AIC 301 Exam Questions With All 100%
Correct Answers 2026 Update (A+ Pass)
Q1.
Under the common law, which element is NOT required to prove
negligence?
A. Duty of care
B. Breach of duty
C. Proximate cause
D. Contractual relationship
Answer: D – Contractual relationship
Rationale: Negligence is a tort, not a contract claim. The four
required elements are duty, breach, causation (actual and
proximate), and damages. No contract is needed.
Q2.
A store owner leaves a wet floor with no warning sign. A customer
slips and breaks an arm. The store owner is most likely liable for:
A. Intentional tort
B. Negligence per se
C. Negligence – breach of duty of care
D. Strict liability
Answer: C – Negligence – breach of duty of care
Rationale: Business owners owe invitees a duty to maintain
,reasonably safe premises. Failing to warn of or fix a known hazard
(wet floor) breaches that duty.
Q3.
The “reasonable person” standard in negligence law is:
A. Subjective, based on the defendant’s personal abilities
B. Objective, based on how an ordinary prudent person would act
C. Only applied to professionals
D. Determined by the plaintiff’s expectations
Answer: B – Objective, based on how an ordinary prudent person
would act
Rationale: The reasonable person is a legal fiction representing
community standards. It is objective, not tailored to the
defendant’s unique traits (except for children or physical
disabilities).
Q4.
In a jurisdiction applying pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff
who is 90% at fault for an accident can recover:
A. Nothing
B. 10% of damages
C. 50% of damages
D. 100% of damages
,Answer: B – 10% of damages
Rationale: Pure comparative negligence allows recovery even if
plaintiff is mostly at fault, reduced by plaintiff’s percentage of fault
(e.g., 100,000damages×10100,000damages×1010,000).
Q5.
If the plaintiff’s own negligence is less than the defendant’s, but
the plaintiff is still partially at fault, and the state follows the 50%
bar rule, the plaintiff:
A. Recovers nothing
B. Recovers full damages
C. Recovers reduced damages
D. Recovers only if defendant’s fault is intentional
Answer: C – Recovers reduced damages
Rationale: Under the 50% bar rule (modified comparative
negligence), a plaintiff can recover reduced damages only if their
fault is less than (not equal to) the defendant’s. Here, “less than”
qualifies, so recovery is allowed but reduced.
Q6.
“Res ipsa loquitur” applies when:
A. The defendant admits negligence
B. The accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur without
negligence
, C. The plaintiff was contributorily negligent
D. There is a written contract between parties
Answer: B – The accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not
occur without negligence
Rationale: Res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) allows
an inference of negligence when the accident is unlikely absent
negligence, and the defendant controlled the instrumentality.
Q7.
A guest is injured when a chair collapses in a hotel. The guest sues
the hotel. Which legal doctrine shifts the burden of proof to the
defendant?
A. Negligence per se
B. Attractive nuisance
C. Res ipsa loquitur
D. Last clear chance
Answer: C – Res ipsa loquitur
Rationale: The chair collapsing is an event that ordinarily
wouldn’t happen without negligence, and the hotel controlled the
premises. Res ipsa loquitur creates a presumption of negligence,
shifting the evidentiary burden.
Q8.
Proximate cause in negligence is best defined as:
Correct Answers 2026 Update (A+ Pass)
Q1.
Under the common law, which element is NOT required to prove
negligence?
A. Duty of care
B. Breach of duty
C. Proximate cause
D. Contractual relationship
Answer: D – Contractual relationship
Rationale: Negligence is a tort, not a contract claim. The four
required elements are duty, breach, causation (actual and
proximate), and damages. No contract is needed.
Q2.
A store owner leaves a wet floor with no warning sign. A customer
slips and breaks an arm. The store owner is most likely liable for:
A. Intentional tort
B. Negligence per se
C. Negligence – breach of duty of care
D. Strict liability
Answer: C – Negligence – breach of duty of care
Rationale: Business owners owe invitees a duty to maintain
,reasonably safe premises. Failing to warn of or fix a known hazard
(wet floor) breaches that duty.
Q3.
The “reasonable person” standard in negligence law is:
A. Subjective, based on the defendant’s personal abilities
B. Objective, based on how an ordinary prudent person would act
C. Only applied to professionals
D. Determined by the plaintiff’s expectations
Answer: B – Objective, based on how an ordinary prudent person
would act
Rationale: The reasonable person is a legal fiction representing
community standards. It is objective, not tailored to the
defendant’s unique traits (except for children or physical
disabilities).
Q4.
In a jurisdiction applying pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff
who is 90% at fault for an accident can recover:
A. Nothing
B. 10% of damages
C. 50% of damages
D. 100% of damages
,Answer: B – 10% of damages
Rationale: Pure comparative negligence allows recovery even if
plaintiff is mostly at fault, reduced by plaintiff’s percentage of fault
(e.g., 100,000damages×10100,000damages×1010,000).
Q5.
If the plaintiff’s own negligence is less than the defendant’s, but
the plaintiff is still partially at fault, and the state follows the 50%
bar rule, the plaintiff:
A. Recovers nothing
B. Recovers full damages
C. Recovers reduced damages
D. Recovers only if defendant’s fault is intentional
Answer: C – Recovers reduced damages
Rationale: Under the 50% bar rule (modified comparative
negligence), a plaintiff can recover reduced damages only if their
fault is less than (not equal to) the defendant’s. Here, “less than”
qualifies, so recovery is allowed but reduced.
Q6.
“Res ipsa loquitur” applies when:
A. The defendant admits negligence
B. The accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur without
negligence
, C. The plaintiff was contributorily negligent
D. There is a written contract between parties
Answer: B – The accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not
occur without negligence
Rationale: Res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) allows
an inference of negligence when the accident is unlikely absent
negligence, and the defendant controlled the instrumentality.
Q7.
A guest is injured when a chair collapses in a hotel. The guest sues
the hotel. Which legal doctrine shifts the burden of proof to the
defendant?
A. Negligence per se
B. Attractive nuisance
C. Res ipsa loquitur
D. Last clear chance
Answer: C – Res ipsa loquitur
Rationale: The chair collapsing is an event that ordinarily
wouldn’t happen without negligence, and the hotel controlled the
premises. Res ipsa loquitur creates a presumption of negligence,
shifting the evidentiary burden.
Q8.
Proximate cause in negligence is best defined as:
