Torts UPDATED Exam Questions and
CORRECT Answers
Elements of Negligence - CORRECT ANSWER 1. duty
2. breach
3. causation
4. damages
Establishing Duty - CORRECT ANSWER In general, one has a duty to be reasonably careful.
- Ways to determine?
1. common knowledge
2. statute
3. foreseeability
4. expert opinions
5. industry standard
Professional Negligence - CORRECT ANSWER Professionals are held to national industry
standards, NOT the expereince of the individual
this standard is OBJECTIVE
ex: "Reasonably prudent pilot" NOT "a pilot with JFK's experience"
Breach - CORRECT ANSWER duty is where we set the bar, breach is if you are over or
under that bar of standard of care owed to another
caustation - CORRECT ANSWER asks "did the breach cause the damages?"
, must satisfy both cause in fact AND proximate cause
causation in fact - CORRECT ANSWER "but for" causation
If "but for" doesn't work, the actor's negligence must have been a SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR in
contributing to the harm (2 fires case)
must be more than remote or trivial relationship to harm done
does not have to be the only cause
proving causation in fact - CORRECT ANSWER - must prove by preponderance of the
evidence
- burden of proof rests on plaintiff
proximate cause - CORRECT ANSWER The harm done is a natural and probable
consequence of the negligent action
must be close in time and space - cannot be too attenuated with too many intervening variables
Palsgraf Rule - CORRECT ANSWER Zone of danger rule
- freeze time right before harm occurs
- who would you expect to be injured by the negligent action?
- this is whats "forseeable" in determining proximate cause
Polemis Rule - CORRECT ANSWER Severity of damage does not matter - actor is liable for
ANY harm that occurs from a forseeably negligent act
- ex: when the movers negligently dropped the plank, it was forseeable that someone would get
hurt/some damage would occur. The fact that nobody could have forseen the whole ship burning
down does not matter.
CORRECT Answers
Elements of Negligence - CORRECT ANSWER 1. duty
2. breach
3. causation
4. damages
Establishing Duty - CORRECT ANSWER In general, one has a duty to be reasonably careful.
- Ways to determine?
1. common knowledge
2. statute
3. foreseeability
4. expert opinions
5. industry standard
Professional Negligence - CORRECT ANSWER Professionals are held to national industry
standards, NOT the expereince of the individual
this standard is OBJECTIVE
ex: "Reasonably prudent pilot" NOT "a pilot with JFK's experience"
Breach - CORRECT ANSWER duty is where we set the bar, breach is if you are over or
under that bar of standard of care owed to another
caustation - CORRECT ANSWER asks "did the breach cause the damages?"
, must satisfy both cause in fact AND proximate cause
causation in fact - CORRECT ANSWER "but for" causation
If "but for" doesn't work, the actor's negligence must have been a SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR in
contributing to the harm (2 fires case)
must be more than remote or trivial relationship to harm done
does not have to be the only cause
proving causation in fact - CORRECT ANSWER - must prove by preponderance of the
evidence
- burden of proof rests on plaintiff
proximate cause - CORRECT ANSWER The harm done is a natural and probable
consequence of the negligent action
must be close in time and space - cannot be too attenuated with too many intervening variables
Palsgraf Rule - CORRECT ANSWER Zone of danger rule
- freeze time right before harm occurs
- who would you expect to be injured by the negligent action?
- this is whats "forseeable" in determining proximate cause
Polemis Rule - CORRECT ANSWER Severity of damage does not matter - actor is liable for
ANY harm that occurs from a forseeably negligent act
- ex: when the movers negligently dropped the plank, it was forseeable that someone would get
hurt/some damage would occur. The fact that nobody could have forseen the whole ship burning
down does not matter.
