Torts Law - Hypotheticals Exam Questions And 100%
Verified Detailed Answers
Hammontree v. Jenner - What was the holding of this case? ANSWER If the driver of an
automobile with a medical condition capable of causing an automobile accident acted
reasonably to control the condition, then the driver will only be held liable in cases that
the driver acted negligently, and will not be held to the doctrine of strict liability.
John is a motorist on a highway where pedestrians normally don't cross. Jane is
crossing the busy highway as a pedestrian and John hits her as she crosses. Under a
general duty rule, Palsgraf, Andrews Dissent, does John owe a duty of care to a
pedestrian? Under the foreseeable duty rule, Palsgraf, Cardozo Majority would John
owe a duty of care to the pedestrian? - ANSWER Under a general duty rule you owe
everyone a duty to take reasonable precautions. Here, John would owe a duty of care to
Jane because he owes a duty to everybody. In the foreseeable duty rule, you owe only
those foreseeable plaintiffs or harms within the foreseeable zone of danger. Thus, John
would not owe a duty because it was established that it was not foreseeable that a
pedestrian would be crossing the highway.
Summary: The defendant operates a day care center which maintains an indoor play
and recreational room, as well as an outdoor playground equipped with a swing set and
a slide. The center is licensed by the state and is in compliance with all relevant
regulations. On one afternoon, A and B, age five, are playing on the swing set when a
stray dog wanders into the playground, bites B and flees. The playground is open and
not fenced in. Other children of the playground (all the way from C to Z) have been
previously bitten by a stray dog in the playground. Defendant cleans B's wound and
places a bandage over the wound, but does not take B to the hospital. Instead, when B's
parent picks up B at the end of the day, Defendant informs B's parent about the incident.
B is immediately taken to the hospital where he is examined. The doctor finds that there
is some chance of rabies and gives B a series of shots to deal with the potential disease.
B's parent has to pay $4000 in ho - ANSWER NO DUTY TO ACT: Defendant may argue
Plaintiffs can't prove duty because Defendant didn't do anything affirmative that would
have created a duty. Defendant may argue there was no special relationship that would
have created a duty to act. Plaintiffs, however, have arguments to establish the prima
facie case for duty.
, DUTY OF FORESEEABILITY: Plaintiffs must prove that Defendant owed a duty to them.
Plaintiffs have a good argument for duty based upon foreseeability with many cases
weighing in their favor. 24 other children have been bitten in a way similarly to the
accident and that history should weigh in favor of Plaintiffs. The property was not fenced
in and it was used by children, which weighs in favor of Plaintiffs.
DUTY TO ACT WHEN ASSUMPTION OF DUTY: One who undertakes to rescue a person
has a duty to act like an ordinary reasonable person to prevent foreseeable injury. Here,
even if Defendant would not be liable for the dog bite, Defendant did undertake care of B
by treating him with first aid. Defendant, however, failed to get B to the hospital on time.
Plaintiffs have an argument that hospital care was foreseeable in light of the injuries,
which would be the basis for imposing a duty on Defendant. Further, Defendant was
acting in loco parentis since he was providing day care services. Therefore, there is at
least an argument under the statement of the common law trends to impose a duty here.
DUTY OF LANDOWNERS: In the case of B, he is probably an invitee (someone who has
come on the land for business purposes) since he is a customer. Landowners owe
invitees a duty of reasonable care, meaning always inspect, and reasonably remedy,
and warn. The difficulty here is that the danger (the dog) entered onto the land and is
arguably not a dangerous condition of the land itself. However, that the land being
unfenced while being used as a playground is a dangerous condition
What was the holding in Brown v. Kendall? - ANSWER Since the burden was on the
plaintiff to show that the defendant breached his duty of using ordinary care, the
defendant is not liable for injuries resulting from the lawful, ordinarily prudent act of
swinging the stick to break up the dogs.
Adams v. Bullock What was the holding? - ANSWER The trolley company should not be
liable for failing to predict such an unpredictable event in a particular place on the
trolley route, especially when the trolley lines were too far to be reached by pedestrian
traffic under any predictable circumstances.
One day Joe, a blind man, decides he has had enough of sitting at his house worrying
about getting hurt all the time and starts running down the middle of the street. 5
seconds later, Joe gets hit by a bus and breaks his leg. Joe sues the bus driver, but the
bus driver counter-claims that Joe breached. Joe argues he couldn't see the bus
because of his physical disability. Has Joe breached? - ANSWER Yes. Although physical
disabilities, such as blindness are exceptions to the rules of breach, they are not
Verified Detailed Answers
Hammontree v. Jenner - What was the holding of this case? ANSWER If the driver of an
automobile with a medical condition capable of causing an automobile accident acted
reasonably to control the condition, then the driver will only be held liable in cases that
the driver acted negligently, and will not be held to the doctrine of strict liability.
John is a motorist on a highway where pedestrians normally don't cross. Jane is
crossing the busy highway as a pedestrian and John hits her as she crosses. Under a
general duty rule, Palsgraf, Andrews Dissent, does John owe a duty of care to a
pedestrian? Under the foreseeable duty rule, Palsgraf, Cardozo Majority would John
owe a duty of care to the pedestrian? - ANSWER Under a general duty rule you owe
everyone a duty to take reasonable precautions. Here, John would owe a duty of care to
Jane because he owes a duty to everybody. In the foreseeable duty rule, you owe only
those foreseeable plaintiffs or harms within the foreseeable zone of danger. Thus, John
would not owe a duty because it was established that it was not foreseeable that a
pedestrian would be crossing the highway.
Summary: The defendant operates a day care center which maintains an indoor play
and recreational room, as well as an outdoor playground equipped with a swing set and
a slide. The center is licensed by the state and is in compliance with all relevant
regulations. On one afternoon, A and B, age five, are playing on the swing set when a
stray dog wanders into the playground, bites B and flees. The playground is open and
not fenced in. Other children of the playground (all the way from C to Z) have been
previously bitten by a stray dog in the playground. Defendant cleans B's wound and
places a bandage over the wound, but does not take B to the hospital. Instead, when B's
parent picks up B at the end of the day, Defendant informs B's parent about the incident.
B is immediately taken to the hospital where he is examined. The doctor finds that there
is some chance of rabies and gives B a series of shots to deal with the potential disease.
B's parent has to pay $4000 in ho - ANSWER NO DUTY TO ACT: Defendant may argue
Plaintiffs can't prove duty because Defendant didn't do anything affirmative that would
have created a duty. Defendant may argue there was no special relationship that would
have created a duty to act. Plaintiffs, however, have arguments to establish the prima
facie case for duty.
, DUTY OF FORESEEABILITY: Plaintiffs must prove that Defendant owed a duty to them.
Plaintiffs have a good argument for duty based upon foreseeability with many cases
weighing in their favor. 24 other children have been bitten in a way similarly to the
accident and that history should weigh in favor of Plaintiffs. The property was not fenced
in and it was used by children, which weighs in favor of Plaintiffs.
DUTY TO ACT WHEN ASSUMPTION OF DUTY: One who undertakes to rescue a person
has a duty to act like an ordinary reasonable person to prevent foreseeable injury. Here,
even if Defendant would not be liable for the dog bite, Defendant did undertake care of B
by treating him with first aid. Defendant, however, failed to get B to the hospital on time.
Plaintiffs have an argument that hospital care was foreseeable in light of the injuries,
which would be the basis for imposing a duty on Defendant. Further, Defendant was
acting in loco parentis since he was providing day care services. Therefore, there is at
least an argument under the statement of the common law trends to impose a duty here.
DUTY OF LANDOWNERS: In the case of B, he is probably an invitee (someone who has
come on the land for business purposes) since he is a customer. Landowners owe
invitees a duty of reasonable care, meaning always inspect, and reasonably remedy,
and warn. The difficulty here is that the danger (the dog) entered onto the land and is
arguably not a dangerous condition of the land itself. However, that the land being
unfenced while being used as a playground is a dangerous condition
What was the holding in Brown v. Kendall? - ANSWER Since the burden was on the
plaintiff to show that the defendant breached his duty of using ordinary care, the
defendant is not liable for injuries resulting from the lawful, ordinarily prudent act of
swinging the stick to break up the dogs.
Adams v. Bullock What was the holding? - ANSWER The trolley company should not be
liable for failing to predict such an unpredictable event in a particular place on the
trolley route, especially when the trolley lines were too far to be reached by pedestrian
traffic under any predictable circumstances.
One day Joe, a blind man, decides he has had enough of sitting at his house worrying
about getting hurt all the time and starts running down the middle of the street. 5
seconds later, Joe gets hit by a bus and breaks his leg. Joe sues the bus driver, but the
bus driver counter-claims that Joe breached. Joe argues he couldn't see the bus
because of his physical disability. Has Joe breached? - ANSWER Yes. Although physical
disabilities, such as blindness are exceptions to the rules of breach, they are not
