BADM 300 Final Actual Exam
BADM 300 FINAL ACTUAL EXAM NEWEST 2025/2026
COMPLETE QUESTIONS AND CORRECT ANSWERS |ALREADY
GRADED A+||BRAND NEW VERSION!
Sam was driving 100 mph in a 45 mph speed zone at midnight. Joe jumps in front
of Sam's car and Sam hits him. Even if Sam was driving 45 mph, Sam would have
hit him. Even if Sam was driving 45 mph, Sam would have caused the same injury.
Was Sam's speeding a but-for cause of Joe's injuries?
True
False - ANSWER-B. False
Joe's injuries would still have occurred if Sam was driving 45 mph. In other words,
the fact that Sam was driving a 100 mph was not a but-for cause of Joe's injuries
because, even if Sam was driving 45mph, the same exact injuries would have
occurred. Therefore, we cannot say that Sam's driving 100 mph was the but-for
cause of Joe's injuries.
Dan negligently crashes into a median, causing a major traffic jam. Sara, who was
caught in traffic, was late for work and lost her job. Months later, because Sara
lost her job, she was unable to make mortgage payments and lost her home. Was
Dan's one-car accident a but-for cause of Sara's loss of her home?
True
False - ANSWER-T. True
Sara's loss of her home would not have occurred but for Dan's negligent one-car
accident. This might seem strange. However, we still have to consider
foreseeability. Foreseeability will determine whether the defendant will be liability
for all consequences of his negligent conduct or whether there is some limitation
to that liability.
1|Page
, BADM 300 Final Actual Exam
Two campers negligently set fire on a dry and windy day. Both fires start burning
uncontrollably toward a farmhouse. Either fire would have destroyed the
farmhouse separately. Is either fire a but-for cause?
True
False - ANSWER-B. False
We have to ask first if either fire was a but-for cause of the destruction of the
farmhouse.
F1 and F2 were not a but-for cause because either fire would have destroyed the
farmhouse on its own.
While riding his bike, Paul negligently hits Claire, who is walking in the sidewalk.
As a result of the impact, Claire falls and fractures her hip. While she is waiting for
help to arrive, a small plane crashes nearby and explodes, and some of the fiery
debris hits her, causing her to sustain severe burns. Will Paul be liable for Claire's
fractured hip?
True
False - ANSWER-True
Paul will be liable for Claire's fractured hip because the risk of hitting her with a
bike and causing her to sustain injuries is foreseeable. In other words, the injuries
she sustained as a result of the accident are not highly extraordinary.
While riding his bike, Paul negligently hits Claire, who is walking in the sidewalk.
As a result of the impact, Claire falls and fractures her hip. While she is waiting for
help to arrive, a small plane crashes nearby and explodes, and some of the fiery
2|Page
, BADM 300 Final Actual Exam
debris hits her, causing her to sustain severe burns. Will Paul be liable for Claire's
burns caused by the plane crash?
True
False - ANSWER-B. False
Paul will not be liable for the burns caused by the plane crash because the risk of a
plane crashing nearby was not foreseeable. The plane crash is an intervening
cause. However, it was not foreseeable. In other words, the plane crash is a
supervening or superseding cause.
Otto, a kidney donor, sustained injuries to his cervical spine and to the muscles on
the right side of his body as a result of the surgery to harvest his kidney. He sued
the hospital and physicians involved in the transplant operation for damages. Otto
asserted res ipsa loquitur because this type of injury could not have occurred in
the absence of someone's negligence. The court inferred that negligence
occurred. In this case, even if the court inferred that negligence occurred, the
burden of proof would not shift to the hospital and physicians involved in the
transplant?
True
False - ANSWER-B. False
The court asserted that this is the kind of injury that can only occur as a result of
someone's negligence. The court considered that facts spoke for themselves.
Thus, in this case, the burden of proof would shift to the hospital and physicians
involved in the transplant.
A Delaware statute states that anyone "who operates a motor vehicle and who
fails to give full time and attention to the operation of the vehicle" is guilty of
inattentive driving. Michelle was cited for inattentive driving after she collided
with John's car when she backed her car out of a parking space. John began
3|Page
, BADM 300 Final Actual Exam
having back pain, the day after the accident. Eventually, he had to go to the
hospital and undergo surgery. In this case, could John sue Michelle for the injuries
he sustained based on negligence per se?
True
False - ANSWER-True
John could sue Michelle based on negligence per se because the inattentive
driving statute set forth a sufficiently specific standard of conduct to allow the
application of the negligence per se doctrine.
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
4|Page
BADM 300 FINAL ACTUAL EXAM NEWEST 2025/2026
COMPLETE QUESTIONS AND CORRECT ANSWERS |ALREADY
GRADED A+||BRAND NEW VERSION!
Sam was driving 100 mph in a 45 mph speed zone at midnight. Joe jumps in front
of Sam's car and Sam hits him. Even if Sam was driving 45 mph, Sam would have
hit him. Even if Sam was driving 45 mph, Sam would have caused the same injury.
Was Sam's speeding a but-for cause of Joe's injuries?
True
False - ANSWER-B. False
Joe's injuries would still have occurred if Sam was driving 45 mph. In other words,
the fact that Sam was driving a 100 mph was not a but-for cause of Joe's injuries
because, even if Sam was driving 45mph, the same exact injuries would have
occurred. Therefore, we cannot say that Sam's driving 100 mph was the but-for
cause of Joe's injuries.
Dan negligently crashes into a median, causing a major traffic jam. Sara, who was
caught in traffic, was late for work and lost her job. Months later, because Sara
lost her job, she was unable to make mortgage payments and lost her home. Was
Dan's one-car accident a but-for cause of Sara's loss of her home?
True
False - ANSWER-T. True
Sara's loss of her home would not have occurred but for Dan's negligent one-car
accident. This might seem strange. However, we still have to consider
foreseeability. Foreseeability will determine whether the defendant will be liability
for all consequences of his negligent conduct or whether there is some limitation
to that liability.
1|Page
, BADM 300 Final Actual Exam
Two campers negligently set fire on a dry and windy day. Both fires start burning
uncontrollably toward a farmhouse. Either fire would have destroyed the
farmhouse separately. Is either fire a but-for cause?
True
False - ANSWER-B. False
We have to ask first if either fire was a but-for cause of the destruction of the
farmhouse.
F1 and F2 were not a but-for cause because either fire would have destroyed the
farmhouse on its own.
While riding his bike, Paul negligently hits Claire, who is walking in the sidewalk.
As a result of the impact, Claire falls and fractures her hip. While she is waiting for
help to arrive, a small plane crashes nearby and explodes, and some of the fiery
debris hits her, causing her to sustain severe burns. Will Paul be liable for Claire's
fractured hip?
True
False - ANSWER-True
Paul will be liable for Claire's fractured hip because the risk of hitting her with a
bike and causing her to sustain injuries is foreseeable. In other words, the injuries
she sustained as a result of the accident are not highly extraordinary.
While riding his bike, Paul negligently hits Claire, who is walking in the sidewalk.
As a result of the impact, Claire falls and fractures her hip. While she is waiting for
help to arrive, a small plane crashes nearby and explodes, and some of the fiery
2|Page
, BADM 300 Final Actual Exam
debris hits her, causing her to sustain severe burns. Will Paul be liable for Claire's
burns caused by the plane crash?
True
False - ANSWER-B. False
Paul will not be liable for the burns caused by the plane crash because the risk of a
plane crashing nearby was not foreseeable. The plane crash is an intervening
cause. However, it was not foreseeable. In other words, the plane crash is a
supervening or superseding cause.
Otto, a kidney donor, sustained injuries to his cervical spine and to the muscles on
the right side of his body as a result of the surgery to harvest his kidney. He sued
the hospital and physicians involved in the transplant operation for damages. Otto
asserted res ipsa loquitur because this type of injury could not have occurred in
the absence of someone's negligence. The court inferred that negligence
occurred. In this case, even if the court inferred that negligence occurred, the
burden of proof would not shift to the hospital and physicians involved in the
transplant?
True
False - ANSWER-B. False
The court asserted that this is the kind of injury that can only occur as a result of
someone's negligence. The court considered that facts spoke for themselves.
Thus, in this case, the burden of proof would shift to the hospital and physicians
involved in the transplant.
A Delaware statute states that anyone "who operates a motor vehicle and who
fails to give full time and attention to the operation of the vehicle" is guilty of
inattentive driving. Michelle was cited for inattentive driving after she collided
with John's car when she backed her car out of a parking space. John began
3|Page
, BADM 300 Final Actual Exam
having back pain, the day after the accident. Eventually, he had to go to the
hospital and undergo surgery. In this case, could John sue Michelle for the injuries
he sustained based on negligence per se?
True
False - ANSWER-True
John could sue Michelle based on negligence per se because the inattentive
driving statute set forth a sufficiently specific standard of conduct to allow the
application of the negligence per se doctrine.
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
4|Page
