Barbri Torts MC Review

Question 1

A nonunion carpenter went to work on a construction project that was involved in a labor dispute. Every morning when he arrived at work, he would be accosted by the picketers who would try to persuade him not to continue to work. One morning while the carpenter was trying to get to work, one of the union workers stopped him at the gate and told him that he should not go to work. When the carpenter insisted that the striker get out of the way, the striker said, “Try to make me, scab!” The carpenter, intending to frighten the striker, swung his hammer at him. The head on the hammer, however, was defective and it flew off, hitting the striker in the face.

If the striker sues the carpenter for battery, is he likely to prevail?

Answer 1

Yes, because he was struck by the hammer head.

the carpenter did an act with the intent of causing the apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact, i.e., an “assault.” Because the striker was actually hit by the hammer head, the trial court would utilize the transferred intent doctrine to supply the necessary intent for battery. It makes no difference that the carpenter may not have known that the hammer was defective, because he set in motion the force that injured the striker

Question 2

A homeowner raked up numerous dead, dry leaves that had fallen on his yard and set fire to the pile, even though the wind was blowing at 15-20 miles per hour that day, and a county ordinance made it unlawful to burn leaves on any day when the wind speed exceeded 10 miles per hour. After the homeowner went into his house, the wind whipped the burning leaves into the air and deposited some of them, still burning, on the wood-shingled roof of a neighboring house, setting the house on fire. A driver was passing by and saw the burning roof of the neighbor’s house. He pulled over, got out of his car and ran across the street toward the neighbor’s yard so that he could warn the occupants of the house. The driver was struck by a paramedic’s vehicle just arriving in response to a telephone report of the fire. The driver brought an action against the homeowner to recover for the injuries he suffered from being struck by the emergency vehicle.

How should the court rule in this action?

Answer 2

For the driver, because the homeowner’s negligence was a proximate cause of the driver’s injuries.

The homeowner’s negligence in burning leaves during a period of relatively high winds resulted in a fire, and it is foreseeable that third persons will attempt to rescue the victims of the tortfeasor’s negligent acts. To the extent that the emergency vehicle was an intervening force, it was a normal response (responding to the fire) and was not unforeseeable. Thus, the homeowner’s negligence was a proximate cause of the driver’s injuries

Question 3

res ipsa loquitor

Answer 3

• Creates an inference of negligence, if:

1. Accident would not normally occur unless negligence
2. D has exclusive control (nobody else could’ve done it, I was the only one there)
   There’s enough evidence for jury to infer negligence occurred

**Most common way this is tested is Q will say: “1 or both parties makes a motion “to dismiss, summary judgment, directed verdict” and ask how court will rule

Jon is walking down a quiet residential street. There is no wind with a beautiful blue sky. Jon walks past your home and gets hit on the head with a flower pot. You were the only one home. Is there an inference of negligence? YES

Question 4

When is a manufacturer not liable for injuries caused by a consumer’s misuse of a product in a strict liability case?

Answer 4

When the consumer’s misuse was not foreseeable.

Even in strict liability cases.

Question 5

A motorcyclist had just bought a new motorcycle. One week later, while still learning how to ride the motorcycle, he saw a classmate from school whom he did not like walking along the sidewalk. He tried to scare him by swerving onto the sidewalk at a driveway, planning to swerve back onto the street at the next driveway just in front of the classmate. As the motorcyclist attempted to swerve back onto the street, the motorcycle’s front tire blew because of a latent defect, causing him to lose control of the steering. He attempted to apply the brakes, but due to his inexperience, hit the accelerator by mistake. The motorcycle struck and seriously injured the classmate. The classmate sues the motorcyclist for battery.

Who is likely to prevail?

Answer 5

The classmate, because the motorcyclist intended to frighten the classmate.

Doctrine of transferred intent

Question 6

What is the rule for proving causation when two defendants each independently caused the same harm, and either cause alone would have been sufficient?

Answer 6

When two tortfeasors each negligently cause harm and either act alone would have been sufficient to cause the injury, each is considered a substantial factor in causing the harm. The plaintiff can recover full damages from either defendant under joint and several liability, even if damages cannot be apportioned between them.

Question 7

Can a landowner use force to retake land after being wrongfully dispossessed (like squatting or staying after a lease ends)?

Answer 7

no, they must use legal remedies instead, e.g, eviction or court order

Question 8

A boy was playing softball in a neighborhood park when a ball was hit over the fence and into a neighbor’s yard. The boy knocked on the neighbor’s door and obtained permission from her to retrieve the ball from her yard. As he bent to retrieve the ball in some bushes, the boy brushed against an exposed electric wire that was partially hidden by the bushes and received a severe electric shock and burns. The neighbor had failed to maintain the bushes, allowing them to become overgrown, and was not aware of the exposed wire.

If the boy sues the neighbor in a jurisdiction that applies the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, what is the likely result?

Answer 8

The neighbor is not liable because she did not know of the condition of the wire.

kids is licensee

owner has no duty to a licensee to inspect for defects nor to repair known defects

Question 9

A bottler markets water in lightweight plastic bottles that are sold by grocery stores, sporting goods stores, and other retail outlets. A hiker purchased several bottles of the water from a retailer and took them with him on a hike. While the hiker left his backpack unattended, a thief took one of the unopened containers without permission and drank some of the water. He immediately became violently ill. Tests were run on the water and showed that it contained impurities.

If the thief maintains a negligence action against the bottler, which of the following arguments would be the most helpful to the bottler in avoiding liability?

Answer 9

The bottler bottled its water in compliance with numerous statutes that regulate the process of bottling water for human consumption.

In a negligence action, the defendant must show they acted with ordinary, reasonable care.

Compliance with statutes doesn’t guarantee due care, but it can be used as evidence that the defendant met the required standard.

It helps the bottler argue they weren’t careless, even if something still went wrong.

Question 10

A petroleum company operated refineries in several states and was also engaged in the manufacture of a variety of petrochemical products. The company hired an industrial cleaning service to thoroughly clean one of its refineries. While one of the cleaning service’s employees was engaged in routine cleaning activities at the refinery, one of the support legs on a crane suddenly gave way, causing part of the crane to fall onto a pipe carrying hot oil, cracking it open. The employee had his back to the pipe at the time and hot oil squirted over his back and legs, causing severe burns. The employee filed suit against the petroleum company for his injuries.

The parties stipulated for trial that the crane had been designed and constructed by a crane construction specialist and was serviced at regular intervals by a reputable crane maintenance company selected by the crane construction company. The employee testified at the trial that he was injured when the pipe cracked open and submitted his medical bills and other evidence of damages. The employee introduced no further evidence. At the conclusion of the employee’s case, the petroleum company moved for a directed verdict in its favor.

Should the directed verdict be granted?

Answer 10

Yes, because the employee has done nothing to connect the petroleum company to any negligent activity that might have caused the accident.

The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.

The petroleum company owed a duty and there is evidence of causation and damages, but the employee failed to show any breach of duty by the petroleum company.

No evidence ties the petroleum company to the crane’s failure — it was designed, built, and maintained by independent third parties.

Question 11

A passenger suffered a broken arm from an automobile accident caused by his driver’s negligence in running through a red light. The passenger was taken by ambulance to a nearby hospital for treatment. There, the emergency room physician negligently reset the bone in the passenger’s arm. As a result, the passenger never recovered full use of his arm and his earnings as a carpenter were permanently reduced. The jurisdiction retains traditional contribution rules based on equal shares in cases applying joint and several liability.

If the passenger brings suit against the driver for the damage to his arm, the passenger will recover:

Answer 11

All of his damages, including the permanent disability, from the driver.

Medical negligence after an accident is considered a foreseeable consequence of the original negligence.

The doctor’s negligence doesn’t break the chain of causation — it’s part of the natural sequence of events that followed the crash.

Question 12

A doorman negligently locked a door that an office worker was intending to use to exit an office building, so the worker was forced to use a different exit. As she stepped onto the sidewalk outside the building, a car careened out of control on the street and jumped the curb. The car struck and injured the worker and then drove off. The driver was not found.

The worker brought suit against the doorman, seeking damages for her injuries. At trial, the parties stipulated that the doorman was negligent in locking the door and that the worker suffered injuries when she was struck by the car. The worker also established that if she had exited from the door she was intending to, she would not have been struck by the car. At the end of the worker’s case, the doorman moved for a directed verdict in his favor.

How should the judge rule?

Answer 12

Grant the motion, because the car was an unforeseeable intervening force.

Here, a random car losing control, jumping the curb, and hitting a pedestrian is:
-Not something you’d normally predict as a consequence of locking a door.
-Too remote and unforeseeable to make the doorman responsible.

So even though the doorman’s act put the worker in harm’s way, the car was a freak event that cuts off his liability

Question 13

What are superseding causes?

Answer 13

act of God, intentional tort, or criminal act

Think of a dumptruck falling out of the sky

Question 14

Good Samaritan laws

Answer 14

exempts licensed docs, nurses who voluntarily and gratuitously render emergency treatment, from liability for ordinary negligence.

Not used to establish breach of duty.

Question 15

While driving his car down the road, the defendant, who had no history of heart problems, experienced a heart attack. The defendant’s car crossed the center line of the highway, in violation of a motor vehicle statute, and headed directly at a car driven by the plaintiff that was exceeding the speed limit. The plaintiff, seeing the defendant’s car heading toward him, swerved to avoid the collision. In so doing, the plaintiff’s car spun out of control and crashed into a ditch, causing the plaintiff injury. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for the injuries sustained in the accident. The jurisdiction retains traditional contributory negligence rules.

Will the plaintiff prevail?

Answer 15

No, because the defendant had no prior history of heart trouble.

While drivers owe a duty of care to other drivers on the road, a driver would not be deemed to have breached that duty if he had a surprise heart attack while driving, given that he had no history of heart trouble

Question 16

To fight drug abuse, a state enacted a statute forbidding the selling of model airplane glue to anyone under the age of 18 except in small quantities in prepackaged model kits. Violation of the statute was penalized by fines or, in cases of multiple violations, possible imprisonment. The statute also required that all elementary and secondary schools licensed by the state provide comprehensive drug education programs. Neither the legislature nor the courts of the state have abolished the common law tort defense of assumption of the risk.

The owner of a hobby shop in the state sold a large tube of airplane glue to a 15-year-old boy who reasonably appeared to be at least 18 years old. The boy had received drug education in his school, as mandated by the statute, including coverage of the dangers of glue sniffing. The boy understood the anti-drug instruction, but he wanted to experience it for himself. The boy sniffed the glue repeatedly and suffered permanent brain damage.

If the boy’s parents file suit on the boy’s behalf against the store owner, for whom is the court likely to rule?

Answer 16

For the boy, because the store owner violated the statute when she sold the glue to the boy.

the store owner violated a statute designed to protect minors from the exact type of harm the boy suffered.

When a defendant violates a statute that sets a clear duty, and the plaintiff is in the protected class and suffers the type of harm the law was meant to prevent, that violation can substitute for the usual negligence standard.

the statute prohibited the sale of glue to minors, so its violation automatically establishes duty and breach. The boy can then prove causation to complete his negligence claim.

Question 17

Partial Comparative Negligence

Answer 17

bars the P’s recovery is their fault is more than the Ds or equal to the Ds

if P’s fault exceeds more than 50% of total damages, no recovery

If the plaintiff’s total damages are $100,000 and they are found to be 30% at fault, they can recover $70,000 (100,000 - (30% * 100,000).

Question 18

Pure Comp Negligence

Answer 18

allows recovery no matter how great the P’s fault

A court finds defendant A was responsible for 30% of the damages. Defendant B was responsible for 40%. You are responsible for the remaining 30%. Under Pure Comparative, you then can recover 70% of the total damages.

Question 19

Assumption of risk

Answer 19

P may be denied recovery if they assumed the risk of any damage caused by D’s act if:
1. knowledge of risk
2. voluntarily proceeded in face of the risk

Question 20

Last clear chance

Answer 20

allows P to recover despite their contributory negligence

e.g., A pedestrian carelessly jaywalks and trips in the street. A driver sees the pedestrian and has time to stop but doesn’t. The pedestrian is hit and injured.

Even though the pedestrian was negligent, the driver had the last clear chance to avoid the accident but didn’t—so the pedestrian can still recover.

Question 21

Will the failure of a retailer to take action after discovering a dangerous defect prevent establishing causation against a manufacturer in a strict products liability action?

Answer 21

It may

Question 22

Can a manufacturer avoid liability if someone else (like a seller) didn’t catch the defect?

Answer 22

No. The manufacturer is still responsible unless the other person’s mistake was really unexpected or unusually careless.

Question 23

When can a manufacturer defend against a strict liability claim by pointing to a retailer’s actions?

Answer 23

If the retailer discovered the defect but failed to warn the buyer, that can be a defense for the manufacturer.

This breaks the chain of liability because it’s more than just ordinary negligence.

Question 24

A motorist driving his new sports car was stopped at a red light when he was struck from behind by a truck. The truck was driven by a driver who had negligently failed to stop. On impact, the door on the driver’s side of the car flew open because of a latent defect in the latch that could not have been detected by the car manufacturer during the ordinary assembly process. The motorist, who was not wearing a seat belt, fell out of the open door and was injured. The jurisdiction retains traditional contributory negligence rules; however, evidence of nonuse of a seat belt is not admissible in a civil action to show contributory negligence.

If the motorist asserts a claim against the car manufacturer, will the motorist prevail?

Answer 24

Yes, because the car he was driving was dangerously defective (SL)

he would only need to establish that the car was in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users in order to recover

Question 25

A consumer purchased a grass trimmer from a hardware store. He took it out of the sealed box and assembled it according to the instructions. He noticed that there were bolts and screws left over and some joints that could have accepted additional fasteners, but he just disposed of the extra hardware. As he was using the trimmer, the housing came apart and a hard piece of plastic flew off. His neighbor, who was standing nearby, was struck in the eye by the piece of plastic and suffered permanent injuries. The neighbor sued the hardware store and the manufacturer of the trimmer in a strict liability action. Through discovery, it was determined that the instructions omitted a critical step in the assembly process that would have used the extra hardware, which is why the housing came apart, and that the manufacturer had received some complaints about the instructions previously. The hardware store had no knowledge of any complaints regarding any of the manufacturer's products. As to the hardware store, the neighbor will:

Answer 25

Recover, because the consumer's failure to recognize the improper assembly does not cut off the store's liability. P must show (i) D is a commercial supplier, (ii) D produced or sold a product that was defective when it left D's control, (iii) the defective product was an actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, and (iv) P suffered damages to person or property. Here, the hardware store is in the chain of supply of the product. The product was defective because the instructions omitted a critical part of the assembly process. Finally, the omission was an actual and proximate cause of the neighbor's injury, allowing him to recover against the hardware store

Question 26

A homeowner purchased a ladder from a home supply retailer. While he was using the ladder, an improperly installed bolt fastening one of the rungs gave way, causing him to fall and break his leg. The homeowner sued the manufacturer of the ladder to recover damages for his injury. If it is established at trial that the home supply retailer could have discovered the defectively installed bolt if it had conducted a reasonable inspection of the ladder, what is the effect of the retailer's failure to inspect?

Answer 26

It has no legal effect on the manufacturer's liability. even if the home supply retailer were negligent in not discovering the defect, it would not relieve the manufacturer of liability

Question 27

Elements of strict products liability

Answer 27

1. Product must be defective (man defect, design defect, or failure to warn) 2. defect must exist at time product left the D's control 3. defect must have caused P's injuries when product was used in intended or reasonably foreseeable way DON'T PICK ANYTHING ABOUT NEGLIGENCE (don't care ab how the inspection process went or how reasonable seller was) refurbed products that don't send back to manufacturer for repair/refurbs = outside commercial chain

Question 28

manufacturing defect test

Answer 28

1. product was defective --- reached consumer in an unreasonably dangerous condition 2. defective at time it left D's hands (if tire blows under normal air pressure bc it's left in sun for 19 hrs, it changed) 3. reached the consumer w/o change 4. caused harm --- must cause personal injury or damage to property other than itself *look for answer w/"reasonable expectations" in it *if brakes company sells to car company & faulty brakes cause car crash, consumer can sue both brakes & car company (part was messed up or part seller helped mix product & integration caused it to be defective)

Question 29

Design Defects Test

Answer 29

RAD --- reasonable alternative design P must prove manufacturer could've built a product that was (1) safer than product they built (2) the same price for a little more money and (3) still practical

Question 30

Warning Defects

Answer 30

when there's no adequate reasonable design for us to implement, warning the consumer about the product can make it reasonably safe and allow the manufacturer to avoid liability Test: reasonableness obviously dangerous products don't need warning, e.g., knives and ladders *even if warning is in compliance w/FDA federal standards, still MUST follow state warning laws *Learned intermediaries: you can only go after DOC if they don't warn you about a med, NOT the manufacturer *sophisticated user: don't need to warn John Deere if you're selling him some farming equipment

Question 31

Can a product still be defective even if it has a warning?

Answer 31

Yes—if the manufacturer could have easily made a small, safer design change (like removing the need for gloves and goggles), the product may still be defective despite the warning.

Question 32

A developer constructed several small stores in a commercial district. She received a bid from a contractor to install awnings on the front windows of the stores. The developer had heard that the contractor did shoddy work, but the price was right and the contractor expressly assumed all of the risk of any liability. The developer subsequently sold one of the stores to a barber. A few months later, an awning collapsed without warning, injuring a customer who was about to enter the barbershop. An investigation by the building inspector revealed that the awning collapsed because the brackets used by the contractor were cheaper and weaker than the required brackets, although they looked the same. The developer and the contractor are now both bankrupt. If the customer sues the barber for his injuries, is the customer likely to prevail?

Answer 32

No, because the barber had no opportunity to oversee the contractor's actions. Barber wasn't negligent a business owes its customers a duty to make reasonable inspections to discover and make safe any dangerous conditions. that duty cannot be delegated to an independent contractor nothing in the facts establishes that the barber breached his duty to the customer. There was nothing wrong with the brackets evident from a reasonable inspection, and the awning collapsed without warning. Further, the barber was not involved in hiring or supervising the contractor and would not be responsible for the contractor's negligence.

Question 33

A golfer and her instructor were playing golf in a foursome when the golfer became very annoyed with critical comments made by the instructor. To show the other golfers in the group how annoyed she was with her instructor, the golfer stood a few yards behind him while the instructor was teeing off and swung a club at him. The instructor, who was focusing on his shot, was not within range of the club but unfortunately the club slipped out of the golfer's hands and struck the instructor in the head, injuring him. If the instructor brings a battery action against the golfer, will he recover?

Answer 33

No, because the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact. transferred intent doctrine don't apply intent to cause an assault (intent to cause apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact) will satisfy the intent requirement for battery when the other elements of battery are present. the golfer was standing behind the instructor and was intending only to show the other golfers how annoyed she was. No intent to commit assault

Question 34

A landowner had a swimming pool and a dressing cabana constructed in her spacious backyard. The pool was entirely within the confines of the landowner's property. However, one corner of the cabana extended a few inches onto a far corner of her neighbor's land. At the time of the construction, neither the neighbor nor the landowner was aware that the cabana extended onto the neighbor's property. Does the neighbor have a cause of action for trespass?

Answer 34

Yes, because the cabana extends onto the neighbor's land. Tort of trespass to land: The intent required is the intent to enter on a particular piece of land, rather than intent to trespass. not necessary that D personally enter the land. It is sufficient if the defendant's act or something set in motion thereby causes a physical invasion of the property. By having the cabana constructed, the landowner acted so as to bring about the physical invasion of the neighbor's land

Question 35

A college student borrowed his roommate's notebook computer without permission because he needed to write a term paper that was due the next day. While the computer was sitting open on the student's desk overnight, a water pipe in the ceiling began leaking and water dripped down on the computer, rendering it inoperable. A computer repair service estimated that it would cost $500 to repair all the damaged components. At the time it was damaged, the computer was worth $700. If the roommate sues the student for the damage caused to the computer, what will be the extent of his recovery?

Answer 35

$700 in damages Conversion sustained damages of over 70% of its value while in the student's possession P in a conversion case is entitled to damages for the fair market value of the chattel at the time and place of the conversion in effect, there is a forced sale of the item

Question 36

A state statute required that any freight train operating within the city limits be able to stop within 200 yards of applying its brakes. No fixed speed limit was established or particular type of braking mechanism required, but through either lowered speed or braking power, the 200-yard limit was required of all trains. Another statute prohibited vehicles from being within the railroad crossing when the lights on the warning signs are flashing or when the gates are lowered. One day, as a freight train was entering the city limits, the engineer saw a car stalled at a street crossing ahead. He immediately applied full braking power, but was unable to stop the train before it had hit and demolished the car. The driver of the car had gotten clear before the impact, but brought suit against the freight line for property damage to the $25,000 car. At trial, the parties stipulated that the car was stalled within the crossing while the warning lights were flashing. Evidence at trial established that the distance from the point at which the engineer applied the train's brakes to the point of impact was 150 yards, and from the braking point to the point at which the train finally stopped was 225 yards. No other evidence of negligence was presented by the driver. At the end of the driver's case, the freight line moved for a directed verdict. Should the court grant the motion?

Answer 36

Yes, because the freight line's violation of the braking statute was not the cause in fact of the accident. Because the train would have hit the car even if it followed the law. -The law required trains to stop within 200 yards. -This train hit the car after 150 yards, but finally stopped at 225 yards. -So even if the train had perfect brakes (stopping at 200 yards), it still would have hit the car. That means the train's braking violation didn’t cause the crash — and without causation, there's no liability.

Question 37

A hiker in an isolated area encountered a cross-country skier who had broken her leg. The hiker created a makeshift sled and began pulling the skier to the nearest road. As the hiker was pulling her across the ice of a lake, the ice gave way and they went into the water. The hiker was unable to get out of the water and drowned. The skier was able to pull herself to shore and eventually was rescued. However, she suffered severe hypothermia and lost some of her toes to frostbite as a result of being in the water. Does the skier have a cause of action for damages against the hiker's estate?

Answer 37

No, unless the hiker acted negligently in attempting to cross the ice. no legal duty to act BUT if you act, must be reasonable (ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE) skier must establish injuries wouldn't have happened but for hiker's negligent attempt to cross the ice

Question 38

A professional painter and his apprentice, in business as a partnership, were hired to paint a store. Midway through the job they ran out of paint, so the painter lent his truck to the apprentice to pick up more. On his way to pick up the paint, the apprentice stopped at a post office along the way to mail a personal letter. On pulling out of the post office parking lot, he negligently ran into a parked car, causing extensive damage. If the car owner brings a negligence action against the painter, will she prevail?

Answer 38

Yes, because the apprentice's stop at the post office was not a frolic. Because they were partners, and the apprentice was still on the job. In a partnership, each partner is vicariously liable for the other's actions done within the scope of the partnership. The apprentice’s quick stop to mail a letter was a minor detour, not a "frolic" (which would take him outside of business duties). Since he was still mainly running an errand for the painting job, the painter is liable.

Question 39

A small cruise ship struck a whale swimming underwater, causing the ship to suddenly lurch sideways. A passenger on the ship who was walking down a corridor lost his balance and bumped his head on the edge of a doorway. Because of a previously existing medical condition that made him susceptible to bleeding on the brain, he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and permanent mental impairment, despite prompt medical attention on the ship. The passenger brought suit against the cruise ship owner for his damages. At trial, the passenger presented evidence of how he was injured as he walked down the hallway, his previous medical condition, and his medical expenses and other damages. The cruise ship owner presented evidence that the cruise ship was following its approved route and that the whale could not have been detected before impact, and that the bump would not have injured someone in ordinary health. At the close of the evidence, the cruise ship owner moved for a directed verdict. How should the court rule?

Answer 39

Grant the motion, because there is no evidence that the crew operated the ship negligently. Because the passenger failed to establish breach of duty, the court should grant the cruise ship owner a directed verdict common carrier and/or an innkeeper, the cruise ship owed its passengers a high duty of care, and therefore would be liable for slight negligence. -the passenger has offered no evidence to establish that the cruise ship employees breached that duty

Question 40

A child was severely injured at an amusement park when she was ejected from a ride that went slightly off its track. The ride malfunctioned as a result of a manufacturer's defect, but had the child been properly secured in the ride's seat belt by one of the ride operators, she would not have been injured. The child was unable to identify which ride operator improperly buckled her in. In the child's suit against the amusement park, who will win?

Answer 40

The child will win, because a ride operator failed to use reasonable care in securing the seat belt. Because the ride operator was negligent in improperly securing the child, the amusement park is vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. securing kid in the ride was one of the ride operator's tasks. Since this task was performed negligently and this negligence was one of the causes of the child's injuries, the amusement park will be liable.

Question 41

A man working at a clothing store discovered that his girlfriend, a coworker, had been taking money from the cash register. Not wanting to be a party to the situation, he ended the relationship and found another job. Not long after this, the man's new boss, who knew why the man had quit, came into the clothing store. He asked the girlfriend if she missed her boyfriend working with her at the store. She replied, "Yes, but when we found that he was stealing from the cash register, we had no choice but to let him go." If the man sues his former girlfriend for defamation, the fact that the new boss knew the truth of why the man had left his job at the store will have what result?

Answer 41

It may diminish the damages that the man would be entitled to recover. he statement that he was stealing at his job constituted slander per se, damages are presumed, completing the prima facie case. the stated fact will diminish the amount of damages that the man will recover because his reputation was not likely harmed in the eyes of his boss actual injury = not only damage to reputation but also humiliation and mental distress, for which the man could recover even if his reputation was not damaged

Question 42

A columnist for a major metropolitan newspaper had a very antagonistic relationship with the city's mayor. When a restaurant owned by the columnist's family was shut down by city health inspectors, the columnist responded with a column publicizing the shutdown and asserting that it was in retaliation for his prior columns in which he had criticized the mayor. In fact, the mayor had nothing to do with the action by the city health inspectors. While the columnist had no evidence of the mayor's involvement, he believed that there was a connection because "that's how the city works." Can the mayor recover against the columnist for defamation?

Answer 42

No, because the columnist did not act with actual malice. Public officials (like the mayor) can only win a defamation case if the speaker knew it was false or seriously doubted it was true. The columnist believed his claim, even without evidence, so that’s not enough to show actual malice.

Question 43

Can the mayor win a defamation case against the columnist who falsely blamed him for shutting down a restaurant?

Answer 43

No, because the columnist didn’t act with actual malice.

Question 44

A company that owned a tract of land believed to be rich in mineral deposits contracted with a licensed excavator for the removal of soil from the property and delivery of the soil to the company's laboratories. While one of the excavator's trucks was on the way to the laboratory, the rear gate broke loose, dumping three tons of soil onto the highway. A motorist who was driving a short but safe distance behind the truck was unable to stop in time and collided with the soil, causing her serious injury. The rear gate had been negligently secured by one of the excavator's employees. If the motorist sues the company for his injuries and does not prevail, what is the most likely reason?

Answer 44

The company's duty in respect to the movement of its soil on the highway was delegable. Normally, a company isn’t liable for the negligence of an independent contractor. Unless the job involves a nondelegable duty (like inherently dangerous work), the company can delegate responsibility and avoid liability. Here, transporting soil isn’t seen as dangerous enough to make the duty nondelegable.

Question 45

A man purchased a large flat screen television and decided to mount it on the ceiling over his bed. The manual that came with the product included detailed instructions and illustrations on how to mount the television on different types of walls, along with all the required hardware, but contained neither instructions nor warnings regarding mounting on the ceiling. The man carefully followed the wall-mounting instructions and was satisfied that it would hold. In fact, however, the mounting was not appropriate for ceilings. The next night, a woman who was the man's overnight guest was seriously injured when the television came loose and fell on the bed. Will the woman prevail in a suit against the company that manufactured the television?

Answer 45

Yes, if the manufacturer knew that its television was sometimes mounted on ceilings rather than walls. Under strict products liability, a manufacturer can be responsible if: 1. The product was unreasonably dangerous, and 2. The use was foreseeable — even if it was technically a "misuse." So, if the company knew people often mounted their TVs on ceilings and didn’t include warnings or instructions, the product could be considered defective because it was missing important safety info.

Question 46

At a little league game, a seven-year-old boy was called out on strikes. The boy's father was so infuriated with the umpire's decision that he shouted in a loud voice, "Kill the umpire." The boy, who was still holding his bat, swung the bat at the umpire. The umpire ducked and the bat flew out of the boy's hands and struck a spectator, who was seriously injured. In a tort action by the umpire against the boy which of the following statements is correct?

Answer 46

The umpire could recover only on an assault theory. his action still constitutes an assault because it can be shown that he intended to cause harmful contact and actually created an apprehension of contact Children are liable for their intentional torts when they are capable of forming the requisite intent. he swung the bat at the umpire strongly indicates that he believed his bat would hit the umpire and that the boy's purpose in doing so was to bring about this result For assault, the intent required is to bring about the offensive or harmful contact it can be assumed that the boy had the capacity to form an intent to hit and that he did form that intent, which is a required element of the tort of assault

Question 47

A man and a woman who were fierce business competitors were both competing for a large job. The man submitted his bid and then went to the woman's office and told her, "If you leave this office, I'm going to get you!" The woman merely laughed and said, "I'm about finished with my bid and will be leaving in a few minutes." The man left the office but placed a large, heavy couch across the entrance to the woman's office, hoping to keep her from leaving. Meanwhile, the woman finished the bid and tried to leave her office, but found that she could not open the door. She pushed against the door as hard as she could and was eventually able to force it open, then ran all the way to the place where bids were being taken and got her bid in with one minute to spare. As usual, her bid was slightly lower than the man's, and she was awarded the contract. If the woman sues the man, what causes of action can she assert?

Answer 47

false imprisonment, not assault ✅ Why this is considered false imprisonment: Let’s go element by element: Intentional confinement: The man purposely blocked her in with a heavy couch — that's intentional. Bounded area: Her office became a bounded space at the time she realized she couldn’t leave. Against her will: She tried to leave and couldn't — check. Aware of the confinement: Yep — she personally experienced the inability to exit. Even though she eventually escaped, the key is: ⚖️ False imprisonment doesn’t require that the confinement be successful for a long time — just that it happened. Bar questions like to treat “any period of unlawful confinement” as enough to trigger liability. Bar questions on false imprisonment are more flexible than in practice. If the plaintiff: Is confined, even briefly, and Can’t escape without unreasonable effort, then the question will usually treat that as actionable false imprisonment.

Question 48

Two members of a backgammon club owned identically sized, red backgammon boards. The first member's board was made of cheap material while the second member's board was quite expensive. One night, after a competitive tournament, the two members met in the finals, playing on a borrowed board. The second member won and the first member, visibly upset, mistakenly grabbed the other's board and drove home. As was her custom, she left the board in the trunk of her car. Meanwhile, the owner of the board discovered the board switch and drove to the first member's apartment to make an exchange. The first member took the second to her parking place and saw that her car had been stolen. The police recovered the car days later, with no backgammon board in the trunk. The second member demanded a replacement board, but was refused. In an action to recover the board's value, will the second member recover?

Answer 48

Yes, because when the board was stolen along with the car, the first member became liable for conversion. Mistake is not a defense to conversion 🧠 What is conversion, really? Conversion = A serious interference with someone else’s personal property, where: The defendant intentionally exercised dominion or control over the property, That seriously interfered with the plaintiff’s right to possess it, Even if the defendant didn’t mean to do anything wrong. ✅ Intentional act of dominion (taking and holding someone else's property) ✅ Serious interference (the board was lost) ✅ The owner was deprived permanently of their property Intent: This is the tricky part — the intent requirement in conversion is about doing the act, not about intending to steal or harm. It’s kind of like: “You break it, you bought it,” even if you didn’t mean to knock it off the shelf.

Question 49

A driver traveling the speed limit in the evening on a quiet country road rounded a curve and struck a bicyclist who was riding in the same lane. The driver stopped the car and inspected the bicyclist, who had a broken leg. The driver thought it best not to try to move the bicyclist, so he told him that he would go to get help. The driver drove away and left the bicyclist by the side of the road. After the driver had left the scene, he realized that he had forgotten his wife's birthday, so he stopped to buy a gift and hurried home. He did not remember the bicyclist until a few hours later, but assumed that by that time someone would have come along to render assistance. However, the bicyclist was not rescued until the following morning. By then, he had contracted pneumonia as a result of exposure. The bicyclist sued the driver to recover damages for his broken leg and the pneumonia. If the jury finds that the driver was not negligent in his operation of his automobile, for what harm will the bicyclist most likely recover?

Answer 49

The pneumonia but not the leg injury. driver wasn't driving negligently when accident happened, so not liable for leg injury. where D's actions have placed another person in peril or caused another's injury, D has a duty to make reasonable efforts to rescue the imperiled person or render aid to his victim. The driver's neglect of the bicyclist after injuring him will make him liable for the resulting pneumonia

Question 50

A pilot was flying her small airplane when she realized that she was rapidly losing fuel and would not make it to the nearest airport. Looking down, she could find no large open space on which to attempt a landing except for a highway off to her left and a nearby lake about a mile to her right. She considered ditching the plane in the water but decided against it under the circumstances. As the pilot maneuvered over the highway and saw a long section free of any overpass or obstruction, her engine sputtered and died. In a barely controlled glide, the pilot descended onto the highway, but her left wing sideswiped the median and her plane veered to the right, crashing into a car. The plane and car catapulted into a fence, severely injuring both the pilot and driver. The driver brought an action for personal injuries against the pilot. At trial, the above facts were established, and the parties stipulated that the sudden loss of fuel was due to a defect in the fuel system that could not have been discovered by the pilot. At the close of the evidence, both parties moved for a directed verdict. How should the court rule?

Answer 50

Deny both motions, because the jury could decide that the pilot's selection of the highway rather than the lake was not a reasonable choice under the circumstances.

Question 51

A tenant invited a friend over for dinner. On his arrival, the friend stepped on a split board on the front steps and the board broke, causing him to lose his balance and break his ankle. If the friend sues the tenant for his injuries and does not prevail in a jurisdiction that applies the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, what is the most likely explanation?

Answer 51

The friend should have noticed the dangerous condition himself. Owner/occupier owes a licensee a duty to warn of or make safe a dangerous condition known to the owner /occupier that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to the licensee and that the licensee is unlikely to discover The tenant remains liable to the friend for dangerous conditions on the premises as the occupier of the land, regardless of the landlord's obligation to inspect and repair.

Question 52

A camper at a state park built a campfire within a fire ring on a calm day according to approved procedures. Just as a sudden strong wind arrived and blew some embers onto the grass, a large bear came out of the woods and charged at the camper. The camper ran to his car, which was some distance away, with the bear in close pursuit. By the time the bear left and the camper was able to exit the car and summon assistance, the embers in the grass had started a brush fire. The fire destroyed another camper's equipment and automobile at a nearby campsite before it could be extinguished. The other camper sued the camper who started the fire. At trial, the parties stipulated to the above facts. The plaintiff introduced into evidence a state statute that prohibited leaving any campfires unattended and required them to be extinguished immediately if any embers were blown out of the fire ring. At the conclusion of the proofs, both parties moved for a directed verdict. How should the court rule on the motions?

Answer 52

Grant the defendant's motion, because the plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of negligence. violation of statute excused where compliance is beyond D's control, so D can't be held to statutory standard of care here P has offered no evidence D was negligent, no prima facie case

Question 53

A mother whose young son was riding on a roller coaster by himself for the first time walked some distance away to get a snack. She heard a commotion by the ride and saw a crowd gathered. When she came closer, she heard someone close to the scene say that a young boy had fallen off and was killed. She was very distraught but could not see through the crowd. In fact, it was not her son but another boy who had fallen off. That boy had struck her son while falling from a higher part of the track, resulting in injuries to her son. The mother, who was pregnant, ultimately suffered a miscarriage as a result of accident-related stress. In a previous suit by the parents of the boy who was killed, the ride operator was found liable for negligence in operating the ride. Can the mother recover damages for her distress and resulting miscarriage in an action against the ride operator for negligent infliction of emotional distress?

Answer 53

No, because she was not within the zone of danger from the operator's negligence. mom was some distance away and not in zone of danger, so her distress not caused by any perceived danger to her. Bystander rule don't apply --- wasn't present at scene of injury & didn't personally observe or perceive the event her distress was bc she heard someone say young had been killed and couldn't get close enough to ride to see where her son was

Question 54

In support of a charity fundraising luncheon, three volunteers independently brought to the event a casserole dish made with ground beef. Each of them had prepared her dish in her own kitchen. Another volunteer combined the dishes onto one large serving platter, from which guests at the luncheon served themselves. One of the guests became seriously ill with what the health department later determined to be a bacterial infection from undercooked beef that was in the combined casserole. The guest brought an action against the three volunteers who made the casserole dishes, alleging negligent preparation of the ground beef. Assuming that the guest can establish only the above facts and his injuries, who is likely to prevail in the action?

Answer 54

The volunteers, because the guest cannot establish which of the volunteers breached her duty of care. facts show at least 1 of volunteers breached duty by improperly making beef, which made guest super ill. BUT he can't say which volunteer breached the duty and was actual cause injury, so he can't prevail NO res ipsa bc more than 1 person was in control of instrumentality that caused injury Unascertainable causes approach from Summers v Tice only applies when 2 or more ppl hav been negligent but can't determine which cause P's injury. No evidence all volunteers neg, most likely just one. Volunteers can't be required to prove they didn't cause guest's injury

Question 55

A tenant's apartment was without hot water for over a week because of a broken water heater, even though the landlord had been notified right away and the lease provided that the landlord would make repairs promptly. The tenant heated a large pot of water on the stove and started to carry it to the bathroom so she could warm up her bath. Her young nephew, who was visiting for a few days, came around the corner suddenly and collided with her. The hot water spilled on the nephew, burning him. Because the nephew had a rare blood disorder, the burns resulted in several of the nephew's toes requiring amputation. The nephew's guardian brought a negligence action against the landlord in a jurisdiction that follows the traditional rules for landowner liability. If the jury finds in favor of the landlord, what is the most likely reason?

Answer 55

The landlord's conduct was not the proximate cause of the nephew's injuries. could be that conduct of the nephew and the tenant are superseding forces The landlord's duty to maintain hot water in the tenant's apartment extends to guests of the tenant as well.

Question 56

The plaintiff was driving inattentively when she had to swerve to avoid two other negligently driven vehicles at a busy intersection, and her car struck a light pole. The plaintiff, who was the only driver injured, sued one of the other drivers to recover damages in a jurisdiction that has adopted pure comparative negligence. The jury determined that she suffered injuries of $100,000 and was 50% at fault. If the plaintiff is awarded a recovery of only $25,000 from the defendant, what will be the most likely reason?

Answer 56

The jurisdiction has abolished joint and several liability. 🔗 In joint and several liability jurisdictions: Each defendant can be held responsible for the entire damages owed to the plaintiff (minus plaintiff's fault), even if there were multiple tortfeasors. So if Defendant A and Defendant B were both partially to blame, the plaintiff could choose to recover the full $50,000 from either of them — then that defendant could go after the other for contribution. But in jurisdictions that abolish joint and several liability (like in this question), we use several liability only: Each defendant only pays their share of fault — no more, no less. ✅ Final Takeaway: The most likely reason the plaintiff got only $25,000 is because: The jurisdiction does not apply joint and several liability. That means she can only recover from each defendant based on that person’s percentage of fault. She sued just one driver, and that driver was 25% at fault — so that’s all she can get. 🧠 Pro Tip for Bar Questions: Whenever you see: Multiple tortfeasors A jurisdiction that abolished joint and several liability A reduced award Think: 💡 "They're apportioning fault separately — plaintiff only gets each defendant's slice."

Question 57

An infant was injured in an automobile accident when the vehicle, driven by the infant's mother, left the roadway and rolled over down an embankment. At the time of the accident, the infant was buckled into an infant carrier car seat. The carrier was designed to snap into a base that was secured in the back seat by the rear center seat belt. Prior to driving, the mother had snapped the car carrier onto the base and pulled up on the car carrier's handle to ensure that the carrier was indeed secured in the base. When the rollover occurred, however, the carrier came loose from the base and was thrown about the inside of the vehicle, causing injuries to the infant's neck and face. The mother brought a products liability action on behalf of the child against the manufacturer of the car carrier, alleging that the manufacturer was negligent in the design of the base and seat combination. If the mother establishes at trial that the force of the rollover was enough to knock the seat loose, and that a reasonable, economically feasible alternative design existed, which of the following, if true, would be most helpful to the manufacturer's defense?

Answer 57

No one had reported a car carrier coming loose in a rollover prior to this accident. ✅ So why is the “no prior reports” answer the most helpful to the manufacturer? Because it goes to foreseeability, which is essential for negligence. If no one had ever reported that this kind of car seat failure happened before, it suggests that: The manufacturer had no reason to know this particular design was dangerous; The risk wasn’t something a reasonable manufacturer in their shoes would have foreseen; Therefore, no duty was breached — even if, in hindsight, the design could have been better. ➡️ In negligence, you’re only liable for risks you could reasonably foresee. foreseeability is the foundation of a negligent design claim 🛑 An intermediary's negligent failure to notice a defect does not relieve the liability of a manufacturer whose original negligence was the cause of the defect.

Question 58

A trucker owned and operated a small truck which he used commercially to haul dynamite to construction sites. Unbeknownst to the trucker, there was a hidden defect in the latch that held the rear panel of the truck. The trucker was hauling a load of dynamite one morning and exceeding the speed limit when his truck struck a bump in the road, the latch malfunctioned, and the rear panel of the truck flew open. One box of dynamite fell out of the truck and struck a pedestrian, breaking her foot. If the pedestrian sues the trucker under strict liability for her injuries, will the pedestrian win?

Answer 58

No, because the dynamite did not explode. it was not the dynamite's dangerous propensities that caused the accident. Instead, it was a defective latch in the truck if the dynamite had exploded, after falling out due to the defective latch, there would have been liability under a strict liability theory.

Question 59

An employee of a construction company negligently cut power cables, causing a power outage that disabled a homeowner's security system. The homeowner received a notification to arrange for someone to restart the system but got distracted and didn't do so. Later, a burglar broke into the home and stole valuables because the security system was not working. The homeowner sued the construction company for the loss of her valuables in a jurisdiction that follows pure comparative negligence rules. Is the homeowner likely to recover for the loss of her valuables?

Answer 59

Yes, because the conduct of the construction company's employee created the opportunity for the burglar to steal the valuables. The homeowner is likely to recover because the construction company's negligence (cutting the power) increased the risk of a crime happening. Even though the burglar was a third party, the company is still liable because the crime was foreseeable due to the power outage in a high-crime area. The homeowner’s loss was directly linked to the company's actions.

Question 60

A pedestrian walking on the sidewalk was struck by a car backing out of a driveway. The driver did not see the pedestrian because her neighbor’s bushes obscured her view of the sidewalk. The pedestrian was seriously injured and brought suit against the driver and the neighbor. The pedestrian also included the city in his lawsuit, alleging that the city failed to enforce its ordinance requiring homeowners to provide a clear view of sidewalks where they intersect with driveways. The trier of fact determined that the driver was 60% at fault, the neighbor was 30% at fault, and the city was 10% at fault. The jurisdiction has adopted comparative contribution in cases applying joint and several liability. Which of the following is a correct statement regarding liability?

Answer 60

The city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the damage award. Under joint and several liability, each defendant found by the trier of fact to be at fault for an indivisible injury is liable to the plaintiff for the entire amount of damages incurred, not just a portion of it because the city has been found to be at fault for the accident, the pedestrian could recover the full amount of the damage award from the city Even if the city pays more than its fair share of damages, it can ask the other defendants to pay their part—but the plaintiff can still collect the full amount from any of them, no matter who was most at fault.

Question 61

After a sporting event at a stadium, one of the fans sought out the referees to complain about their handling of the game. The fan took out an electronically amplified bullhorn and knocked on the door of the referees’ room. When one of the referees opened it, the fan began yelling and berating the referee through the bullhorn. The referee slammed the door shut, striking the bullhorn and jamming it against the fan’s mouth, knocking out two of his teeth. If the fan asserts a claim based on battery against the referee and the referee prevails, what is the likely reason?

Answer 61

The referee did not know that the door was substantially certain to strike the bullhorn. he did not have the intent to commit a battery Battery requires: (i) an act by defendant that causes a harmful or offensive contact to plaintiff’s person; (ii) intent to cause the harmful or offensive contact; and (iii) causation there was a harmful contact caused by the referee. The only consideration is whether the referee had the requisite intent. If a person knows with substantial certainty the consequences of his action, he has the intent necessary for this type of tort. If the referee did not know that the door was substantially certain to hit the bullhorn the fan was holding, the referee did not have the intent necessary for battery

Question 62

The owner of a boat took two friends out on a lake near his home. One of his friends was driving the boat when it struck a partially submerged rock that the owner of the boat had forgotten to tell him about. The owner of the boat and the other passenger were injured; the driver of the boat was not hurt. In a jurisdiction that applies joint and several liability with comparative contribution, the passenger brought suit against both the boat owner and the driver, and the boat owner also sued the driver. The jury determined that the boat owner was 55% at fault and suffered $10,000 in damages, the driver of the boat was 45% at fault, and the injured passenger suffered $100,000 in damages. After entry of judgment, the boat owner paid the passenger her total damages of $100,000, while the driver of the boat has paid nothing. How much, if anything, can the boat owner recover from the driver?

Answer 62

$49,500, because the driver was 45% at fault and the boat owner suffered $10,000 in damages. Joint and Several Liability: If two people are both responsible for someone’s injury, the injured person can make either of them pay all the damages. Then the one who paid can ask the other to chip in their fair share (called contribution). Comparative Contribution: When asking for contribution, each person only owes their percentage of fault. So, if you're 30% at fault, you pay 30%. ✅ What Happened in the Question Who got hurt? The passenger: hurt and awarded $100,000. The boat owner: also injured, suffered $10,000 in damages. Who’s at fault? Boat owner = 55% at fault Driver = 45% at fault Who paid what? The boat owner paid all $100,000 to the passenger. The driver paid nothing. 🤔 What Can the Boat Owner Get Back? 1. Contribution for Paying the Passenger’s Damages Since the boat owner paid $100,000 to the passenger, and the driver was 45% at fault, the driver owes: $100,000 × 45% = $45,000 ✅ So, the owner can get $45,000 from the driver just for the passenger’s damages. 2. Boat Owner’s Own Damages The boat owner himself was injured and had $10,000 in personal damages. But remember: he was 55% at fault. That means he can only recover 45% of his damages from the driver: $10,000 × 45% = $4,500 ✅ So he can also get $4,500 for his own injury.

Question 63

A statute requires that any pilot who flies passengers for hire must have a commercial pilot’s license. An experienced pilot who had only a private pilot’s license and not the commercial license required by statute was hired by an attorney to fly her to another city to close a deal. The attorney knew that the pilot did not have a commercial license but the only commercial flight to the city was at an inconvenient time. The pilot flew the attorney through bad weather and landed safely, but because of a minor navigational error he landed at an airport a few miles away from the airport he was heading for. As he was going to start taxiing toward the hangar, another plane struck the aircraft. The student pilot of that plane had ignored the control tower’s instructions and gone onto the landing runway instead of the takeoff runway. The attorney was injured in the collision. If the attorney sues the pilot for her injuries, who will prevail?

Answer 63

The pilot, because the injuries to the attorney were caused by the negligence of the student pilot of the other plane. To establish a prima facie case for negligence, the attorney must show that the pilot’s breach of his duty to her was the actual and proximate cause of her injury The attorney can establish actual cause because but for the pilot’s error, she would not have been injured. Proximate cause was student pilot because not foreseeable pilot’s navigational error did create a greater risk of collision with other planes in the process of landing, but it did not increase the risk of a plane using the landing runway to take off in disregard of the control tower’s instructions once the pilot was safely on the ground. the student pilot’s unforeseeable conduct was not within the increased risk created by the pilot’s negligence and constitutes a superseding force that breaks the causal connection between the pilot’s conduct and the attorney’s injury, enabling the pilot to avoid liability to the attorney **NO ASSUMPTION OF RISK because assumption of the risk requires knowledge of the specific risk and the voluntary assumption of that risk --- attn knew that the pilot lacked a commercial license, she also was under the impression that he was a very good pilot. There is no indication that she knew of or voluntarily assumed any risk.

Question 64

A dentist filling a child's cavities used a newly developed local anesthetic that was more effective than Novocain. However, it carried a 1% risk of causing a serious seizure when administered to children, which the dentist did not mention to the child's mother or note in the consent forms, which stated only that a local anesthetic would be used. The child's dental work was completed without any problem, but the mother looked up the anesthetic on the Internet and learned about the risk. She complained to the dentist that she would not have consented to use of the anesthetic had she known of the risk, but the dentist argued that using the new anesthetic was justified in the child's case because otherwise he would not have been willing to sit still for the dental work. Does the mother have a cause of action on behalf of the child against the dentist?

Answer 64

No, because the child suffered no harm from use of the anesthetic. **Legal Principles:** -Informed Consent Rule: -A medical professional must disclose material risks to allow a patient (or parent) to make an informed decision. -If the risk is serious enough that a reasonable person would want to know about it, it must be disclosed. **Elements of a Negligence Claim:** -Duty (e.g., disclose risks) -Breach (e.g., didn’t disclose) -Causation (the harm must be caused by the breach) -Damage (actual harm must have occurred) 👉 No harm = no negligence claim. Even though the dentist breached the duty to inform the parent about the risk (a 1% chance of seizure is material), no injury happened. Since actual harm is required in negligence claims, there's no cause of action. 🔑 Key here: **There was a breach of duty (failure to disclose a known, serious risk), but since no injury occurred, there is no valid lawsuit.**