Question: Under the Attractive Nuisance doctrine, what duty does an owner owe to a trespassing child when the benefit of maintaining a dangerous condition is slight?

Answer: Under the Attractive Nuisance doctrine, an owner owes a duty of reasonable care to a trespassing child if the benefit to the owner of maintaining the condition in its dangerous form is slight weighed against the risk to children, and the owner fails to use reasonable care to eliminate the danger.


Question: When does an unexcused violation of a safety statute by a defendant constitute negligence per se?

Answer: When a safety statute has a sufficiently close application to the facts of the case at hand, an unexcused violation of that statute by a defendant is 'negligence per se,' and thus conclusively establishes that the defendant was negligent.


Question: Are undiscovered trespassers owed a duty of care?

Answer: No. Undiscovered trespassers (i.e. people on land without the occupier's knowledge) are never owed a duty of care, no matter how they were injured.


Question: Can a rescuer assert a claim against a property owner for the rescuer's injuries if the property owner was not at fault?

Answer: No. A rescuer cannot assert a claim against a property owner for the rescuer's injuries if the property owner was not at fault.


Question: A defendant's negligence creates a danger which causes a third person to attempt a rescue. Is the defendant liable to the rescuer?

Answer: Yes. If a defendant's negligence creates a danger which causes some third person to attempt a rescue, the defendant may be liable to the rescuer.


Question: A driver injures someone because his brakes failed. Can the driver defend himself by showing he used reasonable care in maintaining his brakes?

Answer: Yes. If a driver injures someone because his brakes failed, a defense is that the driver used reasonable care in the maintenance of his brakes.


Question: Can a plaintiff rely on the jurors' common knowledge to establish a breach of standard of care in negligence?

Answer: Yes. For negligence, in order to establish a breach of standard of care owed to a plaintiff, the plaintiff can rely on the application of the jurors' common knowledge as to whether there was a breach.


Question: When does a defendant fail to exercise reasonable care?

Answer: A defendant fails to exercise reasonable care when the probability and probable gravity of harm the defendant's conduct is likely to cause outweighs the burden on the defendant to avoid risk and the utility of his conduct.


Question: A mechanic negligently inspects a driver's brakes. Can the mechanic be held liable for a car accident caused by the faulty brakes?

Answer: Yes. A mechanic can be held liable for a car accident if the mechanic was negligent in inspecting the driver's brakes.


Question: Will a claim for negligence succeed if the tortfeasor could have taken reasonable steps to prevent the injury but didn't?

Answer: Yes. A claim for negligence will succeed if the tortfeasor could have taken reasonable steps to prevent the injury but didn't.


Question: Does a violation of a statute constitute negligence per se if the violator's conduct does not constitute the type of risk that the statute was designed to protect against?

Answer: No. A violation of a statute will not constitute negligence per se if the violator's conduct does not constitute the type of risk that the statute was designed to protect against.


Question: Will a negligence cause of action fail if a reasonably prudent person could not foresee injury to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's action?

Answer: Yes. A negligence cause of action will fail if a reasonably prudent person could not foresee injury to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's action.


Question: Is a person a negligent tortfeasor regardless of his mental state if his conduct imposes an unreasonable risk upon another that results in injury to that other person?

Answer: Yes. If a person's conduct imposes an unreasonable risk upon another that results in injury to that other person, he is a negligent tortfeasor, regardless of his mental state.


Question: A person violates a statute, but the violation is not the proximate cause of the injury to another person. Is there a cause of action for negligence?

Answer: No. If a person violates a statute, but the violation of the statute is not the proximate cause of the injury to the other person, there is no cause of action for negligence.


Question: The trier of fact takes into account the injured party's violation of a safety statute in determining the tortfeasor's liability. Will the tortfeasor remain liable if the violation of the statute is not the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff?

Answer: Yes. If the violation of the statute is not the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff, the tortfeasor will remain liable.


Question: Can a passenger in a car injured in an accident recover from the driver under a negligence theory if the driver did not act unreasonably?

Answer: No. Negligence requires that the driver breached a duty of care by acting unreasonably. If the driver acted within the reasonable standards of care, they cannot be found negligent and therefore the passenger cannot recover under a negligence theory.


Question: Can a person be found negligent if they exercised the due care a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have exercised and the risk of danger was not foreseeable?

Answer: No. A person cannot be found negligent if they exercised the due care a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have exercised and the risk of danger was not foreseeable.


Question: Is a contractor liable under a negligence theory if the contractor has reason to know that a condition at his work site poses an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death to trespassers and the contractor fails to use reasonable care to eliminate the danger?

Answer: Yes. A contractor is liable under a negligence theory if the contractor has reason to know that a condition at his work site poses an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death to trespassers and the contractor fails to use reasonable care to eliminate the danger.


Question: A driver drives off the road and hits someone. Is the driver guilty of negligence?

Answer: Yes. A driver is guilty of negligence if he drives off the road and hits someone because his conduct imposed an unreasonable risk upon another that resulted in injury to that other person.


Question: Can a babysitting service be liable for injuries to a child being watched if the company or its employees failed to exercise reasonable care to assure the child's safety?

Answer: Yes. A babysitting service can be liable for injuries to a child being watched if the company or its employees failed to exercise reasonable care to assure the child's safety.


Question: A doctor fails to inform a patient that an operation has a 2% risk of death and the operation is a success. Is there negligence?

Answer: No. If a doctor fails to inform you that the operation has a 2% risk of death and the operation is a success, there is no negligence because you were not harmed.


Question: In a medical malpractice case, can an expert witness read passages from a reliable authority during direct examination?

Answer: Yes. In a medical malpractice case, during direct, you can have an expert witness read passages from a reliable authority as both a basis of opinion and as substantive evidence of the proper standard of care.


Question: Are common carriers under a duty to their passengers to take reasonable action to protect them against unreasonable risk of physical harm?

Answer: Yes. Common carriers are under a duty to their passengers to take reasonable action to protect them against unreasonable risk of physical harm.


Question: If a rescuer undertakes a rescue, must he be reasonably prudent?

Answer: Yes. If a rescuer undertakes a rescue, he must be reasonably prudent. If he is negligent, he is liable.


Question: A car rolls down a hill and injures a plaintiff who was not paying attention. Does res ipsa loquitur apply despite the plaintiff's contribution?

Answer: Yes. Res ipsa loquitur applies despite the plaintiff's contribution if the defendant's negligence in parking the car on the hill caused it to roll down and injure the plaintiff.


Question: A plaintiff is scalded by extremely hot water while taking a shower in a hotel. What must the plaintiff prove to establish that the scalding probably happened because of the negligence of the hotel?

Answer: The plaintiff needs to prove that nothing in the plaintiff's own conduct explains how the incident occurred.


Question: In res ipsa loquitur cases, do plaintiffs need to exclude the possibility of their own contribution to the accident?

Answer: Yes. Generally, in res ipsa loquitur cases, the plaintiff needs to exclude the possibility of the plaintiff's own contribution to the accident.


Question: Is contributory negligence often a full defense in res ipsa loquitur cases?

Answer: No. Courts today no longer view contributory negligence as a full defense. Victim fault does not often apply in cases of res ipsa loquitur because these are cases where the defendant has exclusive control over the instrumentality.


Question: Cattle escape from a well-constructed fence enclosure and cause a car accident. The plaintiff did not contribute to the accident. Is a res ipsa loquitur instruction permissible?

Answer: Yes. A res ipsa loquitur instruction is permissible because the jury could conclude that cattle would not ordinarily escape a strong, secure fence in the absence of negligence.


Question: To show that res ipsa loquitur applies when a farm animal escapes confinement and causes injury to a person on a public road, what must the plaintiff establish?

Answer: The plaintiff must establish that: (1) the animal which caused the accident would not have been running-at-large on a public road in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) the animal was in the defendant's control; and (3) the accident was not due to the plaintiff's conduct.


Question: A store employee tells a plaintiff to pick up a box of clothes from a back storeroom marked with an 'employees only' sign. If the plaintiff is injured in the storeroom due to an exposed electric outlet, is the store liable?

Answer: Yes. The store will be liable because the plaintiff was an invitee in the storeroom.


Question: What is an invitee?

Answer: An invitee is a person who has an express or implied invitation to enter or use another's premises, such as a business visitor or a member of the public to whom the premises are held open.


Question: A chair falls out of a hotel window and injures a passerby. Are the occupants of the rooms from which the chair might have been thrown liable under res ipsa loquitur?

Answer: No. The occupants of all the rooms from which the chair might have been thrown are not liable under res ipsa since the guests only have partial control of the furniture.


Question: A chair falls out of a hotel window and injures a passerby. Is the hotel liable under res ipsa loquitur?

Answer: No. A hotel is not liable under res ipsa loquitur if a chair falls out of a window and injures a passerby because the chair was not under the hotel's exclusive control.


Question: A plaintiff is injured when a hospital wheelchair collapses. Can the plaintiff claim res ipsa loquitur negligence?

Answer: Yes. If a plaintiff is injured when a hospital wheelchair collapses, the plaintiff may be permitted to claim res ipsa loquitur negligence, so long as the plaintiff can exclude himself as the probable cause of the injury.


Question: What must a plaintiff establish to succeed under res ipsa loquitur?

Answer: To succeed under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the instrumentality which caused the harm was at all times within the exclusive control of the defendant.


Question: To succeed under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, must there be no direct evidence of the defendant's conduct?

Answer: Yes. To succeed under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, there must be no direct evidence of the defendant's conduct; the event must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.


Question: Will a res ipsa loquitur claim fail if the trier of fact determines that the person in control of the instrumentality took reasonable precautions to prevent the injury?

Answer: Yes. A claim based on res ipsa loquitur will fail if the trier of fact determines that the person in control of the instrumentality had taken reasonable precautions to prevent such an injury.


Question: Can punitive damages be awarded if the plaintiff has pled and proved that the defendant's misconduct was aggravated by a culpable state of mind such as malice, willful and wanton misconduct, intentional misconduct, or a reckless disregard for the rights of others?

Answer: Yes. In tort cases, where the plaintiff has already established a cognizable legal injury (even if the damages are nominal), punitive damages may be awarded where the plaintiff has pled and proved that the defendant's misconduct was aggravated by a culpable state of mind such as malice, willful and wanton misconduct, intentional misconduct, or a reckless disregard for the rights of others when such conduct is tantamount to evil intent.


Question: A negligent driver injures a plaintiff who then goes to a doctor who negligently makes the plaintiff's injury worse. If the doctor is sued by the plaintiff for malpractice, can the doctor implead the driver?

Answer: Yes. The doctor can implead the driver because a fact-finder could assign some of the responsibility for the plaintiff's injuries to the defendant.


Question: Does an intervening act by a third party or force break the chain of causation leading from the defendant's act to the plaintiff's injury if the intervention is foreseeable?

Answer: No. An intervening act by a third party or force does not break the chain of causation leading from the defendant's act to the plaintiff's injury if the intervention is foreseeable.


Question: Is a defendant liable for injuries resulting from medical malpractice if the plaintiff seeks medical care due to the defendant's negligence?

Answer: Yes. Courts generally hold that when the intervening negligence is medical malpractice, this does not break the causal chain because medical malpractice is a foreseeable result when the plaintiff has to seek medical care.


Question: A defendant drives an automobile at an excessive speed while another defendant negligently pushes the plaintiff into the path of the car, causing an indivisible injury. Is each defendant jointly and severally liable?

Answer: Yes. Each defendant is jointly and severally liable if his conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, even if they did not act in concert.


Question: Two defendants independently but concurrently act negligently, causing an indivisible injury. Are they jointly and severally liable?

Answer: Yes. If two or more defendants are liable for a plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff can pursue the entire amount of damages from any one defendant, although this defendant can seek contribution from the other defendants if he pays more than his share of fault.


Question: What is joint and several liability?

Answer: Joint and several liability exists when the tortious conduct of each of two or more persons acting independently but concurrently combine as substantial factors in causing an indivisible injury.


Question: A man has a reasonable chance (less than 50%) of surviving a heart failure if his heart disease is correctly diagnosed but a hospital fails to diagnose and he dies. Can his wife recover against the hospital?

Answer: Yes. His wife will likely recover against the hospital in a jurisdiction that allows recovery for the loss of the chance for survival.


Question: Under a Loss of Chance of Survival claim, can a plaintiff recover for loss of chance or reduced chance of survival even if the plaintiff can't prove that it is more likely than not that defendant's negligent conduct caused the injury?

Answer: Yes. Under a Loss of Chance of Survival claim, some jurisdictions allow for recovery for loss of chance or reduced chance of survival even though the plaintiff can't prove that it is more likely than not that defendant's negligent conduct caused the injury.


Question: A pedestrian is hit by a car, resulting in an injury to his legs that makes them unsteady. The pedestrian later injures his shoulder when he falls down a stairway due to his unsteady legs. Is the driver liable for injuries both to his legs and shoulder?

Answer: Yes. The driver is liable for injuries both to his legs and shoulder because the pedestrian's injuries are a foreseeable consequence of the original action and will not break the chain of causation.


Question: Does a driver remain liable for subsequent injuries that result from a weakened condition of the plaintiff caused by the driver's negligence?

Answer: Yes. Under the subsequent injuries exception, a defendant can be deemed to proximately cause injuries resulting from a weakened condition of the plaintiff when: (1) the original injury was the result of either a disease or broken/injured limbs and (2) the defendant's first injury made the plaintiff more susceptible.


Question: In a jurisdiction with a system of pure comparative negligence with joint and several liability, can a plaintiff pursue the entire amount of damages from any one defendant?

Answer: Yes. In a jurisdiction with a system of pure comparative negligence with joint and several liability, the plaintiff can pursue the entire amount of damages from any one defendant, although this defendant can seek contribution from the other defendants if he pays more than his share of fault.


Question: Under joint and several liability, can the entire judgment amount be collected from any of the guilty defendants, even a defendant that is just 1% at fault?

Answer: Yes. Under joint and several liability, the entire judgment amount can be collected from any of the guilty defendants, even a defendant that is just 1% at fault.


Question: A plaintiff became sick after eating food at a catered event. What must the plaintiff establish to succeed in a negligence claim against the caterer?

Answer: The plaintiff must establish that the caterer was the actual and proximate cause of the illness in order to succeed in a negligence claim.


Question: What must a plaintiff establish to succeed in a negligence action against an attorney?

Answer: To succeed in a negligence action against an attorney, a plaintiff must establish that the plaintiff would have recovered in the lawsuit the attorney negligently handled, but for the attorney's negligence.


Question: What must a plaintiff show to succeed in a negligence cause of action?

Answer: To succeed in a negligence cause of action, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's conduct was the cause in fact of the plaintiff's injury and had the defendant not acted negligently, the plaintiff's injuries would not have resulted.


Question: If the combined negligent actions of two parties cause an injury and the damages are not divisible between the tortfeasors, are both tortfeasors liable for all the damages?

Answer: Yes. If the combined negligent actions of two parties cause an injury and the damages are not divisible between the tortfeasors, both tortfeasors are liable for all the damages, jointly and severally.


Question: If the negligence of two different parties contributed to the plaintiff's injury, are both negligent parties responsible for the full amount of the plaintiff's damages?

Answer: Yes. If the negligence of two different parties contributed to the plaintiff's injury, both negligent parties are responsible for the full amount of the plaintiff's damages.


Question: What must a plaintiff show to prove a defendant's conduct was the 'cause in fact' of the plaintiff's injury?

Answer: To prove a defendant's conduct was the 'cause in fact' of the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff must show that had the defendant not acted negligently, the plaintiff's injuries would not have resulted. The plaintiff must also show that the defendant was the 'proximate cause' of those injuries a defendant will not be liable for the consequences that are very unforeseeable.


Question: A plaintiff cannot prove which of three or more persons caused his injury, but can show that all produced a defective product. What will the court require from each defendant?

Answer: The court will require each of the defendant's to pay that percentage of plaintiff's injuries which that defendant's sales bore to the total market sales of that type of product at the time of injury.


Question: If more than one person is a proximate cause of a plaintiff's harm and the harm is indivisible, is each defendant liable for the entire harm?

Answer: Yes. If more than one person is a proximate cause of a plaintiff's harm and the harm is indivisible, each defendant is liable for the entire harm.


Question: Under the common law rules for indemnity, if one joint tortfeasor is found negligent in permitting the second joint tortfeasor to commit the tort, can the tortfeasor obtain indemnity for the full amount from the intentional tortfeasor?

Answer: Yes. Under the common law rules for indemnity, if one joint tortfeasor is found negligent in permitting the second joint tortfeasor to commit the tort, the tortfeasor can obtain indemnity for the full amount from the intentional tortfeasor.


Question: Does joint and several liability exist under the common law?

Answer: Yes. Under the common law, joint and several liability exists.


Question: What is the unit rule?

Answer: Under the unit rule, the plaintiff's negligence is compared with the aggregate negligence of all the defendants, who may then through contribution adjust the loss among themselves.


Question: What are the elements of a joint venture?

Answer: A joint venture is defined as: (1) an agreement among members of a group; (2) a common purpose to be carried out by the group; (3) a community of pecuniary interest in that purpose; and (4) an equal right to a voice in the direction of the enterprise.


Question: What must a plaintiff show to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress in most jurisdictions?

Answer: To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, most jurisdictions require that the plaintiff suffers some physical harm or the distress manifests itself through physical symptoms. Negligence causing 'pure' emotional distress is only actionable if the plaintiff was in the zone of danger of physical harm or the plaintiff and the defendant had a special relationship.


Question: When is negligence causing 'pure' emotional distress actionable?

Answer: Negligence causing 'pure' emotional distress is actionable if the plaintiff was in the zone of danger of physical harm or the plaintiff and the defendant had a special relationship, such as therapist-patient, doctor-patient, or negligent handling of genetic material or a corpse.


Question: A neighbor is aware of hunters on the land next door but chooses to trespass across the property as a shortcut and is injured by a gunshot. Is the landowner next door liable for the neighbor's injury?

Answer: No. If a neighbor is aware of hunters on the land next door but chooses to trespass across the property as a shortcut and is injured by a gunshot, under common law, the landowner next door is not liable for the neighbor's injury on his land.


Question: Under traditional rules of landowners' and occupiers' liability, what duty does a landowner owe to a trespasser?

Answer: Under traditional rules of landowners' and occupiers' liability, a trespasser assumes all risks of the conditions which may be found. A landowner, landlord, or possessor only owes the trespasser a duty to avoid willful or wanton injury. Exceptions exist if the trespasser has been discovered or the trespass is frequent and reasonably anticipated.


Question: A plaintiff hires a funeral home to handle the burial of the plaintiff's late husband, but the funeral home negligently buries the husband in the wrong grave. Can the plaintiff recover for pure emotional distress?

Answer: Yes. If a plaintiff hires a funeral home to handle the burial of the plaintiff's late husband, but due to negligence, the funeral home buries the husband in the wrong grave, the plaintiff may recover for pure emotional distress, even if the plaintiff has not suffered bodily harm from the distress.


Question: What are the exceptions to the general rule for recovering damages for emotional distress caused by observing the negligently inflicted injury of a third person?

Answer: There are two exceptions: (1) a plaintiff may recover damages for mental distress caused by the negligent handling of the corpse of a close relative despite not witnessing it; and (2) a plaintiff may recover damages when mistakenly informed of the death of a close relative.


Question: When can a plaintiff recover damages for emotional distress caused by observing the negligently inflicted injury of a third person?

Answer: A plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress caused by observing the negligently inflicted injury of a third person only if the plaintiff: (1) was closely related to the victim; (2) was present at the scene of the injury-producing event and was aware the event was causing the injury; and (3) suffers serious emotional harm.


Question: An intoxicated person enters a bar and is refused service. Is there a further duty to monitor any subsequent activities of the person?

Answer: No. If an intoxicated person enters a bar and is refused service, there is no further duty to monitor any subsequent activities of the person, absent some specific threat or some other basis from which danger may be reasonably anticipated.


Question: Is a tavern or liquor vendor an insurer of his customers' safety?

Answer: No. A tavern or liquor vendor is not an insurer of his customers' safety. They are generally only found liable if they sell alcohol to someone obviously intoxicated or to a minor.


Question: A plaintiff narrowly escapes getting hit by a car when the car runs over and kills a stranger. Can the plaintiff recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the 'zone of danger' rule?

Answer: Yes. If a plaintiff narrowly escapes getting hit by a car when the car runs over and kills a stranger, the plaintiff can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the 'zone of danger' rule if the plaintiff can prove severe emotional distress as a consequence.


Question: When can a bystander recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the 'zone of danger' rule?

Answer: A bystander can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the 'zone of danger' rule if the bystander can prove that he or she was placed in a zone of danger of imminent physical impact, reasonably feared for his or her safety, and as a consequence, suffered severe emotional distress.


Question: Can a landlord be held liable for dog-bite injuries from a vicious dog belonging to a tenant?

Answer: Yes. A landlord can be held liable for dog-bite injuries from a vicious dog belonging to a tenant if the landlord knew of the dog's vicious propensities when the premises were leased to the tenant. If the landlord does not have any notice of a tenant's dog's vicious propensities, the landlord will not be found liable if the tenant's dog injures a tenant's guest.


Question: The owner of a store hires a construction company to design and build an entryway in a common area. Is the owner still liable if the entryway is defective?

Answer: Yes. If the owner of a store hires a construction company to design and build an entryway in a common area, the owner is still liable if the entryway is defective because work in common areas accessible to the public generally places a non-delegable duty on the part of the owner.


Question: A witness to an accident is not in the zone of danger. Can the bystander recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress?

Answer: No. If a witness to an accident is not in the zone of danger, the bystander can never recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress unless the bystander suffers physical harm or the bystander is a close relative of the injured person.


Question: Does a claim for emotional distress exist when a defendant negligently causes property loss to the plaintiff?

Answer: No. No claim for emotional distress exists when a defendant negligently causes property loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff can only sue for negligence.


Question: Will a landowner be held liable for a trespasser's injuries if the landowner was unaware of the trespasser's presence?

Answer: No. A landowner will not be held liable for a trespasser's injuries if the landowner was unaware of the trespasser's presence or took reasonable steps to prevent the injury after becoming aware of the trespasser's presence.


Question: Can a landowner use excessive force to deter trespassers from entering onto the landowner's property?

Answer: No. A landowner can never use excessive force to deter trespassers from entering onto the landowner's property.


Question: Will a negligent person be found liable for an intervening act stemming from the negligence if the intervening act was not foreseeable?

Answer: No. A person who is negligent will not be found liable for an intervening act stemming from the negligence if the intervening act was not foreseeable.


Question: Will an injured party fully recover in tort if intervening causes contribute to produce the injury and the plaintiff is not at fault?

Answer: Yes. An injured party will fully recover in tort if intervening causes contribute to produce the injury and the plaintiff is not at fault.


Question: Is a tortfeasor liable for any foreseeable damages that stem from his negligence?

Answer: Yes. A tortfeasor is liable for any foreseeable damages that stem from his negligence.


Question: What must a plaintiff show to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress if there is no physical impact?

Answer: To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must show physical manifestations of the distress in the absence of a physical impact on the plaintiff.


Question: Can you recover property damages for negligence and strict liability?

Answer: Yes. For negligence and strict liability, you can recover property damages only.


Question: Can you recover pure economic damages for negligence and strict liability if you also have property damages or personal injuries?

Answer: Yes. For negligence and strict liability, you can recover pure economic damages if you also have property damages or personal injuries.


Question: Does sovereign immunity attach to non-delegable duties that are 'proprietary' in nature?

Answer: No. Sovereign immunity does not attach to non-delegable duties that are 'proprietary' in nature. For example, where a city supplies water, gas, electricity, or operates a ferry, dock, airport, or public market.


Question: What is a superseding cause?

Answer: A superseding cause is an unforeseen intervening cause. This relieves the defendant from liability for his antecedent negligence because the superseding event becomes the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.


Question: Can recovery be allowed for mental disturbance alone unaccompanied by physical injury in negligence?

Answer: No. In negligence, no recovery will be allowed for mental disturbance alone unaccompanied by physical injury.


Question: Can a plaintiff recover for emotional distress if a hospital negligently sends the plaintiff the leg of a deceased relative?

Answer: Yes. A plaintiff can recover for emotional distress if a hospital negligently sends the plaintiff the leg of a deceased relative.


Question: What is proximate cause?

Answer: Proximate cause is a cause that is legally sufficient to result in liability. A defendant is liable for all harmful acts that are the normal incidents of and within the increased risk caused by his acts. Unforeseen conduct not within the increased risk created by the negligence is a superseding cause that breaks the causal connection.


Question: What does negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) require?

Answer: Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) requires that the defendant's conduct create a foreseeable risk of physical injury to the plaintiff. The emotional distress caused by the conduct must also result in physical injury to the plaintiff.


Question: Can strict liability be imposed in favor of undiscovered trespassers against landowners in the absence of negligence by the landowner?

Answer: No. Strict liability will not be imposed in favor of undiscovered trespassers against landowners in the absence of negligence by the landowner.


Question: Is an employer liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor if the employer has not retained control of any part of the work or interfered with the job's performance?

Answer: No. An employer is not liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor if the employer has not retained control of any part of the work or interfered with the job's performance.


Question: Is an employer of an independent contractor liable for injury caused by the contractor if the employer has retained control of some part of the work and failed to exercise that control with reasonable care?

Answer: Yes. An employer of an independent contractor may be liable for injury caused by the contractor if the employer has retained control of some part of the work and failed to exercise that control with reasonable care.


Question: If a defendant researches and hires a reputable medical provider to treat contestants in a race sponsored by the defendant, is the defendant vicariously liable if the medical provider negligently aggravates a contestant's injury?

Answer: No. The defendant is not vicariously liable because the employer of an independent contractor is generally not responsible for the negligence of the contractor.


Question: Is an employer liable for the torts of an independent contractor if the employer exercised due care in selecting the contractor?

Answer: No. Employers are not liable for the torts of independent contractors if they exercised due care in selecting the contractor, unless the duty in question is non-delegable.


Question: Can an employer be liable for his own negligent hiring of an employee if the employer had reason to be on notice that the harmful action committed by the employee within the scope of employment was likely to occur?

Answer: Yes. An employer may be liable for his own negligent hiring of an employee if the employer had reason to be on notice that the harmful action committed by the employee within the scope of employment was likely to occur.


Question: Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, is an employer vicariously liable for the criminal or tortious conduct of an employee outside the scope of his employment?

Answer: No. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is generally not vicariously liable for the criminal or tortious conduct of an employee outside the scope of his employment.


Question: Is superior knowledge of a dangerous condition by itself sufficient to establish liability?

Answer: No. Superior knowledge of a dangerous condition by itself, in absence of duty, is insufficient to establish liability, unless there is a special relationship.


Question: When will courts consider a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty of care?

Answer: In determining whether or not a defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care, courts will consider: (1) whether the defendant has custody of the plaintiff; (2) whether the plaintiff is not able to determine his own actions; (3) whether there is a financial relationship between the parties; (4) whether the plaintiff expects protection from the defendant; and (5) actual knowledge of a dangerous condition may impose a duty.


Question: Can a franchisor be liable for acts or defaults of the franchisee under agency theory if the third party had reason to believe the franchisor stood behind the franchisee because the franchisor's name and logo were on the franchisee's business and business literature?

Answer: Yes. A franchisor may incur liability to third parties for acts or defaults of the franchisee under agency theory if the third party had reason to believe the franchisor stood behind the franchisee because the franchisor's name and logo were on the franchisee's business and business literature.


Question: Can a principal be liable for acts or omissions of an apparent agent if the principal creates the appearance that an entity is an agent and an innocent third party justifiably relies on the care or skill of that apparent agent?

Answer: Yes. If a principal creates the appearance that an entity is an agent, and an innocent third party justifiably relies on the care or skill of that apparent agent, the principal will be liable for acts or omissions of the apparent agent.


Question: A hotel hires an independent contractor to regularly maintain its elevators. A plaintiff is injured when an elevator door abruptly closes on his arm while visiting a guest at the hotel. Can the court deny the defendant's motion for a directed verdict based on Res Ipsa Loquitur?

Answer: Yes. The court must deny the defendant's motion for a directed verdict because the finder of fact could infer that the elevator's malfunction was due to negligence under the theory of Res Ipsa Loquitur.


Question: Under the nondelegable duty doctrine, can a party responsible for the safety of its facilities avoid liability by delegating that responsibility to a third party?

Answer: No. Under the nondelegable duty doctrine, a party responsible for the safety of its facilities cannot avoid liability by delegating that responsibility to a third party.


Question: When can negligence be inferred under the theory of Res Ipsa Loquitur?

Answer: Negligence can be inferred under the theory of Res Ipsa Loquitur if: (1) the harm is of a kind that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of some negligence; (2) the alleged negligence is within the scope of the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; and (3) the evidence eliminates other responsible causes including the conduct of the plaintiff and third parties.


Question: A business invitee injures himself due to a repair negligently performed by a contractor. Is the business owner personally liable despite his reasonable care in selecting and supervising the contractor?

Answer: Yes. The business owner is personally liable despite his reasonable care in selecting and supervising the contractor because those who keep land open to the public have a nondelegable duty to maintain the land safe for business invitees.


Question: Is a possessor's duty to invitees nondelegable, and is he liable if his employee or an independent contractor whom he has hired to perform for him fails to perform properly?

Answer: Yes. A possessor's duty to invitees is nondelegable, and he will be liable if his employee or an independent contractor whom he has hired to perform for him fails to perform properly.


Question: Can an employer be held liable for negligence or negligent hiring if the employer failed to use reasonable care to protect a customer harmed by an employee?

Answer: Yes. If an employee harms a customer, the employer can be held liable for negligence or negligent hiring if the employer failed to use reasonable care to protect the customer.


Question: Does a person who hires an independent contractor have recourse against the contractor for indemnification if there is a judgment against the person for the contractor's negligence?

Answer: Yes. If a person is liable for an independent contractor's negligence because of vicarious liability, the person has recourse against the contractor for indemnification if there is a judgment against the person.


Question: Can an employer escape liability for damages caused by an independent contractor performing an inherently dangerous activity?

Answer: No. An employer cannot escape liability for damages caused by an independent contractor performing an inherently dangerous activity.


Question: Are parents generally liable for the intentional torts of their children?

Answer: No. Parents are not generally liable for the intentional torts of their children except when the parents are on notice or encouraged the behavior.


Question: Can a car owner be liable for negligent entrustment in lending a car to someone he knows is a bad driver?

Answer: Yes. A car owner can be liable for negligent entrustment in lending a car to someone he knows is a bad driver.


Question: Under respondeat superior, can an employer be held liable for slight departures made by his employee that result in negligence if the slight departures were foreseeable?

Answer: Yes. Under respondeat superior, an employer can be held liable for slight departures made by his employee that result in negligence if the slight departures were foreseeable, making the departure within the scope of employment.


Question: Is the person who hires an independent contractor responsible for the negligence of the independent contractor if the activity is not inherently dangerous?

Answer: No. The person who hires an independent contractor is generally not responsible for the negligence of the independent contractor if the activity is not inherently dangerous.


Question: Is a master liable if he retains a servant who he knows has a habit of misconducting himself?

Answer: Yes. A master is liable if he retains a servant who he knows has a habit of misconducting himself.


Question: A landlord fails to provide reasonably safe premises by having stairs that were missing steps. The plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily chooses to go down the stairs even though there was a different route. Can the plaintiff recover for his injuries under the traditional common law defense of assumption of risk?

Answer: No. The plaintiff cannot recover for his injuries under the traditional common law defense of assumption of risk because he knowingly and voluntarily confronted the risk.


Question: Under the traditional common law defense of assumption of risk, can a plaintiff who voluntarily assumes the risk of injury arising from the negligent conduct of the defendant recover for his injuries?

Answer: No. Under the traditional common law defense of assumption of risk, a plaintiff who voluntarily assumes the risk of injury arising from the negligent conduct of the defendant cannot recover for his injuries.


Question: If Peter is injured by Dave, Doug, and Diana, and the jury determines that Peter is 25% responsible and each defendant was also 25% responsible, can Peter recover from any defendant in a modified comparative fault jurisdiction?

Answer: No. Peter cannot recover from any defendant in a modified comparative fault jurisdiction because each defendant's responsibility was equal to Peter's.


Question: In a jurisdiction with a modified comparative fault regime, will Peter's action fail completely if his fault is equal to or greater than the defendant's?

Answer: Yes. In a jurisdiction with a modified comparative fault regime, Peter's action will fail completely if his fault is equal to or greater than the defendant's.


Question: In a jurisdiction with a pure comparative fault system, how will Peter's recovery be affected if Peter's injury is partly his own fault?

Answer: In a jurisdiction with a pure comparative fault system, Peter's recovery will be reduced in proportion to Peter's degree of responsibility.


Question: A defendant illegally carries on blasting operations next to the public highway. The plaintiff approaches in a car, ignores a conspicuous warning sign and a flagman who tries to stop him, insists upon proceeding along the highway, and the plaintiff's car is damaged by the blasting. Can the defendant be found liable?

Answer: No. The defendant will not be found liable because the plaintiff assumed the risk.


Question: Can a plaintiff who voluntarily assumes the risk of injury arising from the negligent conduct of the defendant recover for her injuries?

Answer: No. A plaintiff who voluntarily assumes the risk of injury arising from the negligent conduct of the defendant cannot recover for her injuries.


Question: Can summary judgment be granted in a negligence action if it can be concluded as a matter of law that the defendant was negligent?

Answer: Yes. Summary judgment may be granted in a negligence action only if it can be concluded as a matter of law that the defendant was negligent.


Question: In negligence cases, is summary judgment usually appropriate even if all the parties are in agreement as to the underlying facts?

Answer: No. Negligence cases usually do not lend themselves to summary judgment because the very question of negligence is itself a question for jury determination.


Question: Is whether the plaintiff assumed the risk a jury question if there is a scintilla of evidence to the contrary?

Answer: Yes. Whether the plaintiff assumed the risk is a jury question if there is a scintilla of evidence to the contrary because issues of negligence and assumption of the risk are questions of fact for the jury.


Question: A defendant shoots and injures a plaintiff during a game of Russian Roulette in a jurisdiction where the traditional defense of contributory negligence is available. What is the most important issue?

Answer: The most important issue is whether the plaintiff was also negligent.


Question: If a jurisdiction applies the traditional defenses based on a plaintiff's conduct, are the common law defenses of contributory negligence and implied assumption of the risk applicable in a cause of action for negligence?

Answer: Yes. If a jurisdiction applies the traditional defenses based on a plaintiff's conduct, the common law defenses of contributory negligence and implied assumption of the risk are applicable in a cause of action for negligence.


Question: A man joins a tennis class after signing a waiver that reads, “I assume all risk of injuries in this class whether due to negligence or any other fault.” The instructor subsequently hits the man's face with a tennis racket while serving. What is the man's best argument against the validity of the waiver in his personal injury claim?

Answer: The man's best argument against the validity of the waiver in his personal injury claim is that public policy disfavors enforcing waivers that insulate people from the consequences of their own negligence, especially when the actual risk that materialized is not inherent to a tennis lesson but is a common risk of being careless.


Question: Are waivers of liability for negligence favored by the law?

Answer: No. Waivers of liability for negligence are not favored by the law, and courts generally construe them strictly against the releasee.


Question: In negligence actions, is the fact that the tortfeasor is indigent and his care is paid for by the state relevant to the defendant's tort liability?

Answer: No. The fact that the tortfeasor is indigent and his care is paid for by the state is irrelevant to the defendant's tort liability.


Question: In negligence actions, can the plaintiff recover punitive damages for intentional torts or reckless conduct?

Answer: Yes. In negligence actions, the plaintiff can recover punitive damages for intentional torts or reckless conduct.


Question: In negligence actions, can the plaintiff recover punitive damages for ordinary negligence?

Answer: No. In negligence actions, a plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages for ordinary negligence.


Question: Under the last clear chance doctrine, can a plaintiff who was contributorily negligent recover if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid harm to the plaintiff?

Answer: Yes. Under the last clear chance doctrine, a plaintiff who was contributorily negligent can recover if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid harm to the plaintiff.


Question: In a “pure” comparative negligence jurisdiction, will an injured party recover the full amount of his damages?

Answer: No. In a “pure” comparative negligence jurisdiction, an injured party will only recover a proportion of his damages based on the respective degrees of his negligence and that of the tortfeasor.


Question: Does the defense of assumption of risk apply if the defendant's conduct left the plaintiff with no reasonable choice but to encounter a known danger?

Answer: No. The defense of assumption of risk does not apply if the defendant's conduct left the plaintiff with no reasonable choice but to encounter a known danger.


Question: Can a defendant raise the defense that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent per se if the plaintiff violates a statute and the injury was the type of injury the statute was designed to protect against?

Answer: Yes. A defendant can raise the defense that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent per se if the plaintiff violates a statute and the injury was the type of injury the statute was designed to protect against.


Question: Under the Last Clear Chance Doctrine, who is viewed as the worst wrongdoer?

Answer: The last wrongdoer is worst wrongdoer and should pay.


Question: Under traditional contributory negligence, can a plaintiff's contributory negligence bar recovery unless the defendant's conduct was wanton and willful?

Answer: Yes. Under traditional contributory negligence, a plaintiff's contributory negligence bars recovery unless the defendant's conduct was wanton and willful, even if the defendant is liable because of strict liability.


Question: In a partial comparative negligence jurisdiction, can a plaintiff recover if the plaintiff's negligence was less than the defendant's negligence?

Answer: Yes. In a partial comparative negligence jurisdiction, a plaintiff can recover so long as the plaintiff's negligence was less than the defendant's negligence.


Question: Does assumption of risk apply when the person is subjectively aware of the risk and consciously disregards it?

Answer: Yes. Assumption of risk applies when the person is subjectively aware of the risk and consciously disregards it.


Question: D, who weighs 300 pounds and is drunk, tells his 100-pound bartender, “I'm going to rip your arm off and beat you over your head until you're dead.” D pounds his fist into his own hand. Does this action constitute assault?

Answer: Yes. This action constitutes assault because the words plus an overt act create the reasonable expectation of harmful contact.


Question: Does the tort of assault require actual physical contact to the plaintiff?

Answer: No. The tort of assault does not require actual physical contact to the plaintiff.


Question: For the tort of assault, must the defendant intend at the time of the act either to commit a harmful or offensive bodily contact, or to instill apprehension of such contact?

Answer: Yes. For the tort of assault, the defendant must intend at the time of the act either to commit a harmful or offensive bodily contact, or to instill apprehension of such contact.


Question: For the tort of assault, must the plaintiff be placed in apprehension of such imminent or immediate bodily harm?

Answer: Yes. For the tort of assault, the plaintiff must be placed in apprehension of such imminent or immediate bodily harm.


Question: The defendant hires A to cut down trees he thinks are on his property, but later discovers the trees are on the plaintiff's property. Can the plaintiff recover from either A or D?

Answer: Yes. The plaintiff may recover from either A for cutting the trees or from D because a person who hires another to perform an act undertakes to indemnify him for those acts.


Question: What is conversion?

Answer: Conversion is the intentional interference with the property of another that is serious enough in nature or consequence that the defendant should be required to pay the full value of the property, regardless of whether the defendant knows that the property is in another's possession.


Question: If a company that sells 10,000,000 tires per year determines that an undetectable defect occurs in 1 out of every 10,000 tires, will a person injured by the defect succeed in a claim of battery?

Answer: No. The person injured by the defect will fail in a claim of battery because the driver cannot establish that the company intended or knew to a substantial certainty that its placement of the tire into the stream of commerce would cause the plaintiff to suffer a harmful or offensive contact.


Question: Is statistical knowledge that one's multiple acts over time have a high statistical likelihood of harming someone from a large class of potential victims sufficient to establish intent through the substantial certainty test?

Answer: No. Statistical knowledge that one's multiple acts over time have a high statistical likelihood of harming someone from a large class of potential victims is not sufficient to establish intent through the substantial certainty test.


Question: Is conduct considered extreme and outrageous if it transcends all bounds of decency?

Answer: Yes. Conduct is considered extreme and outrageous if it transcends all bounds of decency.


Question: What are the elements required for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Answer: The elements required for intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) conduct by the defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) intent on the part of the defendant to cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress or recklessness as to the effect of the defendant's conduct; (3) causation; and (4) damages, i.e., severe emotional distress.


Question: Does the doctrine of transferred intent apply if the actor is doing a lawful act?

Answer: No. The doctrine of transferred intent does not apply if the actor is doing a lawful act.


Question: Is a hunter shooting a deer, but the bullet misses the deer and strikes a person, a transferred battery?

Answer: No. This would not be a transferred battery because it was a lawful act to shoot the deer, meaning the hunter was not committing a battery by shooting the deer.


Question: A doctor molests a child in his examination room. The mother was in the waiting room. Can the mother recover for IIED?

Answer: No. The mother cannot recover for IIED because she was neither the direct victim of the doctor's conduct nor a contemporaneous witness.


Question: Can a close family member recover for intentional infliction of mental distress if he or she was not in the zone of danger but simply near the scene when witnessing the event?

Answer: Yes. A close family member can recover for intentional infliction of mental distress if he or she was not in the zone of danger but simply near the scene when witnessing the event, provided: (1) the plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident; (2) the plaintiff witnessed the accident or incident firsthand and the shock that resulted from this direct emotional impact was contemporaneous; (3) the plaintiff and the victim were closely related; and (4) the injury to the victim was severe or even death.


Question: Can a trespass occur above or below the surface?

Answer: Yes. A trespass may occur above or below the surface since the possessory right is deemed to extend vertically in those directions from the boundary line on the surface.


Question: Is an underground intrusion from a well dug at an angle on neighboring land that intrudes onto the plaintiff's land a trespass?

Answer: Yes. An underground intrusion from a well dug at an angle on neighboring land that intrudes onto the plaintiff's land is a trespass.


Question: Is the depletion of water, oil, or gas from a common basin by a perpendicular well dug on neighboring land a trespass?

Answer: No. The depletion of water, oil, or gas from a common basin by a perpendicular well dug on neighboring land is not a trespass.


Question: A librarian locks all doors before leaving, unaware that a customer is still inside. Can the customer claim false imprisonment?

Answer: No. The customer cannot claim false imprisonment because the librarian did not intend to confine the customer or know with substantial certainty that the customer would be confined.


Question: For false imprisonment, what must the defendant intend?

Answer: For false imprisonment, the defendant must intend to confine the plaintiff or know with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would be confined by the defendant's actions. The tort of false imprisonment cannot be committed merely by negligent or reckless acts.


Question: A five-year-old child bites a stranger's leg, resulting in an injury requiring stitches. Is the child liable for battery?

Answer: Yes. The child is liable for battery because the child intended to use his teeth against the stranger and such contact would be considered harmful and offensive to a person with average sensibilities.


Question: For battery, what satisfies the element of intent?

Answer: For battery, the element of intent is satisfied if the defendant knows with substantial certainty that his act will result in a harmful or offensive contact. A minor is liable just as any other person when he has committed an intentional tort with force.


Question: A four-year-old boy throws a neighbor's cat to see if it can land on its feet. The cat is unharmed. Can the neighbor claim trespass to chattels?

Answer: No. The neighbor cannot claim trespass to chattels because the cat did not suffer any injury and the neighbor was not deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial amount of time.


Question: When does intentional intermeddling with a chattel constitute a trespass?

Answer: Intentional intermeddling with a chattel constitutes a trespass only if the chattel is thereby harmed, or the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel, or the possessor suffers bodily harm.


Question: A defendant enters a plaintiff's room with a crowbar to attack him while the plaintiff is sleeping. Is this an assault?

Answer: No. There is no intentional tort of assault because there was no apprehension of imminent offensive contact while the plaintiff was sleeping.


Question: What constitutes assault in tort law?

Answer: Assault is defined as the intentional act of causing a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. The plaintiff must have anticipated contact and known of the defendant's act in order to apprehend the contact. Without awareness, there can be no apprehension and thus, no assault.


Question: A bank refuses to return collateral worth $10,000 due to a mistake. The collateral is now worth $7,000. Can the borrower recover in a conversion action?

Answer: Yes. The borrower can recover $10,000 in a conversion action because the proper measure of damage for conversion is the full market value of the chattel at the time of conversion when the bank refused to return the collateral.


Question: What constitutes conversion in tort law?

Answer: Conversion is an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel that so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the full value of the chattel at the time it was converted.


Question: What claim is most likely to result in the greatest monetary recovery for the plaintiff if the defendant intentionally kills the plaintiff's pet, causing great emotional distress?

Answer: The claim most likely to result in the greatest monetary recovery for the plaintiff is intentional infliction of mental suffering/emotional distress.


Question: A smoker blows cigarette smoke onto the plaintiff. Does the reasonableness of the smoker's conduct affect the liability in a battery action?

Answer: No. Whether the smoker's conduct was reasonable or not has no bearing on the defendant's liability since battery actions only require that the defendant intended to make a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff.


Question: Does the degree or reasonableness of the battery matter in a tort action for battery?

Answer: No. In a tort action for battery, the degree or reasonableness of the battery doesn't matter. It is no defense to say that the touching didn't last long or that force used was minimal or injury was not great.


Question: Is lightly touching another person on purpose to gently give them notice considered assault or battery?

Answer: No. Lightly touching another person on purpose to gently give them notice is not considered assault or battery since it is a part of everyday life.


Question: Can an owner out of possession be subject to a suit for trespass for entry upon the land?

Answer: Yes. An owner out of possession may be subject to a suit for trespass for entry upon the land, with the lessee entitled to compensatory damages, plus punitive damages if there is malicious intent by the owner, and injunctive relief if the trespass is ongoing.


Question: Will a tort action for assault succeed if the plaintiff knew the defendant's actions did not present a danger and the plaintiff was not in fear of imminent bodily contact?

Answer: No. A tort action for assault will fail if the plaintiff knew the defendant's actions did not present a danger and the plaintiff was not in fear of imminent bodily contact.


Question: Is it battery if you intentionally push another person, even if you thought you were helping the person, but the person was not in danger and you should have known?

Answer: Yes. It is battery if you intentionally push another person, even if you thought you were helping the person, but the person was in fact not in danger and you should have known.


Question: Is a defendant guilty of negligent infliction of emotional distress if the plaintiff suffers physical harm as a direct result of the defendant's negligent act?

Answer: Yes. A defendant is guilty of negligent infliction of emotional distress if the plaintiff suffers physical harm as a direct result of the defendant's negligent act.


Question: Is taking your neighbor's property without permission considered conversion?

Answer: Yes. Taking your neighbor's property without permission is considered conversion, and the neighbor is entitled to the fair market value of the personal property if it has been lost or destroyed.


Question: If a patient consents to one doctor to perform surgery but a different doctor performs the surgery, is the doctor who performed the surgery liable for battery?

Answer: Yes. The doctor who performed the surgery will be liable to the patient for battery if the patient consented to a different doctor to perform the surgery.


Question: Will an action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress succeed if no reasonable person could conclude that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous?

Answer: No. An action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress will be dismissed if no reasonable person could conclude that the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous as to the plaintiff.


Question: Is a private individual liable for false imprisonment if he reasonably believes that he is detaining a felon?

Answer: No. A private individual is not liable for false imprisonment if he reasonably believes that he is detaining a felon.


Question: If a driver almost hits a parent and child with his car, causing severe emotional distress to the parent, can the driver be liable for negligent infliction of emotional distress if he was driving negligently?

Answer: Yes. A driver can be liable for negligent infliction of emotional distress if he almost hits a parent and child with his car, causing severe emotional distress to the parent, if he was driving negligently.


Question: Can entry onto another's land that is normally trespassing be justified by necessity to save goods and/or people in danger of destruction?

Answer: Yes. Entry onto another's land that is normally trespassing may be justified by necessity to save goods and/or people in danger of destruction.


Question: To recover under intentional infliction of emotional distress against a creditor, what must be shown?

Answer: To recover under intentional infliction of emotional distress against a creditor, there must be emotional distress, and it must be severe, and there must be a pattern of abuse and extreme conduct.


Question: To recover under intentional infliction of emotional distress, what must be proven?

Answer: To recover under intentional infliction of emotional distress, there must be emotional distress, and it must be severe. No physical harm is required.


Question: To recover under intentional infliction of emotional distress, is it necessary to prove physical injuries?

Answer: No. To recover under intentional infliction of emotional distress, there must be emotional distress, and it must be severe. Although physical injuries are not required, actual damages must be proven.


Question: Is a pure verbal threat considered assault?

Answer: No. A pure verbal threat is not considered assault. There must also be some overt action that threatens immediate physical harm to the victim such as shaking a fist or drawing a gun.


Question: If a person enters onto your land without permission, are they liable for damages to the land?

Answer: Yes. If a person enters onto your land without permission, they are liable for damages to the land.


Question: Can a third party recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress if the actor does not know of the third party's presence?

Answer: No. A third party cannot recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress if the actor does not know of the third party's presence because the actor lacks the intent.


Question: Are children generally liable for their intentional torts?

Answer: Yes. Children are generally liable for their intentional torts.


Question: What constitutes infliction of mental distress in tort law?

Answer: A person is guilty of infliction of mental distress if he commits an intentional act of outrageous conduct causing emotional distress which results in severe mental distress.


Question: Is a person guilty of battery if he slams a door shut, knowing it would strike another person?

Answer: Yes. A person is guilty of battery if he slams a door shut thereby striking another, and the person was substantially certain it would strike the victim.


Question: Can a person threatened by another recover on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress if the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress?

Answer: Yes. A person threatened by another can recover on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress if the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress as a consequence of the defendant's conduct.


Question: To establish a claim based on false imprisonment, what must the plaintiff show?

Answer: To establish a claim based on false imprisonment, the plaintiff must show that the defendant either intended to confine him, or at least that the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would be confined by the defendant's actions. Being inadvertently locked in will not suffice.


Question: Is an intentional tortfeasor liable if the tortfeasor commits an act knowing there is a substantial certainty that the act will cause some type of injury?

Answer: Yes. An intentional tortfeasor is liable if the tortfeasor commits an act knowing that there is a substantial certainty that the act will cause some type of injury, even embarrassment.


Question: What constitutes battery in tort law?

Answer: A battery occurs if a defendant acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact to another person and offensive or harmful contact actually results, either directly or indirectly.


Question: Is it considered assault if a person runs up to another person in a car at a traffic light, causing apprehension of harmful or offensive contact?

Answer: Yes. Intentionally running up to a person in a car at a traffic light may be considered assault if it causes apprehension of harmful or offensive contact.


Question: If you discuss an act that is considered assault and others commit it without your authorization or not under your control, are you guilty of assault?

Answer: No. If you discuss an act that is considered assault and others commit it without your authorization or not under your control, you are not guilty of assault.


Question: If you intend to frighten someone but accidentally hurt them, is the motive relevant in determining whether you committed battery through transferred intent?

Answer: No. The motive is irrelevant. If you intend to frighten someone but accidentally hurt them, you have committed battery through transferred intent.


Question: Can you assert a claim of assault against a dog owner if you reasonably believe that a dog might bite you because the owner directed the dog at you?

Answer: Yes. If you reasonably believe that a dog might bite you because the dog owner directed the dog at you, you can assert a claim of assault against the dog owner.


Question: What constitutes malicious assault in tort law?

Answer: Malicious assault occurs where the defendant recklessly causes physical injury.


Question: Is mistake of borders a defense to trespass?

Answer: No. Mistake of borders is not a defense to trespass. An encroachment is trespass even if the defendant thought it was his land.


Question: Is a person guilty of battery if he grabs the arm of a suspected trespasser but later finds out the person is not a trespasser?

Answer: Yes. A person will be found guilty of battery if he grabs the arm of a suspected trespasser but later finds out the person is not a trespasser.


Question: What constitutes battery when a defendant exceeds the scope of consent?

Answer: A battery occurs when a defendant exceeds the scope of consent. For example, if a doctor operates on the patient's leg and decides to also fix the patient's nose, this is a battery.


Question: Can a landowner use force to protect property if there is an immediate danger of theft, destruction, or trespass?

Answer: Yes. If an owner or occupant in lawful possession of property has a reasonable belief that the property is in immediate danger from theft, destruction, or trespass, that person may use only as much force as is proportional and reasonably necessary to protect the property. If more force is used than is necessary, it constitutes assault and battery.


Question: Can a person threaten deadly force against someone who is impeding a rescue to save a life?

Answer: Yes. A person can threaten deadly force against someone who is impeding a rescue to save a life.


Question: Is deadly force permissible to apprehend a fleeing misdemeanor?

Answer: No. Deadly force may not be used to apprehend a fleeing misdemeanor. If you use deadly force under the reasonable honest mistaken belief it was a fleeing felon, you are criminally liable for homicide if you kill him.


Question: Can the plaintiff prevail under an abnormally dangerous activity strict liability test if injured by display fireworks used by professionals in fireworks displays?

Answer: Yes. The plaintiff can prevail under an abnormally dangerous activity strict liability test if injured by display fireworks used by professionals.


Question: Can there be a claim for negligence if the plaintiff is injured by recreational fireworks set off by another person?

Answer: Yes. There may be a claim for negligence because fireworks can be dangerous and anyone failing to adhere to a standard of care of a reasonable person can be liable for any injuries that result.


Question: The plaintiff is injured by display fireworks used by professionals in fireworks displays. Can the plaintiff prevail under an abnormally dangerous activity strict liability test?

Answer: Yes. The plaintiff can prevail under an abnormally dangerous activity strict liability test.


Question: The plaintiff is injured by recreational fireworks set off by another person. Is there a claim for negligence?

Answer: Yes. There may be a claim for negligence because fireworks can be dangerous and anyone failing to adhere to a standard of care of a reasonable person can be liable for any injuries that result.


Question: When is a defendant subject to strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity?

Answer: A defendant will be subject to strict liability if he is engaged in an 'abnormally dangerous activity.' An activity is abnormally dangerous if it creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised and the activity is not commonly engaged in.


Question: Fumigation gas spreads from one condominium unit to another because of negligently constructed walls. Is the fumigation company still held strictly liable?

Answer: Yes. The fumigation company will still be held strictly liable because fumigation is an ultrahazardous activity that involves a risk of serious harm to the person, land, or chattels of others which cannot be eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care and is not a matter of common usage.


Question: If two young men are drag racing down a public street and one of them collides with the plaintiff's car, are both defendants liable?

Answer: Yes. Both defendants will be held liable even though only one of them actually came in contact with the car because the tortious conduct of one encouraged the tortious behavior of the other and the combination led to the harm caused.


Question: Two young men are drag racing down a public street and one of them collides with the plaintiff's car. Are both defendants liable?

Answer: Yes. Both defendants will be held liable even though only one of them actually came in contact with the car because the tortious conduct of one encouraged the tortious behavior of the other and the combination led to the harm caused.


Question: What happens if two or more wrongful tortfeasors act in concert?

Answer: If two or more wrongful tortfeasors act in concert, even if only one defendant directly causes the plaintiff's injuries, all the defendants will be held liable for the full amount of the damages, and the plaintiff can go against any or all defendants regardless of their relative percentage of fault.


Question: A plaintiff trespasses despite being aware of a vicious guard dog and is bitten. Is strict liability applicable?

Answer: No. No strict liability attaches because the plaintiff's assumption of the risk of harm from the animal is a defense to strict liability.


Question: A plaintiff's contributory negligence in knowingly and unreasonably subjecting himself to the risk that a wild animal will do harm to his person is a defense to strict liability. Why?

Answer: Yes. A plaintiff's contributory negligence in knowingly and unreasonably subjecting himself to the risk that a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous domestic animal will do harm to his person is a defense to strict liability.


Question: Is contributory negligence a defense to strict liability in the case of wild animals or abnormally dangerous domestic animals?

Answer: Yes. A plaintiff's contributory negligence in knowingly and unreasonably subjecting himself to the risk that a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous domestic animal will do harm to his person, land, or chattels, is a defense to strict liability.


Question: Is there strict liability if a plaintiff trespasses and is bitten by a guard dog despite a warning sign?

Answer: No. If the plaintiff is aware the dog is vicious but trespasses anyway and is bitten, no strict liability attaches even if the plaintiff had limited rights to be on the land.


Question: A plaintiff sues a defendant for his broken neck because his car crashed into a tree after hitting a drum of extremely hazardous chemicals that fell from the defendant's truck. Will the strict liability claim succeed?

Answer: No. The strict liability claim will fail because his neck injury was not caused by the hazardous nature of the chemical and a strict liability based on an abnormally dangerous activity requires the actual injury to be caused by the same type of risk that makes the activity abnormally dangerous in the first place.


Question: If a plaintiff sues a defendant for a broken neck caused by a car crash after hitting a drum of hazardous chemicals that fell from the defendant's truck, will the strict liability claim succeed?

Answer: No. The strict liability claim will fail because the neck injury was not caused by the hazardous nature of the chemical, and a strict liability based on an abnormally dangerous activity requires the actual injury to be caused by the same type of risk that makes the activity abnormally dangerous in the first place.


Question: Is strict liability for injuries caused by abnormally dangerous activities limited to the kind of harm that makes the activity abnormally dangerous?

Answer: Yes. Strict liability for injuries caused by abnormally dangerous activities is limited to the kind of harm that makes the activity abnormally dangerous.


Question: A heavy tile blows off the roof of an explosives plant during a storm and injures a pedestrian. Does strict liability apply?

Answer: No. Strict liability does not apply because the injury was not caused by the hazardous nature of the activity that makes it abnormally dangerous.


Question: If a heavy tile blows off the roof of an explosives plant during a storm and injures a pedestrian, does strict liability apply?

Answer: No. Although the manufacture of explosives is an abnormally dangerous activity, strict liability does not apply because the injury was not caused by the hazardous nature of the activity.


Question: Is the owner of a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous animal strictly liable for the harm caused to a person subjected to fear of attack by the animal?

Answer: Yes. An owner of a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous animal is strictly liable for the harm caused to a person subjected to fear of attack by the animal.


Question: Is the owner of livestock such as cattle strictly liable for any damage done by his livestock, even if the owner was not negligent?

Answer: Yes. An owner of livestock such as cattle is strictly liable for any damage done by his livestock, even if the owner was not negligent.


Question: Can you recover if smoke from a chemical plant explosion ruins your crops?

Answer: Yes. You can recover because it is an abnormally dangerous activity.


Question: Smoke from a chemical plant explosion ruins your crops. Can you recover under strict liability?

Answer: Yes. You can recover under strict liability because it is an abnormally dangerous activity.


Question: The operation of a flammable gas storage facility is an abnormally dangerous activity. Will the owner be strictly liable for any damages?

Answer: Yes. The owner will be strictly liable for any damages regardless of negligence because the operation of a flammable gas storage facility is an abnormally dangerous activity.


Question: Are construction companies strictly liable for inherently dangerous conditions?

Answer: No. Construction companies are not strictly liable for inherently dangerous conditions.


Question: Is a chemical plant strictly liable if toxic gas escapes and kills a nearby resident, even if the plant was not negligent?

Answer: Yes. If toxic gas escapes from a chemical plant killing a nearby resident, the chemical plant is strictly liable, even if the chemical plant was not negligent.


Question: Is a landowner strictly liable for domestic animals that have known dangerous propensities?

Answer: Yes. A landowner is strictly liable for domestic animals that have known dangerous propensities.


Question: Is an owner of a trespassing animal strictly liable for damages caused if it is foreseeable that the animal will trespass and cause damage?

Answer: Yes. An owner of a trespassing animal is strictly liable for damages caused if it is foreseeable that the animal will trespass and cause damage.


Question: Is an owner of dangerous animals strictly liable for injuries caused by the animal?

Answer: Yes. An owner of dangerous animals is strictly liable for injuries caused by the animal, provided the injured person did nothing, voluntarily or consciously, to bring about the injury.


Question: Is the possessor of livestock, including cattle, strictly liable for damages done by their trespassing animals?

Answer: Yes. The possessor of livestock, including cattle, is strictly liable for damages done by their trespassing animals.


Question: Is the operator of an aircraft subject to strict liability if physical harm occurs to another's land during the aircraft's ascent, descent, or from objects falling from the plane?

Answer: Yes. The operator of an aircraft is subject to strict liability if physical harm occurs to another's land during the aircraft's ascent, descent, or from objects falling from the plane.


Question: A person carrying on an ultra-hazardous activity is liable for harm even if the harm is caused by the unexpectable conduct of a third person, action of an animal, or operation of a force of nature. Does contributory negligence by the plaintiff bar recovery in strict liability?

Answer: No. Contributory negligence by the plaintiff will not bar his recovery in strict liability, but a plaintiff's assumption of the risk of harm from such an abnormally dangerous activity is a defense that bars his recovery for the harm.


Question: Is a defendant carrying on an ultra-hazardous activity liable for harm even if the harm is caused by the unexpectable conduct of a third person, action of an animal, or operation of a force of nature?

Answer: Yes. A defendant carrying on an ultra-hazardous activity is liable for harm even if the harm is caused by the unexpectable conduct of a third person, action of an animal, or operation of a force of nature.


Question: Is assumption of the risk by the plaintiff a defense in strict liability cases involving ultra-hazardous activities?

Answer: Yes. A plaintiff's assumption of the risk of harm from an abnormally dangerous activity is a defense that bars his recovery for the harm.


Question: Is contributory negligence by the plaintiff a defense in strict liability cases involving ultra-hazardous activities?

Answer: No. Typically, contributory negligence by the plaintiff will not bar his recovery in strict liability.


Question: A plaintiff gets stuck on an elevator that stopped between floors due to a manufacturing defect, and then after waiting, decides to jump out and gets injured. Is the elevator maker strictly liable?

Answer: No. The elevator maker is not strictly liable because the harm was not foreseeable. However, if the plaintiff was injured due to the elevator plummeting or a fire, strict liability would apply.


Question: If a plaintiff gets stuck on an elevator that stopped between floors due to a manufacturing defect and decides to jump out and gets injured, is the elevator maker strictly liable?

Answer: No. The elevator maker is not strictly liable because the harm was not foreseeable.


Question: To impose strict liability, must the harm be from a foreseeable or reasonably anticipated use?

Answer: Yes. To impose strict liability, the harm must be from a foreseeable or reasonably anticipated use. Strict liability is limited to the type of harm that makes the conduct abnormally dangerous.


Question: A state explosives inspector is injured while inspecting an in-state bomb-making factory due to a bomb that unexpectedly explodes. Can the factory use the defense of assumption of the risk?

Answer: Yes. In a strict liability claim by the inspector against the factory, the factory's best defense is that the inspector assumed the risk of injury by voluntarily taking on a job that regularly exposes him to dangerous substances.


Question: In a state that regards bomb manufacturing as an abnormally dangerous activity, what is the best defense for a factory against a strict liability claim by an injured state explosives inspector?

Answer: The factory's best defense is that the inspector assumed the risk of injury by voluntarily taking on a job that regularly exposes him to dangerous substances.


Question: Is assumption of the risk a defense to all strict liability torts?

Answer: Yes. Assumption of the risk is a defense to all strict liability torts. If a plaintiff had options and still assumed the risk, strict liability will be cut off.


Question: Is a final manufacturer liable if they combine nondefective components into a final defective product?

Answer: Yes. The final manufacturer, as well as any intervening wholesalers and retailers, are liable in strict liability.


Question: Is a manufacturer liable if a defective component produced by another is incorporated into a finished product?

Answer: Yes. Both the manufacturers of the component part and the finished product, as well as any intervening retailers and wholesalers, are liable in strict liability.


Question: Where a manufacturer incorporates a defective component produced by another into a finished product, who is liable in strict liability?

Answer: Both the manufacturers (of the component part and the finished product) as well as any intervening retailers and wholesalers are liable in strict liability.


Question: Can a drug manufacturer be liable if it adequately warns the prescribing physicians of the dangers of a drug?

Answer: No. The manufacturer is shielded from liability if it adequately warns the prescribing physicians of the dangers of the drug.


Question: Does the learned intermediary doctrine apply to non-prescription drugs?

Answer: No. The learned intermediary doctrine does not apply to non-prescription drugs or where the drug company, by its mass advertising, is creating the demand for the product.


Question: The manufacturer of a prescription allergy pill advised prescribing physicians of a remote risk of permanent loss of eyesight. If a doctor fails to inform the patient of such risks, and the patient loses their sight, does the patient have a claim against the drug manufacturer?

Answer: No. The patient has a claim against the doctor, but not the drug manufacturer.


Question: Under the learned intermediary doctrine, does a drug manufacturer have a duty to warn the ultimate consumer of a prescription drug?

Answer: No. Under the learned intermediary doctrine, a drug manufacturer only has a duty to warn the doctor, not the ultimate consumer of a prescription drug. The manufacturer is shielded from liability if it adequately warns the prescribing physicians of the dangers of the drug.


Question: Under the learned intermediary doctrine, does a drug manufacturer have a duty to warn the ultimate consumer of a prescription drug?

Answer: No. Under the learned intermediary doctrine, a drug manufacturer only has a duty to warn the doctor, not the ultimate consumer of a prescription drug.


Question: A plaintiff's phone spontaneously catches fire and is completely destroyed, causing no personal injury or property damage. Can the plaintiff sue in tort to recover for the economic loss?

Answer: No. The plaintiff cannot sue in tort to recover for purely monetary loss, which is the cost of repair or replacement of the defective phone, since there was no physical injury or property damage.


Question: Does the economic loss rule prohibit tort recovery when a product damages itself, causing economic loss, but does not cause personal injury or damage to any property other than itself?

Answer: Yes. The economic loss rule prohibits tort recovery when a product damages itself, causing economic loss, but does not cause personal injury or damage to any property other than itself because economic losses are disappointed economic expectations, which are protected by contract law, rather than tort law.


Question: A dairy farmer using a milking system loses significant revenue because the system never operated properly due to a manufacturing defect. Does the farmer have a viable strict products liability claim against the manufacturer?

Answer: No. The farmer does not have a viable strict products liability claim against the manufacturer since there were no damages or injuries, but only lost revenue.


Question: Can you recover pure economic damages for negligence and strict liability without property damages or personal injuries?

Answer: No. For negligence and strict liability, you can only recover pure economic damages if you also have property damages or personal injuries.


Question: A manufacturer is NOT responsible for injuries resulting from substantial alterations to, or modifications of a product by a third party that render the product defective or otherwise unsafe. Are there any exceptions to this rule?

Answer: Yes. A manufacturer is not responsible for injuries resulting from substantial alterations to or modifications of a product by a third party that render the product defective or otherwise unsafe, except where the product is purposefully manufactured to permit or encourage its use without a designed safety feature.


Question: A snow blower is improperly repaired after it left the manufacturer's control and the operating manual contained a warning against making the very repair performed. Is the manufacturer liable in strict liability?

Answer: No. The manufacturer is not liable even if the repairman didn't have the manual available.


Question: Does a manufacturer's duty to deliver a safe product to the market free of manufacturing defects extend to everyone in the chain of distribution?

Answer: Yes. A manufacturer's duty to deliver a safe product to the market free of manufacturing defects is non-delegable, and thus there is strict liability for it. Anyone in the chain of distribution is strictly liable to the purchaser for manufacturing defects.


Question: A ceiling fan manufacturer will not be found liable if the plaintiff falls off a ladder while installing the ceiling fan. Why?

Answer: The ceiling fan manufacturer will not be found liable because the defendant has no duty to warn or provide instruction about the obvious danger of falling off a ladder when using it to install a ceiling fan.


Question: Can a ceiling fan manufacturer be found liable if the plaintiff falls off a ladder while installing the ceiling fan?

Answer: No. The ceiling fan manufacturer will not be found liable because the defendant has no duty to warn or provide instruction about the obvious danger of falling off a ladder when using it to install a ceiling fan.


Question: Is a manufacturer or seller liable if a product-related danger is obvious or the person entitled to a warning knows or should know of the danger?

Answer: No. A manufacturer or seller has no duty to warn of a product-related danger which is obvious or of which the person who claims to be entitled to a warning knows, should know, or should, in using the product, discover.


Question: Is a manufacturer or seller responsible for warning of a product-related danger which is obvious or of which the person who claims to be entitled to a warning knows, should know, or should, in using the product, discover?

Answer: No. A manufacturer or seller has no duty to warn of a product-related danger which is obvious or of which the person who claims to be entitled to a warning knows, should know, or should, in using the product, discover.


Question: A manufacturer sells a product that is dangerous without a safety device and it is feasible to install the device. Will the manufacturer be found guilty of negligence if he sells the product without the safety device, even if he warns the buyer?

Answer: Yes. A manufacturer will be found guilty of negligence if he sells the product without the safety device, even if he warns the buyer.


Question: Is a manufacturer guilty of negligence if a product is dangerous without a safety device and it is feasible to install the device?

Answer: Yes. A manufacturer will be found guilty of negligence if he sells the product without the safety device, even if he warns the buyer.


Question: Can a plaintiff recover if their expert testifies that a product was defectively designed but could not determine whether the accident was caused by the design defect or a manufacturing defect?

Answer: Yes. Neither side is entitled to a directed verdict and the case should be sent to a jury because a jury reasonably could conclude that the harm was probably caused by a defect present in the product when it was sold.


Question: Can a medical professional be held strictly liable for defective medical equipment that he uses on a patient?

Answer: No. A medical professional cannot be held strictly liable for defective medical equipment that he uses on a patient since the medical professional is not in the business of selling the equipment.


Question: Is a store selling a product that has a manufacturing defect making it dangerous to the consumer strictly liable for the injuries the product causes, even if the consumer was contributorily negligent?

Answer: Yes. A store selling a product that has a manufacturing defect making it dangerous to the consumer is strictly liable for the injuries the product causes, even if the consumer was contributorily negligent.


Question: In an action based on strict liability in tort for failure to warn, to what standard is a defendant held?

Answer: In an action based on strict liability in tort for failure to warn, a defendant is held to the standard of a prudent manufacturer who knew of or should have known the risks at the time the product was delivered.


Question: Does strict liability apply to auctioneers?

Answer: No. Strict liability theory affects manufacturers or suppliers who are normally engaged in selling the product, but it does not apply to auctioneers.


Question: Will a plaintiff injured by a design defect succeed in a negligence cause of action against an engineer whose work was unrelated to the design defect?

Answer: No. The plaintiff will not succeed since the engineer owed no duty to the plaintiff to prevent that particular risk of harm.


Question: In a strict liability action, what must a plaintiff present to avoid a directed verdict?

Answer: In a strict liability action, a plaintiff must present a prima facie case such that a jury could find that the defendant produced an unreasonably dangerous defect that was a proximate cause of the accident.


Question: Can a manufacturer that makes a defective product be held strictly liable if the product causes a foreseeable injury to the user, even if the user was committing a crime at the time of the injury?

Answer: Yes. A manufacturer that makes a defective product can be held strictly liable if the product causes a foreseeable injury to the user, even if the user was committing a crime at the time of the injury.


Question: Can any commercial supplier be held strictly liable for a plaintiff's injuries from a commercial product if the product is dangerously defective?

Answer: Yes. Under a strict liability theory, any commercial supplier may be held strictly liable for a plaintiff's injuries from a commercial product if the product is dangerously defective.


Question: Can you recover from the retailer if you can recover from the manufacturer because the product had an unreasonably dangerous defect when it left the manufacturer's control?

Answer: Yes. Under strict liability, you can recover from the retailer. It is not relevant that the defect was created earlier in the distribution chain.


Question: Is it relevant that the defect in a product was created earlier in the distribution chain for strict liability to apply to the retailer?

Answer: No. Under strict liability, if you can recover from the manufacturer because the product had an unreasonably dangerous defect when it left the manufacturer's control, you can also recover from the retailer.


Question: Can you recover pure economic damages only for negligence and strict liability?

Answer: No. For negligence and strict liability, you cannot recover pure economic damages only.


Question: Is the designer of a defectively designed product liable for indemnity to the manufacturer?

Answer: Yes. The designer of a defectively designed product is liable for indemnity to the manufacturer.


Question: A manufacturer is sued for strict liability after an injury caused by an intervening event. The injury was foreseeable to the manufacturer. Will the claim succeed?

Answer: Yes. A claim based on strict liability will succeed against the manufacturer even if the injury was due to intervening causes, so long as the resulting injury from the intervening causes was foreseeable to the manufacturer.


Question: Will a claim based on strict liability succeed against the manufacturer if the injury was due to intervening causes?

Answer: Yes. A claim based on strict liability will succeed against the manufacturer even if the injury was due to intervening causes, so long as the resulting injury from the intervening causes was foreseeable to the manufacturer.


Question: A seller fails to discover a defect in a product that would have been found with reasonable care. Is the seller negligent?

Answer: Yes. A seller is negligent if the product was defective, and the defect would have been discovered if the seller had exercised reasonable care in inspecting the product.


Question: A manufacturing defect could have been discovered through reasonable inspection by the manufacturer. Can a claim of negligence be asserted?

Answer: Yes. If a manufacturing defect could have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable care by the manufacturer through a reasonable inspection, a claim of negligence can be asserted.


Question: A plaintiff seeks to recover pure economic loss through an action for strict liability. Will the action succeed?

Answer: No. Actions for strict liability may not be used to recover pure economic loss.


Question: A product was defectively made and causes injury. Can a claim based on strict liability be asserted against the manufacturer?

Answer: Yes. If a product was defectively made and causes injury, you can assert a claim based on strict liability against the manufacturer for damages.


Question: A product was defectively designed and the defect results in injury. Can a claim based on strict liability be asserted against the manufacturer?

Answer: Yes. If a product was defectively designed and the defect results in injury, a claim based on strict liability can be asserted against the manufacturer.


Question: A store reconditions tools and sells them. The consumer did not know the product was damaged. Is the store liable for injuries under strict liability?

Answer: Yes. A store that reconditions tools and sells them is liable for injuries under strict liability unless the consumer knew that the product was damaged.