Torts and Negligence 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Virginia follows which doctrine regarding a plaintiff's own negligence in a tort action?
- Pure comparative negligence
- Modified comparative negligence
- Contributory negligence (Correct answer)
- Slight-gross negligence
Correct answer: Contributory negligence
Virginia is one of the few remaining states that applies pure contributory negligence, completely barring any plaintiff recovery if the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the harm.
Question 2: A store owner discovers a wet floor in the entrance but puts up no warning sign. A customer slips and is injured. Under Virginia premises liability law, what duty does the store owner owe the customer?
- Duty of slight care because the customer assumed the risk of shopping
- Duty of reasonable care because the customer is an invitee (Correct answer)
- Duty to warn only of concealed dangers actually known to the customer
- No duty because natural accumulation inside buildings is excepted
Correct answer: Duty of reasonable care because the customer is an invitee
Business customers are invitees to whom the landowner owes a duty of reasonable care, including inspecting for and correcting or warning of dangerous conditions.
Question 3: A driver violates a Virginia statute requiring headlights at dusk and strikes a pedestrian who is difficult to see. The pedestrian is in the class the statute was designed to protect. How does the statutory violation affect the negligence analysis?
- It creates absolute liability for the driver regardless of other factors
- It is irrelevant unless the plaintiff independently proves the driver acted unreasonably
- It constitutes negligence per se, establishing the breach element automatically (Correct answer)
- It shifts the burden of proof to the driver on the issue of causation only
Correct answer: It constitutes negligence per se, establishing the breach element automatically
Violation of a safety statute constitutes negligence per se when the plaintiff is within the class the statute was designed to protect and the harm is the type the statute was designed to prevent.
Question 4: A surgeon performs an operation using a technique that most surgeons in the field do not use, and the patient is harmed. In Virginia, by what standard is the physician's conduct measured?
- National standard of what a reasonably competent physician in the specialty would do (Correct answer)
- Local community standard of physicians in the same geographic area only
- Whatever the majority of physicians nationwide would do in the exact circumstances
- What the individual physician subjectively believed was best for the patient
Correct answer: National standard of what a reasonably competent physician in the specialty would do
Virginia applies a national standard requiring a medical professional to act as a reasonably competent practitioner in the same specialty would act under similar circumstances.
Question 5: A patient wakes from routine knee surgery to find her healthy kidney has been removed without consent. She cannot identify the specific negligent act. Which doctrine allows her to pursue a negligence claim?
- Res ipsa loquitur (Correct answer)
- Negligence per se
- Strict liability for medical procedures
- Last clear chance
Correct answer: Res ipsa loquitur
Res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence when the harm ordinarily does not occur without negligence, the instrumentality was in the defendant's exclusive control, and the plaintiff did not contribute.
Question 6: A negligent driver heads toward a pedestrian who is also negligently standing in the road. The pedestrian is helpless to move in time. The driver could have braked and avoided impact but failed to do so. Under Virginia law, what is the result?
- The plaintiff's contributory negligence bars all recovery
- The plaintiff may recover under the last clear chance doctrine (Correct answer)
- Both parties share liability proportionally under comparative fault
- The court applies assumption of risk to bar the plaintiff
Correct answer: The plaintiff may recover under the last clear chance doctrine
Virginia's last clear chance doctrine allows a contributorily negligent plaintiff to recover if the defendant, aware of the plaintiff's peril, had the last clear chance to avoid injury but failed to take it.
Question 7: A plaintiff voluntarily participates in a recreational ice hockey game and is injured by a fellow player's forceful but legal body check. Which defense most likely bars the plaintiff's negligence claim?
- Contributory negligence based on the plaintiff's choice to play
- Implied assumption of risk from voluntarily encountering known inherent dangers (Correct answer)
- Superseding cause based on the other player's independent act
- Qualified privilege applicable to sporting competitions
Correct answer: Implied assumption of risk from voluntarily encountering known inherent dangers
Implied assumption of risk bars recovery when the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily encounters a risk inherent in the activity, such as body-checking in a hockey game.
VA Bar Torts and Negligence 2
Virginia follows which doctrine regarding a plaintiff's own negligence in a tort action?