Torts 1 Fall Final UPDATED ACTUAL
Exam Questions and CORRECT Answers
Hammontree v. Jenner - CORRECT ANSWER - Absolute liability is not always the rule;
sudden loss of consciousness is not negligent unless it is foreseeable
Bierman - CORRECT ANSWER - Strict liability can apply to small claims
Brown v. Kendall - CORRECT ANSWER - Dog fight that Kendall tried to break up by
using a stick and accidentally hit Brown in the process; a person ordinarily has a duty to adopt
reasonable precautions to minimize injury to others. However, a person is not expected to foretell
and guard against every possible dangerous circumstance
Adams v. Bullock - CORRECT ANSWER - Adams was swinging wire near a trolley that
was owned by Bullock and got injured; standard of reasonable care requires no more of a public
utility than that it exercise ordinary foresight and precaution in maintaining dangerous electrical
equipment
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad v. Goodman - CORRECT ANSWER - Lack of reasonable
care by Goodman with contributory negligence in railroad incident; if the required standard of
conduct is clear, it may be articulated by the courts without being submitted to the jury. It is clear
that when a driver approaches railroad tracks, there is a risk of coming into contact with a
moving train
Pokora v. Wabash Railway Co. - CORRECT ANSWER - Pokora approached RR track,
listened for a train and didn't get out of the car, and got hit by train; when approaching a railroad
track in a private car, an individual is not required to stop, get out of his car, and look for
oncoming trains before crossing the track if doing so is not customary and may ultimately be
more dangerous.
Contributory negligence case; trial should be decided by a jury, and a trial court should not have
used a directed verdict.
, Bethel v. New York Transit Authority - CORRECT ANSWER - P sat on bus and seat
collapsed under them; there are different amounts of care as a matter of fact. As reasonable care
is applied to different situations, it can have different meanings. Therefore common carriers only
have a duty to act with reasonable care, rather than utmost care, as was the standard before this
case
Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. - CORRECT ANSWER - Driver jumped out of a
car when he was being robbed at gunpoint, and did not stop the car, which went on and hit a
family; a person is not negligent for unintentionally harming others while engaged in an
altercation with a criminal, and negligence must consider time and place.
Hasseneyer - CORRECT ANSWER - 13-yr.-old Hasseneyer was at a railroad crossing and
got struck by a train where no one saw her; trial court held her to the reasonable 13-yr.-old
standard, and ended the unfair standard of contributory negligence for women (no sex should be
held to a higher standard of reasonable care than another).
U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co. - CORRECT ANSWER - Carroll was a tug that negligently
tied a barge owned by the Conners, which broke loose and hit a tanker that damaged US
property; court asks what the reasonable bargee would have done, and bargee should've been on
the boat to prevent the barge from breaking loose. Court says bargee is negligent if it causes
more damage than it's worth (established B<PL), which it does, so Carroll's liable
Trimarco v. Klein - CORRECT ANSWER - P was a tenant in the D's building, injured by
glass of the shower door that they thought was tempered based on custom; court says custom can
be evidence, and when proof of customary practice is coupled with showing that it was ignored,
this could establish liability.
Sheeley v. Memorial Hospital - CORRECT ANSWER - - P gave birth, employee of D
performed episiotomy, P suffered injuries as a result of negligence; court said the appropriate
standard of care in a given procedure should be the procedure performed and the question of
whether it was executed in conformity with the recognized standard of care
- In medical malpractice, custom is conclusive proof of unreasonableness (Sheeley - OBGYN
expert)
- Standard of care for physicians = degree of care/skill that reasonably competent practitioner in
the same class/practice area would exercise in the same or similar circumstances (Sheeley)
Exam Questions and CORRECT Answers
Hammontree v. Jenner - CORRECT ANSWER - Absolute liability is not always the rule;
sudden loss of consciousness is not negligent unless it is foreseeable
Bierman - CORRECT ANSWER - Strict liability can apply to small claims
Brown v. Kendall - CORRECT ANSWER - Dog fight that Kendall tried to break up by
using a stick and accidentally hit Brown in the process; a person ordinarily has a duty to adopt
reasonable precautions to minimize injury to others. However, a person is not expected to foretell
and guard against every possible dangerous circumstance
Adams v. Bullock - CORRECT ANSWER - Adams was swinging wire near a trolley that
was owned by Bullock and got injured; standard of reasonable care requires no more of a public
utility than that it exercise ordinary foresight and precaution in maintaining dangerous electrical
equipment
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad v. Goodman - CORRECT ANSWER - Lack of reasonable
care by Goodman with contributory negligence in railroad incident; if the required standard of
conduct is clear, it may be articulated by the courts without being submitted to the jury. It is clear
that when a driver approaches railroad tracks, there is a risk of coming into contact with a
moving train
Pokora v. Wabash Railway Co. - CORRECT ANSWER - Pokora approached RR track,
listened for a train and didn't get out of the car, and got hit by train; when approaching a railroad
track in a private car, an individual is not required to stop, get out of his car, and look for
oncoming trains before crossing the track if doing so is not customary and may ultimately be
more dangerous.
Contributory negligence case; trial should be decided by a jury, and a trial court should not have
used a directed verdict.
, Bethel v. New York Transit Authority - CORRECT ANSWER - P sat on bus and seat
collapsed under them; there are different amounts of care as a matter of fact. As reasonable care
is applied to different situations, it can have different meanings. Therefore common carriers only
have a duty to act with reasonable care, rather than utmost care, as was the standard before this
case
Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. - CORRECT ANSWER - Driver jumped out of a
car when he was being robbed at gunpoint, and did not stop the car, which went on and hit a
family; a person is not negligent for unintentionally harming others while engaged in an
altercation with a criminal, and negligence must consider time and place.
Hasseneyer - CORRECT ANSWER - 13-yr.-old Hasseneyer was at a railroad crossing and
got struck by a train where no one saw her; trial court held her to the reasonable 13-yr.-old
standard, and ended the unfair standard of contributory negligence for women (no sex should be
held to a higher standard of reasonable care than another).
U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co. - CORRECT ANSWER - Carroll was a tug that negligently
tied a barge owned by the Conners, which broke loose and hit a tanker that damaged US
property; court asks what the reasonable bargee would have done, and bargee should've been on
the boat to prevent the barge from breaking loose. Court says bargee is negligent if it causes
more damage than it's worth (established B<PL), which it does, so Carroll's liable
Trimarco v. Klein - CORRECT ANSWER - P was a tenant in the D's building, injured by
glass of the shower door that they thought was tempered based on custom; court says custom can
be evidence, and when proof of customary practice is coupled with showing that it was ignored,
this could establish liability.
Sheeley v. Memorial Hospital - CORRECT ANSWER - - P gave birth, employee of D
performed episiotomy, P suffered injuries as a result of negligence; court said the appropriate
standard of care in a given procedure should be the procedure performed and the question of
whether it was executed in conformity with the recognized standard of care
- In medical malpractice, custom is conclusive proof of unreasonableness (Sheeley - OBGYN
expert)
- Standard of care for physicians = degree of care/skill that reasonably competent practitioner in
the same class/practice area would exercise in the same or similar circumstances (Sheeley)
