Question 1

Negligence

Accepted Answer

Duty + Breach + Factual Causation
+ Proximate Causation + Actual Harm

Question 2

Duty

Accepted Answer

Everyone has a duty to refrain from acting unreasonably, but a defendant has no duty if the plaintiff
was unforeseeable or if liability would be crushing to the defendant (as a matter of public policy).

Question 3

D: Affirmative action

Accepted Answer

There is no duty to rescue or to control a third party’s
conduct unless the defendant has:

Question 4

D: Special relationship

Accepted Answer

p with (a) the third party who committed the harm or (b) the injured party
(i.e., parent/child, employer/employee, custodial, property owner, psychotherapist/patient);

Question 5

D:Special relationships

Accepted Answer

Invited the public onto the defendant’s land;
(3) Voluntarily undertaken the rescue;
(4) Agreed to work together with the injured party;
(5) Created the danger; or
(6) A duty imposed by a statute.

Question 6

D: Landowner/ possessors

Accepted Answer

Whether a duty is owed and the applicable standard of care depend
on the status of the plaintiff (trespasser, licensee, or invitee).

Question 7

D:LP: Adult trespassers

Accepted Answer

: No duty to protect people who enter the land without permission; if the trespasser
is known/anticipated, then the landowner/possessor must warn the trespasser of human-made
conditions that pose risk of death or serious bodily harm.

Question 8

D:LP: Child trespassers

Accepted Answer

duty of care if: 

) A human-made condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to
children, and the landowner/possessor knows or should reasonably know of both the
condition and the risk;

Question 9

D:LP:CT Continued

Accepted Answer

The landowner knows or has reason to are likely , youth is unlikely to discover the condition or to appreciate the risk; The burden of taking precautions is low in relation to the risk of harm. The landowner/possessor fails to exercise reasonable care

Question 10

D:LP" Licensees

Accepted Answer

A duty to warn about or make safe already known dangers on land is owed to people
who enter the land with the landowner’s permission or are privileged entrants.

Question 11

D: LP: Invitees

Accepted Answer

The duty is owed to people who provide a material benefit to the landowner/possessor
or if the land is open to the public; the duty owed is that of reasonable care with respect to:

Question 12

D:LP: Invitees

Accepted Answer

Activities undertaken on the land;
(2) Known dangers; and
(3) Dangers that could be discovered with reasonable inspection.

Question 13

D:LP:I: Ytansitory forgein substances

Accepted Answer

a business may be
liable f it had either actual notice or constructive notice dangerous because  (1) existed for such length of time should have known of the condition in the exercise of due care, or (2) occurred with such
s foreseeable.

Question 14

D:I: scope

Accepted Answer

If a licensee or invitee voluntarily goes beyond the reasonable scope of the license or
invitation, the person drops to a lower status (e.g., licensee/trespasser).

Question 15

Open and obvious

Accepted Answer

No duty to warn about dangers that are open and obvious.

Question 16

Firefighter's rule

Accepted Answer

Public safety officials cannot sue people for their negligence in causing the events
that make the officials’ public duties necessary.

Question 17

Common areas

Accepted Answer

Landlords have a duty to maintain common areas and make reasonable repairs to
leased property.

Question 18

Persons off land

Accepted Answer

: Landowners have a duty of reasonable care with regard to human-made conditions
or activities on the land, but no duty with regard to natural conditions on the land.

Question 19

Standards of care

Accepted Answer

A defendant must violate the standard of care.

Question 20

SC: gENERAL

Accepted Answer

A defendant must behave as a reasonable person under the circumstances unless the
defendant:

Question 21

SC: G: Serious physical impariement

Accepted Answer

judged by a standard that recognizes the defendant’s
physical limitations, but mental conditions do not apply;

Question 22

SC:G: Child

Accepted Answer

– judged by a standard of a child of similar age, education, intelligence, and experience
unless the child is engaged in an adult activity;
also sevens

Question 23

SC:G: Professional

Accepted Answer

– judged by a standard of a professional in the same or similar community, or
if a patient sues a doctor for not getting informed consent, then what a reasonable patient would
want to know;

Question 24

SC: G: special knwoledge or skills

Accepted Answer

– judged by a standard of someone with that extra knowledge
or skill;

Question 25

SC:G: acting in an emergency

Accepted Answer

judged by what a reasonable person would do in that situation,
unless the defendant created the emergency;

Question 26

SC:G: bailee

Accepted Answer

extraordinary care required if the bailee benefits, reasonable care if both parties
benefit, and avoidance of gross negligence if only the bailor benefits; or

Question 27

SC:G: landowner or possessor of land

Accepted Answer

see prior disscussion

Question 28

Proving breach

Accepted Answer

The plaintiff must prove the defendant acted unreasonably or should have taken a precaution
(i.e., the defendant’s actions fell below the standard of care).

Question 29

B: Hand formula

Accepted Answer

A defendant breached if (1) the cost of the burden of taking the precaution is (2) less
than the probability of loss (3) multiplied by the gravity of the loss.

Question 30

B: Custom

Accepted Answer

Custom does not dictate the result (i.e., the custom might be unreasonable itself), but it can be
used to prove the defendant fell below the standard of care.

Question 31

B:Negligence Per Se

Accepted Answer

A defendant’s violation of a law establishes breach if:

Question 32

B:NPS: Requirements

Accepted Answer

The plaintiff is in the class of people protected by the law;
(2) The violated law was designed to prevent the type of harm the plaintiff suffered; and
(3) There is no excuse for the defendant’s noncompliance

Question 33

B: Res Ispa Loquitur

Accepted Answer

The event was the type that would not ordinarily occur had there been no
negligence;
(2) The injury was caused or was more likely than not caused by an instrumentality solely within the
defendant’s control; and
p  did not contribute

Question 34

Factual causation

Accepted Answer

(1) But for the defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would not have been injured, or (2) the
defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.

Question 35

FC: Alternative liabilty

Accepted Answer

If it is uncertain which defendant caused the plaintiff’s injury, all the defendants
must show that they were not the causes; applies to small groups.

Question 36

FC: Market share Liability

Accepted Answer

If it is uncertain which defendant caused the plaintiff’s injury, the court will
hold each defendant liable for its proportional share of the overall market; applies to large groups.

Question 37

FC: Joint Tortfeasors

Accepted Answer

Are all treated as causes even if one individual did not directly harm the plaintiff if
the actions were within the scope of the joint venture.

Question 38

Proximate causation

Accepted Answer

njury must be foreseeable and directly caused by the defendant.

Question 39

PC: Forseabilty test

Accepted Answer

injury must have been a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s
negligence; if an unforeseeable intervening force occurs, then it is a superseding cause that cuts off the
defendant’s liability

Question 40

PC: Eggshell P

Accepted Answer

defendant is liable for the full extent of the injury if the type of injury was
foreseeable, even if the scope of the injury was not foreseeable.

Question 41

Actual harm

Accepted Answer

suffer a physical injury or damage to property.
• Suffering only emotional or economic harm is not enough;
• Attorney fees are not recoverable; and
• Punitive damages are not recoverable unless the conduct was willful, wanton, or malicious.

Question 42

Negligent infliction of emotional distress

Accepted Answer

(1) Was in the zone dange and suffered physical symptoms of distress;
(2) Observed a close relative suffering physical harm;
(3) The D damaged the dead body of the p relative; or
(4) The d misinformed the p that a relative died or was seriously injured

Question 43

Defnse to negligence

Accepted Answer

A plaintiff’s negligence or assumption of the risk can completely bar or reduce the
plaintiff’s recovery.

Question 44

D: Pure Comparitive Negligence

Accepted Answer

A plaintiff’s recovery is reduced proportionally based on the
percentage of fault allocable to the plaintiff.

Question 45

D: Modified Comparative Negligence

Accepted Answer

Under type 1, a plaintiff may recover only if the plaintiff is less
than 50% at fault; under type 2, a plaintiff may recover only if the plaintiff is less than or equal to 50%
at fault.

Question 46

D: Contributory negligence

Accepted Answer

ghtly negligent plaintiff can recover nothing from a negligent
defendant unless:

Question 47

D:CN: Unless

Accepted Answer

) The defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident;
(2) The defendant violated a safety statute where it was the defendant’s responsibility to avoid the harm; or
(3) The defendant was reckless or intentional in causing the harm.

Question 48

D:Assumption of risk

Accepted Answer

Historically applied when the p (1) knowingly and (2) voluntarily
encountered a risk. This defense still exists in many jurisdictions, but its operation has been significantly
limited i

Question 49

D:

Accepted Answer

last chance throuy and nothing if p has a level of falut

Term	Definition
Negligence	Duty + Breach + Factual Causation + Proximate Causation + Actual Harm
Duty	Everyone has a duty to refrain from acting unreasonably, but a defendant has no duty if the plaintiff was unforeseeable or if liability would be crushing to the defendant (as a matter of public policy).
D: Affirmative action	There is no duty to rescue or to control a third party’s conduct unless the defendant has:
D: Special relationship	p with (a) the third party who committed the harm or (b) the injured party (i.e., parent/child, employer/employee, custodial, property owner, psychotherapist/patient);
D:Special relationships	Invited the public onto the defendant’s land; (3) Voluntarily undertaken the rescue; (4) Agreed to work together with the injured party; (5) Created the danger; or (6) A duty imposed by a statute.
D: Landowner/ possessors	Whether a duty is owed and the applicable standard of care depend on the status of the plaintiff (trespasser, licensee, or invitee).
D:LP: Adult trespassers	: No duty to protect people who enter the land without permission; if the trespasser is known/anticipated, then the landowner/possessor must warn the trespasser of human-made conditions that pose risk of death or serious bodily harm.
D:LP: Child trespassers	duty of care if: ) A human-made condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to children, and the landowner/possessor knows or should reasonably know of both the condition and the risk;
D:LP:CT Continued	The landowner knows or has reason to are likely , youth is unlikely to discover the condition or to appreciate the risk; The burden of taking precautions is low in relation to the risk of harm. The landowner/possessor fails to exercise reasonable care
D:LP" Licensees	A duty to warn about or make safe already known dangers on land is owed to people who enter the land with the landowner’s permission or are privileged entrants.
D: LP: Invitees	The duty is owed to people who provide a material benefit to the landowner/possessor or if the land is open to the public; the duty owed is that of reasonable care with respect to:
D:LP: Invitees	Activities undertaken on the land; (2) Known dangers; and (3) Dangers that could be discovered with reasonable inspection.
D:LP:I: Ytansitory forgein substances	a business may be liable f it had either actual notice or constructive notice dangerous because (1) existed for such length of time should have known of the condition in the exercise of due care, or (2) occurred with such s foreseeable.
D:I: scope	If a licensee or invitee voluntarily goes beyond the reasonable scope of the license or invitation, the person drops to a lower status (e.g., licensee/trespasser).
Open and obvious	No duty to warn about dangers that are open and obvious.
Firefighter's rule	Public safety officials cannot sue people for their negligence in causing the events that make the officials’ public duties necessary.
Common areas	Landlords have a duty to maintain common areas and make reasonable repairs to leased property.
Persons off land	: Landowners have a duty of reasonable care with regard to human-made conditions or activities on the land, but no duty with regard to natural conditions on the land.
Standards of care	A defendant must violate the standard of care.
SC: gENERAL	A defendant must behave as a reasonable person under the circumstances unless the defendant:
SC: G: Serious physical impariement	judged by a standard that recognizes the defendant’s physical limitations, but mental conditions do not apply;
SC:G: Child	– judged by a standard of a child of similar age, education, intelligence, and experience unless the child is engaged in an adult activity; also sevens
SC:G: Professional	– judged by a standard of a professional in the same or similar community, or if a patient sues a doctor for not getting informed consent, then what a reasonable patient would want to know;
SC: G: special knwoledge or skills	– judged by a standard of someone with that extra knowledge or skill;
SC:G: acting in an emergency	judged by what a reasonable person would do in that situation, unless the defendant created the emergency;
SC:G: bailee	extraordinary care required if the bailee benefits, reasonable care if both parties benefit, and avoidance of gross negligence if only the bailor benefits; or
SC:G: landowner or possessor of land	see prior disscussion
Proving breach	The plaintiff must prove the defendant acted unreasonably or should have taken a precaution (i.e., the defendant’s actions fell below the standard of care).
B: Hand formula	A defendant breached if (1) the cost of the burden of taking the precaution is (2) less than the probability of loss (3) multiplied by the gravity of the loss.
B: Custom	Custom does not dictate the result (i.e., the custom might be unreasonable itself), but it can be used to prove the defendant fell below the standard of care.
B:Negligence Per Se	A defendant’s violation of a law establishes breach if:
B:NPS: Requirements	The plaintiff is in the class of people protected by the law; (2) The violated law was designed to prevent the type of harm the plaintiff suffered; and (3) There is no excuse for the defendant’s noncompliance
B: Res Ispa Loquitur	The event was the type that would not ordinarily occur had there been no negligence; (2) The injury was caused or was more likely than not caused by an instrumentality solely within the defendant’s control; and p did not contribute
Factual causation	(1) But for the defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would not have been injured, or (2) the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
FC: Alternative liabilty	If it is uncertain which defendant caused the plaintiff’s injury, all the defendants must show that they were not the causes; applies to small groups.
FC: Market share Liability	If it is uncertain which defendant caused the plaintiff’s injury, the court will hold each defendant liable for its proportional share of the overall market; applies to large groups.
FC: Joint Tortfeasors	Are all treated as causes even if one individual did not directly harm the plaintiff if the actions were within the scope of the joint venture.
Proximate causation	njury must be foreseeable and directly caused by the defendant.
PC: Forseabilty test	injury must have been a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligence; if an unforeseeable intervening force occurs, then it is a superseding cause that cuts off the defendant’s liability
PC: Eggshell P	defendant is liable for the full extent of the injury if the type of injury was foreseeable, even if the scope of the injury was not foreseeable.
Actual harm	suffer a physical injury or damage to property. • Suffering only emotional or economic harm is not enough; • Attorney fees are not recoverable; and • Punitive damages are not recoverable unless the conduct was willful, wanton, or malicious.
Negligent infliction of emotional distress	(1) Was in the zone dange and suffered physical symptoms of distress; (2) Observed a close relative suffering physical harm; (3) The D damaged the dead body of the p relative; or (4) The d misinformed the p that a relative died or was seriously injured
Defnse to negligence	A plaintiff’s negligence or assumption of the risk can completely bar or reduce the plaintiff’s recovery.
D: Pure Comparitive Negligence	A plaintiff’s recovery is reduced proportionally based on the percentage of fault allocable to the plaintiff.
D: Modified Comparative Negligence	Under type 1, a plaintiff may recover only if the plaintiff is less than 50% at fault; under type 2, a plaintiff may recover only if the plaintiff is less than or equal to 50% at fault.
D: Contributory negligence	ghtly negligent plaintiff can recover nothing from a negligent defendant unless:
D:CN: Unless	) The defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident; (2) The defendant violated a safety statute where it was the defendant’s responsibility to avoid the harm; or (3) The defendant was reckless or intentional in causing the harm.
D:Assumption of risk	Historically applied when the p (1) knowingly and (2) voluntarily encountered a risk. This defense still exists in many jurisdictions, but its operation has been significantly limited i
D:	last chance throuy and nothing if p has a level of falut

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:

BP: Torts