VT Bar VT Bar Torts 1 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: In Vermont, which comparative fault system is used to apportion damages in negligence cases?
- Pure contributory negligence
- Pure comparative fault
- Modified comparative fault (51% bar rule)
- Modified comparative fault (50% bar rule) (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Modified comparative fault (50% bar rule)
Vermont follows a modified comparative fault system under which a plaintiff is barred from recovery if their fault is 51% or more (the 50% bar rule — plaintiff recovers if less than 51% at fault).
Question 2: To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove which four elements?
- Intent, causation, damages, breach
- Duty, breach, causation, damages (Correct answer)
- Foreseeability, intent, harm, duty
- Negligence per se, breach, harm, intent
Correct answer: Duty, breach, causation, damages
A negligence claim requires proof of duty, breach of that duty, causation (actual and proximate), and damages.
Question 3: Under Vermont law, which standard of care applies to landowners with respect to trespassers?
- Reasonable care under all circumstances
- Willful or wanton conduct standard for undiscovered trespassers (Correct answer)
- Strict liability
- Ordinary negligence for all trespassers
Correct answer: Willful or wanton conduct standard for undiscovered trespassers
Vermont landowners generally owe trespassers only the duty to refrain from willful or wanton conduct, unless the trespasser is discovered or a child.
Question 4: Strict products liability under Restatement (Second) § 402A requires that the product be in a 'defective condition unreasonably dangerous' at the time it left the seller's control. Which party bears the burden of proof?
- The defendant manufacturer
- The plaintiff (Correct answer)
- The distributor
- The retailer
Correct answer: The plaintiff
Under strict products liability, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the product was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous when it left the defendant's control.
Question 5: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence when which conditions are met?
- The defendant admits fault and the injury is severe
- The accident ordinarily does not occur without negligence, the instrumentality was in defendant's control, and plaintiff did not contribute (Correct answer)
- The plaintiff proves the defendant was intoxicated
- The injury was foreseeable and the defendant had a duty of care
Correct answer: The accident ordinarily does not occur without negligence, the instrumentality was in defendant's control, and plaintiff did not contribute
Res ipsa loquitur requires: the event does not ordinarily occur without negligence, the instrumentality was exclusively controlled by the defendant, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the injury.
Question 6: In Vermont, which test is applied to determine proximate causation?
- The 'but for' test exclusively
- The substantial factor test exclusively
- Both 'but for' and substantial factor tests depending on the circumstances (Correct answer)
- The directness test from Polemis
Correct answer: Both 'but for' and substantial factor tests depending on the circumstances
Vermont courts apply the 'but for' test for single-cause cases and the substantial factor test when multiple causes contribute to the harm.
VT Bar VT Bar Torts 1
In Vermont, which comparative fault system is used to apportion damages in negligence cases?