Torts Final Fall 2025 Exam Questions
and Answers
Hammontree v. Jenner - --Answer --Absolute liability is not always the rule;
sudden loss of consciousness is not negligent unless it is foreseeable
Bierman - --Answer --Strict liability can apply to small claims
Brown v. Kendall - --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 - --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 - --Answer --Lack of reasonable
care by Goodman with contributory negligence in railroad incident; if the required
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,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. - --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 - --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. - --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.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
, Hasseneyer - --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. - --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 - --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 - --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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
and Answers
Hammontree v. Jenner - --Answer --Absolute liability is not always the rule;
sudden loss of consciousness is not negligent unless it is foreseeable
Bierman - --Answer --Strict liability can apply to small claims
Brown v. Kendall - --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 - --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 - --Answer --Lack of reasonable
care by Goodman with contributory negligence in railroad incident; if the required
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,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. - --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 - --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. - --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.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
, Hasseneyer - --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. - --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 - --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 - --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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
