MGMT 200 PURDUE COMPREHENSIVE EXAM UPDATED
QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS RATED A+
✔✔Duty: the 1st element of negligence - ✔✔-Ask: did the defendant have a legally
recognizable duty to the injured party?
-General rule: a duty of reasonable care is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs
-Reasonable: determined by the standard of care
✔✔Breach (2nd element) the Standard of care: Reasonable Person Test - ✔✔Looks at
how a typical person with ordinary prudence would act under certain circumstances
✔✔What are the three situations of special duties? - ✔✔1. Violation of Statute
(negligence per se)
2. Omission to Act
3. Landowner/Occupier
✔✔Violation of Statute (Negligence per Se) - ✔✔-Duty is automatic when a statute is
violated (statute adopted as standard of care)
-Three conditions must be met:
1. Intent of the legislature
2. Class of persons to be protected
3. Type of injury suffered
✔✔Omission to Act - ✔✔-No duty to go to the aid of another in an emergency unless:
1. Special relationship
2. Duty to warn (expressed intent of harming themselves or others)
3. Injured by instrumentality under the defendant's control
4. Statutory duty to act
✔✔Breach (2nd element of negligence) - ✔✔-Ask: did the defendant breach the duty
owed through the standard of care by exposing others to a risk of harm?
-General test: plaintiff must have proof of what happened + must show the defendant
acted unreasonably
✔✔Causation (3rd element of negligence) - ✔✔-Actual cause: defendant's actions must
be the cause in fact of plaintiff's injury
-Proximate cause: looks to see if there is any reason the defendant should be relieved
of liability (Is it fair to hold the defendant liable for the consequences their actions?)
✔✔Causation: Actual Cause: "But For" Test - ✔✔-Take away defendant's act if injury
still occurs, the defendant's act is not the "but for" cause of the injury
-Ask: but for the defendant's actions, would this injury still have occurred?
-One defendant
, ✔✔Causation: Proximate Cause - ✔✔Ask: is there any policy reason why defendant
should be relieved of liability for the injury?
-Direct Cause (defendant did something)
-Indirect Cause (some intervening act occurred)
a. Dependent Intervening Act: normal response created by defendant's negligent act
b. Independent Intervening Act: abnormal response created by a defendant's negligent
act
✔✔Damages (negligence element #4) - ✔✔-A plaintiff can only recover damages under
negligence if they have suffered actual harm
-Compensatory damages (special and general)
-Punitive damages
-Nominal damages
✔✔Defenses to Negligence: Basic Defenses: Statute of Limitations - ✔✔The time
period allotted for the injured party to file a lawsuit; varies by state and situation; pre-trial
motion; if proven: complete bar to action
✔✔Exception to Statute of Limitations: Discovery Rule - ✔✔Finding new evidence that
you previously were not aware of
✔✔Defenses to Negligence: Basic Defenses: Failure to Mitigate Damages - ✔✔-Plaintiff
has a duty to mitigate damages
-For example: seek treatment for medical injuries (affirmative duty, can be seen as
intervening act/cause)
✔✔Defenses to Negligence: Affirmative Defenses: Contributory Negligence - ✔✔-
Plaintiff's conduct was a contributing factor in their own injury
-Complete bar to recovery, even if 1% at fault
✔✔Defenses to Negligence: Affirmative Defenses: Comparative Negligence - ✔✔-
Compares the negligence of plaintiff and defendant and apportions damages
accordingly
✔✔Defenses to Negligence: Affirmative Defenses: Assumption of Risk - ✔✔-If plaintiff
assumed risk of injury, they cannot recover
-Express (Contractual): prior to the defendant's negligence, plaintiff assumed the risk of
injury by signing a release
-Implied (Subjective): no express oral/written response
✔✔What is strict liability? - ✔✔-The imposition of absolute liability on a defendant
without a finding of fault
-Plaintiff: only needs to prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was
responsible
QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS RATED A+
✔✔Duty: the 1st element of negligence - ✔✔-Ask: did the defendant have a legally
recognizable duty to the injured party?
-General rule: a duty of reasonable care is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs
-Reasonable: determined by the standard of care
✔✔Breach (2nd element) the Standard of care: Reasonable Person Test - ✔✔Looks at
how a typical person with ordinary prudence would act under certain circumstances
✔✔What are the three situations of special duties? - ✔✔1. Violation of Statute
(negligence per se)
2. Omission to Act
3. Landowner/Occupier
✔✔Violation of Statute (Negligence per Se) - ✔✔-Duty is automatic when a statute is
violated (statute adopted as standard of care)
-Three conditions must be met:
1. Intent of the legislature
2. Class of persons to be protected
3. Type of injury suffered
✔✔Omission to Act - ✔✔-No duty to go to the aid of another in an emergency unless:
1. Special relationship
2. Duty to warn (expressed intent of harming themselves or others)
3. Injured by instrumentality under the defendant's control
4. Statutory duty to act
✔✔Breach (2nd element of negligence) - ✔✔-Ask: did the defendant breach the duty
owed through the standard of care by exposing others to a risk of harm?
-General test: plaintiff must have proof of what happened + must show the defendant
acted unreasonably
✔✔Causation (3rd element of negligence) - ✔✔-Actual cause: defendant's actions must
be the cause in fact of plaintiff's injury
-Proximate cause: looks to see if there is any reason the defendant should be relieved
of liability (Is it fair to hold the defendant liable for the consequences their actions?)
✔✔Causation: Actual Cause: "But For" Test - ✔✔-Take away defendant's act if injury
still occurs, the defendant's act is not the "but for" cause of the injury
-Ask: but for the defendant's actions, would this injury still have occurred?
-One defendant
, ✔✔Causation: Proximate Cause - ✔✔Ask: is there any policy reason why defendant
should be relieved of liability for the injury?
-Direct Cause (defendant did something)
-Indirect Cause (some intervening act occurred)
a. Dependent Intervening Act: normal response created by defendant's negligent act
b. Independent Intervening Act: abnormal response created by a defendant's negligent
act
✔✔Damages (negligence element #4) - ✔✔-A plaintiff can only recover damages under
negligence if they have suffered actual harm
-Compensatory damages (special and general)
-Punitive damages
-Nominal damages
✔✔Defenses to Negligence: Basic Defenses: Statute of Limitations - ✔✔The time
period allotted for the injured party to file a lawsuit; varies by state and situation; pre-trial
motion; if proven: complete bar to action
✔✔Exception to Statute of Limitations: Discovery Rule - ✔✔Finding new evidence that
you previously were not aware of
✔✔Defenses to Negligence: Basic Defenses: Failure to Mitigate Damages - ✔✔-Plaintiff
has a duty to mitigate damages
-For example: seek treatment for medical injuries (affirmative duty, can be seen as
intervening act/cause)
✔✔Defenses to Negligence: Affirmative Defenses: Contributory Negligence - ✔✔-
Plaintiff's conduct was a contributing factor in their own injury
-Complete bar to recovery, even if 1% at fault
✔✔Defenses to Negligence: Affirmative Defenses: Comparative Negligence - ✔✔-
Compares the negligence of plaintiff and defendant and apportions damages
accordingly
✔✔Defenses to Negligence: Affirmative Defenses: Assumption of Risk - ✔✔-If plaintiff
assumed risk of injury, they cannot recover
-Express (Contractual): prior to the defendant's negligence, plaintiff assumed the risk of
injury by signing a release
-Implied (Subjective): no express oral/written response
✔✔What is strict liability? - ✔✔-The imposition of absolute liability on a defendant
without a finding of fault
-Plaintiff: only needs to prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was
responsible
