BADM 326 UPDATED ASSESSMENT TEST 2026
TESTED QUESTIONS WITH FULL SOLUTION
GRADED A+
◉ Lu was driving down Main Street in Urbana when he failed to see
a stop sign because he was searching for the address of the client he
was visiting. Melanie, who was standing on the sidewalk, realizes
that Lu is about to hit a pedestrian and runs into the street to push
the pedestrian out of the way. As a result, the pedestrian gets
injured. Melanie will be liable for the injuries the pedestrian
sustained.
Yes
No. Answer: B. No
According with the "danger invites rescue" doctrine, Lu will be liable
for the injuries the pedestrian sustained. Whether Melanie, the
rescuer, injured herself, the person rescued, or even a stranger, the
original wrongdoer, that is Lu, will still be liable.
◉ Joe is a bartender at a piano bar in Alabama. This state has passed
a dram shop act. One night, Adam, who was visibly intoxicated, sits
at the bar weeping because he had just lost his job. Joe, deeply
touched by the situation, offers Adam three martinis to make him
feel better. He even said that it was on the house. When Adam is
ready to leave the carpark of the bar, he hits Lee, another customer
who was walking towards the piano bar. Joe will not be liable for the
,injuries sustained by Lee because Adam was already intoxicated
when he entered the piano bar.
True
False. Answer: B. False
Joe will be liable for the injuries caused by Adam even if Adam was
already intoxicated when served by the bartender Joe. Under the
dram shop acts, it is not necessary to prove that the bartender ,
tavern owner, or social host was negligent.
◉ Smith and Jones went hunting. Smith saw a deer in close
proximity to Jones, but he tried to shoot the deer anyway. Smith's
shot hit Jones in the arm. While Jones was being transported to a
hospital, his ambulance was involved in a car accident, which
resulted in further injuries to Jones's head.
A court, in deciding Smith's liability to Jones, may look at the
relevant hunting statute.
True
False. Answer: A. True
If Smith violated a hunting statute (or even a rule) that specifies
when you can shoot at an animal, such violation would be strong
evidence of breach of duty.
,◉ Smith and Jones went hunting. Smith saw a deer in close
proximity to Jones, but he tried to shoot the deer anyway. Smith's
shot hit Jones in the arm. While Jones was being transported to a
hospital, his ambulance was involved in a car accident, which
resulted in further injuries to Jones's head. Smith will be liable to
Jones for Jones's head trauma.
True
False. Answer: A. True
It was Smith's shooting that placed Jones in the ambulance. Thus,
but for Smith's shooting, Jones would not be in the car accident and
would not have suffered the head injury.
You also need to consider whether the car accident was a sufficient
intervening cause to relieve Smith of liability.
If the problem stated that the ambulance was intentionally targeted
(i.e. a terrorist act), then Smith would be relieved of liability for the
head injury.
If the ambulance was simply involved in an accident, however, then
Smith is still liable.
Note distinction between an accident and an intentional intervening
act (intentional tort or crime).
, ◉ Which of the following statements accurately describes the law of
foreseeability provided by §435 Restatement 2nd Torts?
A. There is no liability for negligence to the unforeseen plaintiff.
B. Foreseeability requires proof that the defendant's negligent
conduct in fact caused the plaintiff's injury.
C. The fact that the negligent defendant neither foresaw nor should
have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it
occurred does not prevent him from being liable.
D. The law of foreseeability established in §435 Restatement 2nd
Torts was announced by the majority opinion in Palsgraf v. Long
Island Railroad Company.
E. None of the above.. Answer: C.
A is incorrect because that is the Palsgraf rule of foreseeability.
Notably, this means that D is also wrong. B is not the right answer
because this is the other question of the proximate cause test ("did
the conduct in fact cause the injuries?"). Here, we are dealing with
the second question of the proximate cause test which is about
foreseeability ("was the conduct foreseeable?").
◉ You negligently leave your keys in the car. Your car is stolen. 1
month later, the person who stole your car sells it to some little old
lady who bought the car for full value and started driving. A year
later that old lady was driving her car and got into a car accident.
She injured some other party. Was your decision to negligently leave
TESTED QUESTIONS WITH FULL SOLUTION
GRADED A+
◉ Lu was driving down Main Street in Urbana when he failed to see
a stop sign because he was searching for the address of the client he
was visiting. Melanie, who was standing on the sidewalk, realizes
that Lu is about to hit a pedestrian and runs into the street to push
the pedestrian out of the way. As a result, the pedestrian gets
injured. Melanie will be liable for the injuries the pedestrian
sustained.
Yes
No. Answer: B. No
According with the "danger invites rescue" doctrine, Lu will be liable
for the injuries the pedestrian sustained. Whether Melanie, the
rescuer, injured herself, the person rescued, or even a stranger, the
original wrongdoer, that is Lu, will still be liable.
◉ Joe is a bartender at a piano bar in Alabama. This state has passed
a dram shop act. One night, Adam, who was visibly intoxicated, sits
at the bar weeping because he had just lost his job. Joe, deeply
touched by the situation, offers Adam three martinis to make him
feel better. He even said that it was on the house. When Adam is
ready to leave the carpark of the bar, he hits Lee, another customer
who was walking towards the piano bar. Joe will not be liable for the
,injuries sustained by Lee because Adam was already intoxicated
when he entered the piano bar.
True
False. Answer: B. False
Joe will be liable for the injuries caused by Adam even if Adam was
already intoxicated when served by the bartender Joe. Under the
dram shop acts, it is not necessary to prove that the bartender ,
tavern owner, or social host was negligent.
◉ Smith and Jones went hunting. Smith saw a deer in close
proximity to Jones, but he tried to shoot the deer anyway. Smith's
shot hit Jones in the arm. While Jones was being transported to a
hospital, his ambulance was involved in a car accident, which
resulted in further injuries to Jones's head.
A court, in deciding Smith's liability to Jones, may look at the
relevant hunting statute.
True
False. Answer: A. True
If Smith violated a hunting statute (or even a rule) that specifies
when you can shoot at an animal, such violation would be strong
evidence of breach of duty.
,◉ Smith and Jones went hunting. Smith saw a deer in close
proximity to Jones, but he tried to shoot the deer anyway. Smith's
shot hit Jones in the arm. While Jones was being transported to a
hospital, his ambulance was involved in a car accident, which
resulted in further injuries to Jones's head. Smith will be liable to
Jones for Jones's head trauma.
True
False. Answer: A. True
It was Smith's shooting that placed Jones in the ambulance. Thus,
but for Smith's shooting, Jones would not be in the car accident and
would not have suffered the head injury.
You also need to consider whether the car accident was a sufficient
intervening cause to relieve Smith of liability.
If the problem stated that the ambulance was intentionally targeted
(i.e. a terrorist act), then Smith would be relieved of liability for the
head injury.
If the ambulance was simply involved in an accident, however, then
Smith is still liable.
Note distinction between an accident and an intentional intervening
act (intentional tort or crime).
, ◉ Which of the following statements accurately describes the law of
foreseeability provided by §435 Restatement 2nd Torts?
A. There is no liability for negligence to the unforeseen plaintiff.
B. Foreseeability requires proof that the defendant's negligent
conduct in fact caused the plaintiff's injury.
C. The fact that the negligent defendant neither foresaw nor should
have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it
occurred does not prevent him from being liable.
D. The law of foreseeability established in §435 Restatement 2nd
Torts was announced by the majority opinion in Palsgraf v. Long
Island Railroad Company.
E. None of the above.. Answer: C.
A is incorrect because that is the Palsgraf rule of foreseeability.
Notably, this means that D is also wrong. B is not the right answer
because this is the other question of the proximate cause test ("did
the conduct in fact cause the injuries?"). Here, we are dealing with
the second question of the proximate cause test which is about
foreseeability ("was the conduct foreseeable?").
◉ You negligently leave your keys in the car. Your car is stolen. 1
month later, the person who stole your car sells it to some little old
lady who bought the car for full value and started driving. A year
later that old lady was driving her car and got into a car accident.
She injured some other party. Was your decision to negligently leave
