©THESTAR EXAM SOLUTIONS 2024/2025
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Torts Law – Hypotheticals Exam Questions
With Correct Answers.
What was the holding of Hammontree v. Jenner? - answer✔If the driver of an automobile with
a medical condition capable of causing an automobile accident acted reasonably to control the
condition, then the driver will only be held liable in cases that the driver acted negligently, and
will not be held to the doctrine of strict liability.
John is a motorist on a highway where pedestrians normally don't cross. Jane decides to cross
the busy highway as a pedestrian and John hits her as she crosses. Under a general duty rule
(Palsgraf, Andrews Dissent), does John owe a duty of care to a pedestrian? Under the
foreseeable duty rule (Palsgraf, Cardozo Majority) would John owe a duty of care to the
pedestrian? - answer✔Under a general duty rule, you owe everyone a duty to take reasonable
precautions. Here, John would owe a duty of care to Jane because he owes a duty to everyone.
Under the foreseeable duty rule, you owe only those foreseeable plaintiffs or harms within the
foreseeable zone of danger. Thus, John would not owe a duty because it was established that it
was not foreseeable that a pedestrian would be crossing the highway.
Defendant runs a day care center that includes an indoor play and recreation room and an
outdoor playground with a swing set and a slide. The center is licensed by the state and
complies with all applicable regulations. One day A and B, both five years olds, are playing on
1|Page
, ©THESTAR EXAM SOLUTIONS 2024/2025
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
the swing set when a stray dog enters the playground and bites B before running away. The
playground is open and not fenced in. Several other children (all the way from C to Z) have been
bitten by a stray dog in the playground before. Defendant cleans B's wound and places a
bandage over the bite, but does not take B to the hospital. Instead, when B's parent picks up B
at the end of the day, Defendant informs B's parent about the incident. B is immediately taken
to the hospital where he is examined. The doctor finds that there is some chance of rabies and
gives B a series of shots to deal with the potential disease. B's parent has to pay $4000 in ho -
answer✔NO DUTY TO ACT: Defendant may argue Plaintiffs can't prove duty because Defendant
didn't do anything affirmative that would have created a duty. Defendant may argue that there
was no special relationship that would have created a duty to act. Plaintiffs, however, have
arguments to establish the prima facie case for duty.
DUTY OF FORESEEABILITY: Plaintiffs need to establish that Defendant owed them a duty.
Plaintiffs have an argument for duty based on foreseeability, supported by several facts. 24
other children have been bitten in a way similar to the accident and that history should weigh
in favor of Plaintiffs. The property was not fenced in and it was used by children, which weighs
in favor of Plaintiffs.
DUTY TO ACT WHEN ASSUMPTION OF DUTY: Someone who volunteers to rescue a person has a
duty to prevent foreseeable injury. Here, even if Defendant would not be liable for the dog bite,
2|Page
, ©THESTAR EXAM SOLUTIONS 2024/2025
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Defendant did begin to take care of B by administering first aid. Defendant, however, failed to
take B to the hospital in time. Plaintiffs have an argument that hospital care was foreseeable in
light of the injuries, which would be the basis for imposing a duty on Defendant. Furthermore,
Defendant was acting as a parent since he was providing day care services. Therefore, an
argument exists under the statement of the common law trends to impose a duty here.
DUTY OF LANDOWNERS: In the case of B, he is most likely an invitee, someone who has come
on the land for business purposes, since he is a customer. Landowners owe invitees a duty of
reasonable care, meaning always inspect, and reasonably remedy, and warn. The difficulty here
is that the danger (the dog) entered onto the land and is arguably not a dangerous condition of
the land itself. However, that the land being unfenced while being used as a playground is a
dangerous condition
What was the holding in Brown v. Kendall? - answer✔Since the burden was on the plaintiff to
show that the defendant breached his duty of using ordinary care, the defendant is not liable
for injuries resulting from the lawful, ordinarily prudent act of swinging the stick to break up the
dogs.
What was the holding of Adams v. Bullock? - answer✔The trolley company should not be liable
for failing to predict such an unpredictable event in a particular place on the trolley route,
especially when the trolley lines were too far to be reached by pedestrian traffic under any
predictable circumstances.
3|Page
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Torts Law – Hypotheticals Exam Questions
With Correct Answers.
What was the holding of Hammontree v. Jenner? - answer✔If the driver of an automobile with
a medical condition capable of causing an automobile accident acted reasonably to control the
condition, then the driver will only be held liable in cases that the driver acted negligently, and
will not be held to the doctrine of strict liability.
John is a motorist on a highway where pedestrians normally don't cross. Jane decides to cross
the busy highway as a pedestrian and John hits her as she crosses. Under a general duty rule
(Palsgraf, Andrews Dissent), does John owe a duty of care to a pedestrian? Under the
foreseeable duty rule (Palsgraf, Cardozo Majority) would John owe a duty of care to the
pedestrian? - answer✔Under a general duty rule, you owe everyone a duty to take reasonable
precautions. Here, John would owe a duty of care to Jane because he owes a duty to everyone.
Under the foreseeable duty rule, you owe only those foreseeable plaintiffs or harms within the
foreseeable zone of danger. Thus, John would not owe a duty because it was established that it
was not foreseeable that a pedestrian would be crossing the highway.
Defendant runs a day care center that includes an indoor play and recreation room and an
outdoor playground with a swing set and a slide. The center is licensed by the state and
complies with all applicable regulations. One day A and B, both five years olds, are playing on
1|Page
, ©THESTAR EXAM SOLUTIONS 2024/2025
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
the swing set when a stray dog enters the playground and bites B before running away. The
playground is open and not fenced in. Several other children (all the way from C to Z) have been
bitten by a stray dog in the playground before. Defendant cleans B's wound and places a
bandage over the bite, but does not take B to the hospital. Instead, when B's parent picks up B
at the end of the day, Defendant informs B's parent about the incident. B is immediately taken
to the hospital where he is examined. The doctor finds that there is some chance of rabies and
gives B a series of shots to deal with the potential disease. B's parent has to pay $4000 in ho -
answer✔NO DUTY TO ACT: Defendant may argue Plaintiffs can't prove duty because Defendant
didn't do anything affirmative that would have created a duty. Defendant may argue that there
was no special relationship that would have created a duty to act. Plaintiffs, however, have
arguments to establish the prima facie case for duty.
DUTY OF FORESEEABILITY: Plaintiffs need to establish that Defendant owed them a duty.
Plaintiffs have an argument for duty based on foreseeability, supported by several facts. 24
other children have been bitten in a way similar to the accident and that history should weigh
in favor of Plaintiffs. The property was not fenced in and it was used by children, which weighs
in favor of Plaintiffs.
DUTY TO ACT WHEN ASSUMPTION OF DUTY: Someone who volunteers to rescue a person has a
duty to prevent foreseeable injury. Here, even if Defendant would not be liable for the dog bite,
2|Page
, ©THESTAR EXAM SOLUTIONS 2024/2025
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Defendant did begin to take care of B by administering first aid. Defendant, however, failed to
take B to the hospital in time. Plaintiffs have an argument that hospital care was foreseeable in
light of the injuries, which would be the basis for imposing a duty on Defendant. Furthermore,
Defendant was acting as a parent since he was providing day care services. Therefore, an
argument exists under the statement of the common law trends to impose a duty here.
DUTY OF LANDOWNERS: In the case of B, he is most likely an invitee, someone who has come
on the land for business purposes, since he is a customer. Landowners owe invitees a duty of
reasonable care, meaning always inspect, and reasonably remedy, and warn. The difficulty here
is that the danger (the dog) entered onto the land and is arguably not a dangerous condition of
the land itself. However, that the land being unfenced while being used as a playground is a
dangerous condition
What was the holding in Brown v. Kendall? - answer✔Since the burden was on the plaintiff to
show that the defendant breached his duty of using ordinary care, the defendant is not liable
for injuries resulting from the lawful, ordinarily prudent act of swinging the stick to break up the
dogs.
What was the holding of Adams v. Bullock? - answer✔The trolley company should not be liable
for failing to predict such an unpredictable event in a particular place on the trolley route,
especially when the trolley lines were too far to be reached by pedestrian traffic under any
predictable circumstances.
3|Page
