UBE Bar: Torts Test Questions with
Complete Solutions.
Elements of Negligence - Answer 1. Duty
2. Breach
3. Causation
4. Damages
Causation in Fact - Answer "But for" causation: the injury would not have occurred 'but for'
the defendant's negligence.
Proximate cause - Answer Was the resulting injury a foreseeable consequence of the
defendant's act or omission?
Intervening causes traditionally held by the courts as absolute proximate causes - Answer 1.
medical malpractice while treating the plaintiff's injuries;
2. intervening negligent rescue (tort invites rescue)
3. intervening reaction or protection;
4. subsequent injury or disease
Egg Shell Skull Doctrine - Answer a tortfeaser takes takes the plaintiff as he or she finds him
or her, so the tortfeaser is responsible for all harm suffered regardless if it is surprisingly great.
Normal standard of Duty - Answer Every person has the duty to reduce risks. Employ the
same duty of care as the 'reasonably prudent person.'
BUT those with added knowledge (e.g., knowing about the dangers of cross section lacking
visibility) are held to the standards of an ordinary person having that same knowledge.
'Zone of Danger' Doctrine - Answer [Defense against Duty] A person only owes a duty to
those within the zone of danger: those foreseeable victims.
Duty of Children - Answer There is no duty under 5, but any child after 5 is held to the same
standard of care as children of a similar age, have similar experiences, and having a similar
intelligence.
, -[exception]: children doing adult activities (e.g., driving a car) are held to the same standard as
adults performing that activity.
Duty of Professionals - Answer Owe the same duty of care as:
1. the 'average' member of that professional
2. performing the same task
Landowner Duty owed to the 'unknown' trespasser - Answer no duty except not to commit
intentional torts.
Landowner Duty owed to the 'known' trespasser - Answer duty to 'fix' or 'warn':
1. artificial conditions
2. which are highly dangerous
3. hidden; and
4. previously known by the landowner
"highly dangerous, hidden, artificial conditions which were previously known to the landowner."
Landowner Duty owed to a licensee - Answer (express or implied permission to be there but
not for economic gain)
Duty to [fix or provide a warning] for conditions 1. concealed from the licensee, and 2. known in
advance by the landowner.
Landowner Duty owed to an invitee - Answer (persons who enter to confer economic benefit
on the landowner, e.g., customer)
Duty to [fix or provide a warning] to those conditions 1. concealed and which 2. were previously
known or could have been discovered through reasonable inspection.
Negligence per se [importing standard of care from a crim. law statute] - Answer can import
when the statute is designed to
1. protect the class of individuals which the plaintiff belongs; and
2. avoid the particular harm caused.
Attractive Nuisance Doctrine - Answer Duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid a reasonably
foreseeable risk of harm to children. Plaintiff must show the following:
Complete Solutions.
Elements of Negligence - Answer 1. Duty
2. Breach
3. Causation
4. Damages
Causation in Fact - Answer "But for" causation: the injury would not have occurred 'but for'
the defendant's negligence.
Proximate cause - Answer Was the resulting injury a foreseeable consequence of the
defendant's act or omission?
Intervening causes traditionally held by the courts as absolute proximate causes - Answer 1.
medical malpractice while treating the plaintiff's injuries;
2. intervening negligent rescue (tort invites rescue)
3. intervening reaction or protection;
4. subsequent injury or disease
Egg Shell Skull Doctrine - Answer a tortfeaser takes takes the plaintiff as he or she finds him
or her, so the tortfeaser is responsible for all harm suffered regardless if it is surprisingly great.
Normal standard of Duty - Answer Every person has the duty to reduce risks. Employ the
same duty of care as the 'reasonably prudent person.'
BUT those with added knowledge (e.g., knowing about the dangers of cross section lacking
visibility) are held to the standards of an ordinary person having that same knowledge.
'Zone of Danger' Doctrine - Answer [Defense against Duty] A person only owes a duty to
those within the zone of danger: those foreseeable victims.
Duty of Children - Answer There is no duty under 5, but any child after 5 is held to the same
standard of care as children of a similar age, have similar experiences, and having a similar
intelligence.
, -[exception]: children doing adult activities (e.g., driving a car) are held to the same standard as
adults performing that activity.
Duty of Professionals - Answer Owe the same duty of care as:
1. the 'average' member of that professional
2. performing the same task
Landowner Duty owed to the 'unknown' trespasser - Answer no duty except not to commit
intentional torts.
Landowner Duty owed to the 'known' trespasser - Answer duty to 'fix' or 'warn':
1. artificial conditions
2. which are highly dangerous
3. hidden; and
4. previously known by the landowner
"highly dangerous, hidden, artificial conditions which were previously known to the landowner."
Landowner Duty owed to a licensee - Answer (express or implied permission to be there but
not for economic gain)
Duty to [fix or provide a warning] for conditions 1. concealed from the licensee, and 2. known in
advance by the landowner.
Landowner Duty owed to an invitee - Answer (persons who enter to confer economic benefit
on the landowner, e.g., customer)
Duty to [fix or provide a warning] to those conditions 1. concealed and which 2. were previously
known or could have been discovered through reasonable inspection.
Negligence per se [importing standard of care from a crim. law statute] - Answer can import
when the statute is designed to
1. protect the class of individuals which the plaintiff belongs; and
2. avoid the particular harm caused.
Attractive Nuisance Doctrine - Answer Duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid a reasonably
foreseeable risk of harm to children. Plaintiff must show the following:
