Torts Exam Questions With Complete Solutions
(a) May but need not find negligence correct answers Jury can
infer negligence but isn't required to. Plaintiff benefits from
going to jury, but inference is discretionary. Most states adopt
this approach.
Example
Byrne v. Boadle - barrel falls from window.
(b) Must find negligence unless defendant produces some
evidence correct answers The showing was "so convincing that
the inference of negligence arising therefrom is inescapable if
not rebutted by other evidence.
Example
Airplane passenger injured when plane went off runway while
landing
If defendant offers sufficient rebutting evidence, the case still
must be submitted to a jury who will be instructed that the
plaintiff bears the burden of persuading the jury
(The Wagon Mound) Privy Council 1961 correct answers
Where Overseas Tankship's ship leaked oil into Sydney Harbor
near Morts Dock, and the dock was later destroyed when debris
in the oil ignited, the court ruled that Tankship was not liable
because the fire was an unforeseeable consequence of its
negligent oil spill. Liability only extends to harms that a
reasonable person could have foreseen at the time of the
,negligent act, and since Tankship could not have reasonably
anticipated that the oil would catch fire, holding it responsible
for the damage would have been unfair.
1. Mental Ability correct answers An actor's mental or
emotional disability is not considered in determining whether
conduct is negligent, unless the actor is a child.
1. Physical Disability correct answers Adjusts disability to what
a reasonable person would do with that disability
if "physical illness" causes "sudden incapacitation or loss of
consciousness," the conduct is not negligent unless those
conditions were "reasonably foreseeable to the actor."
2. Children correct answers Children must exercise the care that
a reasonable child of their actual age, intelligence, and
experience would exercise
Children under age five are conclusively presumed to be unable
to comprehend risk sufficiently
Exceptions (when children can be held to adult standards vs
child standards)
-Dangerous/regulated activities (cars, boats, planes) → held to
adult standard;
-Age-appropriate activities (toys, skiing) → held to minor's
reasonable standard.
2. Elderly or Infirm correct answers if your impairments
prevent you from meeting the reasonable person standard (like
,safely driving), then you shouldn't be engaging in that activity at
all.
3. Personal differences correct answers (Such as if someone is
clumsy or hasty or accident prone)
3. Pockets of strict liability correct answers the impossibility of
anyone being able to drive—or to engage in any high-repetition
precautionary behavior—without an occasional lapse of
attention or "compliance error."
4. Superior Attributes correct answers Restatement (Third) §
12: Superior skill or knowledge is a factor in determining
whether reasonable care was exercised.
9/11-related cases (notes): correct answers Fires from the
September 11 attacks were not foreseeable in their cause, but
courts noted that the risk of injury from fire itself was
foreseeable. The precise source (terrorist attack) did not matter
—liability depended on whether the risk of fire-related harm
was within the scope of the defendant's duty.
"In In re September 11 Litigation, 280 F. Supp. 2d 279, 299
(S.D.N.Y. 2003), the court relied on similar reasoning to hold
that the owners and operators of the World Trade Center had a
duty with respect to the fires caused by the terrorist attacks on
9/11."
Abbot v. Page Airways correct answers Where a plaintiff's
husband died in a helicopter crash and evidence showed the pilot
waved to someone on the ground, had consumed alcohol, and
flew too low and slow, the court ruled that the jury could
, properly find negligence either from those specific acts or by
applying res ipsa loquitur.
Activities correct answers When a landowner's active conduct
(not the condition of the land) causes injury, the duty is ordinary
reasonable care, regardless of whether the injured person is an
invitee, licensee, or trespasser.
Adams v. Bullock correct answers Where Adams, a 12-year-old
boy, was injured on a bridge by contacting overhead trolley
wires with a metal wire operated by Bullock, the court ruled that
Bullock was not negligent because the wires were legally
placed, reasonable precautions against foreseeable dangers had
been taken, the injury was unforeseeable, and similar accidents
had not occurred. The court held that Bullock met the standard
of ordinary care and could not be held liable for harm caused by
extraordinary, unforeseeable circumstances.
Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co correct answers Special
knowledge of danger is NOT enough if there is no special
relationship (Harper v. Herman - boat diver
When a gas utility knew of dangerous fittings in a customer's
home that it did not install or control, the court ruled that the
utility still owed a duty to warn the customer of the hazard.
Addis v. Steele (Mass. App. 1995): correct answers Where
guests at an inn were injured jumping from a second-story
window to escape a late-night fire, the court ruled that the inn
could be held liable for negligence because its duty was to
maintain reasonable fire safety measures regardless of the fire's
(a) May but need not find negligence correct answers Jury can
infer negligence but isn't required to. Plaintiff benefits from
going to jury, but inference is discretionary. Most states adopt
this approach.
Example
Byrne v. Boadle - barrel falls from window.
(b) Must find negligence unless defendant produces some
evidence correct answers The showing was "so convincing that
the inference of negligence arising therefrom is inescapable if
not rebutted by other evidence.
Example
Airplane passenger injured when plane went off runway while
landing
If defendant offers sufficient rebutting evidence, the case still
must be submitted to a jury who will be instructed that the
plaintiff bears the burden of persuading the jury
(The Wagon Mound) Privy Council 1961 correct answers
Where Overseas Tankship's ship leaked oil into Sydney Harbor
near Morts Dock, and the dock was later destroyed when debris
in the oil ignited, the court ruled that Tankship was not liable
because the fire was an unforeseeable consequence of its
negligent oil spill. Liability only extends to harms that a
reasonable person could have foreseen at the time of the
,negligent act, and since Tankship could not have reasonably
anticipated that the oil would catch fire, holding it responsible
for the damage would have been unfair.
1. Mental Ability correct answers An actor's mental or
emotional disability is not considered in determining whether
conduct is negligent, unless the actor is a child.
1. Physical Disability correct answers Adjusts disability to what
a reasonable person would do with that disability
if "physical illness" causes "sudden incapacitation or loss of
consciousness," the conduct is not negligent unless those
conditions were "reasonably foreseeable to the actor."
2. Children correct answers Children must exercise the care that
a reasonable child of their actual age, intelligence, and
experience would exercise
Children under age five are conclusively presumed to be unable
to comprehend risk sufficiently
Exceptions (when children can be held to adult standards vs
child standards)
-Dangerous/regulated activities (cars, boats, planes) → held to
adult standard;
-Age-appropriate activities (toys, skiing) → held to minor's
reasonable standard.
2. Elderly or Infirm correct answers if your impairments
prevent you from meeting the reasonable person standard (like
,safely driving), then you shouldn't be engaging in that activity at
all.
3. Personal differences correct answers (Such as if someone is
clumsy or hasty or accident prone)
3. Pockets of strict liability correct answers the impossibility of
anyone being able to drive—or to engage in any high-repetition
precautionary behavior—without an occasional lapse of
attention or "compliance error."
4. Superior Attributes correct answers Restatement (Third) §
12: Superior skill or knowledge is a factor in determining
whether reasonable care was exercised.
9/11-related cases (notes): correct answers Fires from the
September 11 attacks were not foreseeable in their cause, but
courts noted that the risk of injury from fire itself was
foreseeable. The precise source (terrorist attack) did not matter
—liability depended on whether the risk of fire-related harm
was within the scope of the defendant's duty.
"In In re September 11 Litigation, 280 F. Supp. 2d 279, 299
(S.D.N.Y. 2003), the court relied on similar reasoning to hold
that the owners and operators of the World Trade Center had a
duty with respect to the fires caused by the terrorist attacks on
9/11."
Abbot v. Page Airways correct answers Where a plaintiff's
husband died in a helicopter crash and evidence showed the pilot
waved to someone on the ground, had consumed alcohol, and
flew too low and slow, the court ruled that the jury could
, properly find negligence either from those specific acts or by
applying res ipsa loquitur.
Activities correct answers When a landowner's active conduct
(not the condition of the land) causes injury, the duty is ordinary
reasonable care, regardless of whether the injured person is an
invitee, licensee, or trespasser.
Adams v. Bullock correct answers Where Adams, a 12-year-old
boy, was injured on a bridge by contacting overhead trolley
wires with a metal wire operated by Bullock, the court ruled that
Bullock was not negligent because the wires were legally
placed, reasonable precautions against foreseeable dangers had
been taken, the injury was unforeseeable, and similar accidents
had not occurred. The court held that Bullock met the standard
of ordinary care and could not be held liable for harm caused by
extraordinary, unforeseeable circumstances.
Adams v. Northern Illinois Gas Co correct answers Special
knowledge of danger is NOT enough if there is no special
relationship (Harper v. Herman - boat diver
When a gas utility knew of dangerous fittings in a customer's
home that it did not install or control, the court ruled that the
utility still owed a duty to warn the customer of the hazard.
Addis v. Steele (Mass. App. 1995): correct answers Where
guests at an inn were injured jumping from a second-story
window to escape a late-night fire, the court ruled that the inn
could be held liable for negligence because its duty was to
maintain reasonable fire safety measures regardless of the fire's
