WA Bar Washington Torts 3

Question 1

In a Washington trespass to land claim, which statement regarding the required intent is correct?

Accepted Answer

The defendant must have intentionally entered the land or caused something to enter, even if they believed they had permission

Answer

The defendant must have intended to commit a wrongful act and known the land belonged to another

Answer

The plaintiff must prove the defendant acted with malice or ill will

Answer

Trespass requires the plaintiff to prove actual compensatory damages

Question 2

Washington recognizes strict liability for which of the following?

Accepted Answer

Engaging in abnormally dangerous activities

Answer

Owning a domestic dog that bites someone for the very first time

Answer

Operating a business open to members of the general public

Answer

Manufacturing any consumer product sold in interstate commerce

Question 3

Washington has abolished which of the following common law tort immunities?

Accepted Answer

Charitable immunity from tort liability

Answer

Parental immunity for all unintentional harm caused to children

Answer

Interspousal immunity for all tort claims between spouses

Answer

Governmental immunity for proprietary — as opposed to governmental — functions

Question 4

Under Washington's negligence per se doctrine, for a statutory violation to establish the standard of care, the plaintiff must demonstrate:

Accepted Answer

The plaintiff is within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect and the harm suffered is of the type the statute was designed to prevent

Answer

The violation is some evidence of negligence, but the plaintiff still bears the full burden of proving unreasonableness independently

Answer

The statutory violation creates an irrebuttable presumption of negligence requiring no further proof

Answer

Only that the defendant violated the statute — causation is legally presumed from the violation

Question 5

Under Washington's 'rescue doctrine,' a negligent defendant who endangers a primary victim is liable to a rescuer injured during the rescue because:

Accepted Answer

The defendant's negligence is the proximate cause of injuries sustained by a reasonable rescuer because rescue is a foreseeable response to created peril

Answer

Rescuers are treated as business invitees and are therefore owed the highest duty of care

Answer

Rescuers assume absolutely no risk of injury when acting voluntarily to save another person

Answer

The rescue doctrine applies only to paid professional firefighters and law enforcement officers

Question 6

What is the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims in Washington, and does a statute of repose apply?

Accepted Answer

3 years from the negligent act or 1 year from discovery (whichever expires later), with an 8-year statute of repose

Answer

1 year from discovery of the injury, with no statute of repose

Answer

2 years from the negligent act or 1 year from discovery, with a 6-year statute of repose

Answer

4 years from discovery of the injury, with a 10-year statute of repose

Question 7

Under Washington premises liability law, how does an 'open and obvious' danger affect a landowner's potential liability to an invitee?

Accepted Answer

It is a factor considered in the comparative fault analysis but does not automatically negate the landowner's duty or bar the plaintiff's recovery

Answer

It completely bars the invitee's recovery as a matter of law

Answer

It automatically shifts strict liability from the landowner to the invitee for voluntarily encountering the hazard

Answer

The open-and-obvious rule applies only to natural outdoor conditions, not to artificial hazards