1 | Page
Torts Adaptibar Questions and Correct Answers/
Latest Update / Already Graded
An eight-year-old child went to the grocery store with her mother. The child
pushed the grocery cart while her mother put items into it. The child's mother
remained near the child at all times. Another customer in the store noticed the
child pushing the cart in a manner that caused the customer no concern. A short
time later, the cart the child was pushing struck the customer in the knee,
inflicting serious injury.
If the customer brings an action, based on negligence, against the grocery store,
Ans: A: a store owes no duty to its customers to control the use of its shopping
carts.
B: a store owes no duty to its customers to control the conduct of other
customers.
C: any negligence of the store was not the proximate cause of the customer's
injury.
D: a supervised child pushing a cart does not pose an unreasonable risk to other
customers.
(D)
An eight-year-old child went to the grocery store with her mother. The child
pushed the grocery cart while her mother put items into it. The child's mother
remained near the child at all times. Another customer in the store noticed the
child pushing the cart in a manner that caused the customer no concern. A short
time later, the cart the child was pushing struck the customer in the knee,
inflicting serious injury.
Assume that the child was negligent and the child's mother did not adequately sup
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
Ans: A: Yes, because the child was negligent.
B: Yes, because the child's mother is responsible for any harm caused by the child.
C: Yes, because the child's mother assumed the risk of her child's actions.
D: Yes, because the child's mother did not adequately supervise the child's
actions.
(D)
A hiker, although acting with reasonable care, fell while attempting to climb a
mountain and lay unconscious and critically injured on a ledge that was difficult to
reach. The plaintiff, an experienced mountain climber, was himself seriously
injured while trying to rescue the hiker. The plaintiff's rescue attempt failed, and
the hiker died of his injuries before he could be reached.
The plaintiff brought an action against the hiker's estate for compensation for his
injuries. In this jurisdiction
Ans: A: Yes, because his rescue attempt was reasonable.
B: Yes, because the law should not discourage attempts to assist persons in
helpless peril.
C: No, because the hiker's peril did not arise from his own failure to exercise
reasonable care.
D: No, because the plaintiff's rescue attempt failed and therefore did not benefit
the hiker.
(C)
A defendant and a group of his friends are fanatical basketball fans who regularly
meet at each others' houses to watch basketball games on television. Some of the
group are fans of the home team, and others are fans of the rival team. When the
group has watched televised games between these two teams, fights sometimes
have broken out among the group. Despite this fact, the defendant invited the
group to his house to watch a championship game between the home team and
the rival team.
During the
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
Ans: A: a rescuer injured while attempting to avert a danger cannot recover
damages from the endangered person.
B: a police officer is not entitled to a recovery based upon the negligent conduct
that created the need for the officer's professional intervention.
C: as a matter of law, the defendant's conduct was not the proximate cause of the
officer's injury.
D: the defendant did not owe the officer a duty to use reasonable care, because
the officer was a mere licensee on the defendant's property.
(B)
A defendant negligently caused a fire in his house, and the house burned to the
ground. As a result, the sun streamed into the plaintiff's yard next door, which
previously had been shaded by the defendant's house. The sunshine destroyed
some delicate and valuable trees in the plaintiff's yard that could grow only in the
shade. The plaintiff has brought a negligence action against the defendant for the
loss of the plaintiff's trees. The defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint.
The best argum
Ans: A: the defendant's negligence was not the active cause of the loss of the
plaintiff's trees.
B: the defendant's duty to avoid the risks created by a fire did not encompass the
risk that sunshine would damage the plaintiff's trees.
C: the loss of the trees was not a natural and probable consequence of the
defendant's negligence.
D: the plaintiff suffered a purely economic loss, which is not compensable in a
negligence action.
(B)
An eight-year-old child had a habit of riding his bicycle onto a busy highway. His
parents knew about this habit but continued to let the child ride his bicycle. One
afternoon, the child rode his bicycle down his driveway onto the busy highway
and a driver had to stop her car suddenly to avoid colliding with the bike. Because
of the sudden stop, the driver's son, who was sitting on the seat without any
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 4 | Page
restraint, was thrown into the dashboard and injured. Had the driver's son been
properly restr
Ans: A: not prevail, because parents are not vicariously liable for the negligent
acts of their children.
B: not prevail, because the driver's son's injury was attributable to his mother's
knowing violation of a safety statute.
C: prevail, because the child's parents knew that he sometimes rode into the
highway, and they took no steps to prevent it.
D: prevail, because the child's riding into the highway was negligent and the
proximate cause of the driver's son's injuries.
(C)
While a woman was in her kitchen, she heard the screech of automobile tires.
She ran to the window and saw a tricycle flying through the air. The tricycle had
been hit by a car driven by a young man, who had been speeding. She also saw a
child's body in the grass adjacent to the street. As a result of her shock from this
experience, the woman suffered a heart attack.
In a claim by the woman against the young man, the woman's right to recovery
will depend on whether
Ans: A: a person can recover damages based on the defendant's breach of a
duty owed to another.
B: it is foreseeable that a person may suffer physical harm caused solely by an
injury inflicted on another.
C: a person can recover damages caused by shock unaccompanied by bodily
impact.
D: a person can recover damages for harm resulting from shock caused solely by
another's peril or injury.
(D)
A company designed and built a processing plant for the manufacture of an
explosive chemical. An engineer was retained by the company to design a filter
system for the processing plant. She prepared an application for a permit to build
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
Torts Adaptibar Questions and Correct Answers/
Latest Update / Already Graded
An eight-year-old child went to the grocery store with her mother. The child
pushed the grocery cart while her mother put items into it. The child's mother
remained near the child at all times. Another customer in the store noticed the
child pushing the cart in a manner that caused the customer no concern. A short
time later, the cart the child was pushing struck the customer in the knee,
inflicting serious injury.
If the customer brings an action, based on negligence, against the grocery store,
Ans: A: a store owes no duty to its customers to control the use of its shopping
carts.
B: a store owes no duty to its customers to control the conduct of other
customers.
C: any negligence of the store was not the proximate cause of the customer's
injury.
D: a supervised child pushing a cart does not pose an unreasonable risk to other
customers.
(D)
An eight-year-old child went to the grocery store with her mother. The child
pushed the grocery cart while her mother put items into it. The child's mother
remained near the child at all times. Another customer in the store noticed the
child pushing the cart in a manner that caused the customer no concern. A short
time later, the cart the child was pushing struck the customer in the knee,
inflicting serious injury.
Assume that the child was negligent and the child's mother did not adequately sup
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
Ans: A: Yes, because the child was negligent.
B: Yes, because the child's mother is responsible for any harm caused by the child.
C: Yes, because the child's mother assumed the risk of her child's actions.
D: Yes, because the child's mother did not adequately supervise the child's
actions.
(D)
A hiker, although acting with reasonable care, fell while attempting to climb a
mountain and lay unconscious and critically injured on a ledge that was difficult to
reach. The plaintiff, an experienced mountain climber, was himself seriously
injured while trying to rescue the hiker. The plaintiff's rescue attempt failed, and
the hiker died of his injuries before he could be reached.
The plaintiff brought an action against the hiker's estate for compensation for his
injuries. In this jurisdiction
Ans: A: Yes, because his rescue attempt was reasonable.
B: Yes, because the law should not discourage attempts to assist persons in
helpless peril.
C: No, because the hiker's peril did not arise from his own failure to exercise
reasonable care.
D: No, because the plaintiff's rescue attempt failed and therefore did not benefit
the hiker.
(C)
A defendant and a group of his friends are fanatical basketball fans who regularly
meet at each others' houses to watch basketball games on television. Some of the
group are fans of the home team, and others are fans of the rival team. When the
group has watched televised games between these two teams, fights sometimes
have broken out among the group. Despite this fact, the defendant invited the
group to his house to watch a championship game between the home team and
the rival team.
During the
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
Ans: A: a rescuer injured while attempting to avert a danger cannot recover
damages from the endangered person.
B: a police officer is not entitled to a recovery based upon the negligent conduct
that created the need for the officer's professional intervention.
C: as a matter of law, the defendant's conduct was not the proximate cause of the
officer's injury.
D: the defendant did not owe the officer a duty to use reasonable care, because
the officer was a mere licensee on the defendant's property.
(B)
A defendant negligently caused a fire in his house, and the house burned to the
ground. As a result, the sun streamed into the plaintiff's yard next door, which
previously had been shaded by the defendant's house. The sunshine destroyed
some delicate and valuable trees in the plaintiff's yard that could grow only in the
shade. The plaintiff has brought a negligence action against the defendant for the
loss of the plaintiff's trees. The defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint.
The best argum
Ans: A: the defendant's negligence was not the active cause of the loss of the
plaintiff's trees.
B: the defendant's duty to avoid the risks created by a fire did not encompass the
risk that sunshine would damage the plaintiff's trees.
C: the loss of the trees was not a natural and probable consequence of the
defendant's negligence.
D: the plaintiff suffered a purely economic loss, which is not compensable in a
negligence action.
(B)
An eight-year-old child had a habit of riding his bicycle onto a busy highway. His
parents knew about this habit but continued to let the child ride his bicycle. One
afternoon, the child rode his bicycle down his driveway onto the busy highway
and a driver had to stop her car suddenly to avoid colliding with the bike. Because
of the sudden stop, the driver's son, who was sitting on the seat without any
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 4 | Page
restraint, was thrown into the dashboard and injured. Had the driver's son been
properly restr
Ans: A: not prevail, because parents are not vicariously liable for the negligent
acts of their children.
B: not prevail, because the driver's son's injury was attributable to his mother's
knowing violation of a safety statute.
C: prevail, because the child's parents knew that he sometimes rode into the
highway, and they took no steps to prevent it.
D: prevail, because the child's riding into the highway was negligent and the
proximate cause of the driver's son's injuries.
(C)
While a woman was in her kitchen, she heard the screech of automobile tires.
She ran to the window and saw a tricycle flying through the air. The tricycle had
been hit by a car driven by a young man, who had been speeding. She also saw a
child's body in the grass adjacent to the street. As a result of her shock from this
experience, the woman suffered a heart attack.
In a claim by the woman against the young man, the woman's right to recovery
will depend on whether
Ans: A: a person can recover damages based on the defendant's breach of a
duty owed to another.
B: it is foreseeable that a person may suffer physical harm caused solely by an
injury inflicted on another.
C: a person can recover damages caused by shock unaccompanied by bodily
impact.
D: a person can recover damages for harm resulting from shock caused solely by
another's peril or injury.
(D)
A company designed and built a processing plant for the manufacture of an
explosive chemical. An engineer was retained by the company to design a filter
system for the processing plant. She prepared an application for a permit to build
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
