I85PREP
⌘ K
NCA Torts study materials
NCA Torts study resources

NCA Torts practice questions

One question at a time. Build your NCA Torts understanding.

First 50 of 200 questions. Each one lists the choices, the correct answer, and an explanation. The checker at the top of this page saves progress in this browser when it is available.

Continue in the practice tool above to load more questions, 50 at a time.

Question 1Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

What is the standard of care that a defendant must meet in an ordinary negligence action?

  1. That of a reasonable person of ordinary prudence under similar circumstances Correct answer.
  2. That of a professional expert in the relevant field
  3. That of an average child of the same age
  4. That of the most cautious person in the community

Explanation

Negligence measures conduct against a hypothetical reasonable person of ordinary prudence acting under like circumstances. The standard is objective and does not require extraordinary caution or specialized expertise unless the defendant holds himself out as having it.

Question 2Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A landowner discovers trespassing children playing on a trampoline beside an unfenced swimming pool on his property. Which doctrine most directly governs his duty regarding the pool?

  1. Pure comparative fault
  2. Firefighter's rule
  3. Assumption of risk
  4. Attractive nuisance doctrine Correct answer.

Explanation

The attractive nuisance doctrine imposes on landowners a duty of reasonable care to protect children from artificial conditions they are unlikely to appreciate, where the burden of protection is slight and the risk is serious. A pool that draws children onto the land fits this doctrine.

Question 3Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

Under the traditional common-law rule, what duty does a landowner owe to an undiscovered trespasser injured by a condition on the land?

  1. A duty to inspect the premises regularly
  2. A duty to refrain from willful or wanton injury Correct answer.
  3. A duty of reasonable care under all circumstances
  4. A duty to warn of all latent hazards

Explanation

Historically, landowners owed trespassers only the duty to avoid willful, wanton, or intentional harm, plus a duty to warn of known traps. No duty of reasonable care or inspection applied to undiscovered trespassers.

Question 4Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

Which of the following best describes the duty a physician owes to a patient under the professional standard of care?

  1. The level of care a reasonable layperson would exercise
  2. The highest level of skill attainable by any specialist nationwide
  3. The skill and knowledge ordinarily possessed by similar practitioners in the same or similar community Correct answer.
  4. The level of care set by the patient's own expectations

Explanation

Professionals are held to the skill and learning of ordinary members of their profession acting in similar circumstances, often measured by a national or similar-community benchmark. They are not insurers of good outcomes.

Question 5Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A driver suffers a sudden, unforeseeable heart attack and loses control of the car, striking a pedestrian. What is the most likely result under the standard of care analysis?

  1. No breach, because the driver's conduct is judged against what a reasonable person could do during a sudden incapacitation Correct answer.
  2. Breach, because drivers are strictly liable for injuries caused by their vehicles
  3. No breach, because the pedestrian assumed the risk of walking near roads
  4. Breach, because the driver's car struck the pedestrian

Explanation

The reasonable person standard accounts for sudden emergencies and incapacitation that the defendant did not cause. Where the loss of control is unforeseeable and not self-induced, the driver's conduct is not measured as a breach.

Question 6Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

Which factor is central to the 'reasonable person' standard in negligence?

  1. The actor's personal moral character
  2. The foreseeable risk of harm created by the actor's conduct Correct answer.
  3. The wealth of the parties involved
  4. The subjective intent of the actor

Explanation

The reasonable person standard is objective and weighs the foreseeable likelihood and gravity of harm against the burden of precautions. Personal characteristics such as wealth or subjective intent generally do not alter the standard.

Question 7Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A city ordinance requires shopkeepers to salt icy sidewalks within two hours of a storm. A shopkeeper ignores the ordinance and a customer slips. In most jurisdictions, how does the ordinance affect the negligence analysis?

  1. It is irrelevant because only common-law duties matter
  2. It automatically imposes strict liability on the shopkeeper
  3. It shifts the burden of proof entirely to the shopkeeper
  4. It may establish the standard of care, and its unexcused violation is evidence of negligence Correct answer.

Explanation

Under the doctrine of negligence per se, an unexcused violation of a statute designed to protect a class including the plaintiff against the type of harm suffered establishes or supports a breach. The statute supplies the standard of conduct.

Question 8Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A business invites customers onto its premises. What duty does the business generally owe to those invitees regarding known hazardous conditions?

  1. A duty to exercise reasonable care to inspect and to warn of or remedy dangers Correct answer.
  2. A duty only to avoid willful injury
  3. No duty beyond that owed to a bare trespasser
  4. A duty to warn only of dangers the invitee already knows about

Explanation

Invitees are owed a duty of reasonable care, which includes inspecting the premises and repairing or warning of hazards the possessor knows or should discover. This is the highest duty owed to entrants under the traditional categories.

Question 9Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A lifeguard at a public pool fails to watch a swimmer who drowns. The pool operator argues it owed no duty because the swimmer paid no fee. How is the duty analysis best resolved?

  1. No duty arises because drowning is not a foreseeable risk
  2. No duty arises because gratuitous services create no obligations
  3. A duty arises from the relationship and the operator's undertaking to provide supervision Correct answer.
  4. A duty arises only if the operator signed a written contract

Explanation

A duty of care can arise from a special relationship or from a voluntary undertaking that induces reliance. A lifeguard service creates foreseeable reliance by swimmers, so failure to supervise can constitute breach.

Question 10Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A rescuer is injured while attempting to save a stranger trapped in a burning car. How does the law generally treat the rescuer's claim against the negligent driver who caused the fire?

  1. The rescuer must prove the driver intended the injury
  2. The rescuer is owed a duty because rescue is a foreseeable response to the danger Correct answer.
  3. The rescuer is barred because rescue is always an unreasonable risk
  4. The rescuer is barred because no relationship existed before the rescue

Explanation

It is foreseeable that people will attempt rescue when another is endangered, so the original wrongdoer owes a duty of care to rescuers. A rescuer's claim is generally permitted unless the rescue was reckless or rash.

Question 11Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A homeowner hires an independent contractor to repair a roof. The contractor negligently drops a tile that injures a passerby. Under the general rule, who is liable?

  1. The independent contractor, because the homeowner generally is not liable for a contractor's negligence Correct answer.
  2. Both parties equally, because hiring creates joint liability
  3. The homeowner, because landowners are strictly liable for all work on their property
  4. Neither party, because falling tiles are an intervening cause

Explanation

Generally, a principal is not vicariously liable for the torts of an independent contractor because the principal does not control the manner of the work. Exceptions exist for inherently dangerous activities and nondelegable duties, but the general rule places liability on the contractor.

Question 12Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A statute prohibits selling fireworks to children to prevent burn injuries. A seller violates the statute and a child is burned. Which requirement is most important to a negligence per se claim?

  1. The plaintiff is within the class the statute was designed to protect and suffered the type of harm the statute aimed to prevent Correct answer.
  2. The plaintiff must show the seller intended to cause the injury
  3. The plaintiff must show the statute was enacted by the federal government
  4. The plaintiff must show the statute is a criminal felony

Explanation

Negligence per se requires that the plaintiff belong to the class protected by the statute and that the injury be of the kind the statute was intended to prevent. Intent and the statute's criminal classification are not required.

Question 13Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A defendant's conduct creates a risk of a specific type of harm. To determine whether the defendant breached the duty of care, courts primarily balance which factors?

  1. The foreseeable likelihood and severity of harm against the burden of adequate precautions Correct answer.
  2. The number of witnesses against the amount of insurance coverage
  3. The defendant's net worth against the plaintiff's net worth
  4. The defendant's age against the plaintiff's age

Explanation

The Learned Hand formulation weighs the probability of harm and the gravity of the potential injury against the burden of taking precautions. If the burden is small relative to the risk, failing to take the precaution is a breach.

Question 14Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A guest at a hotel is injured when a stairway handrail gives way. The hotel knew the rail was loose for weeks but did nothing. What is the strongest basis for finding a breach?

  1. The guest was a licensee rather than an invitee
  2. The handrail was installed by an independent contractor
  3. The hotel had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition and failed to repair it within a reasonable time Correct answer.
  4. The guest had visited the hotel before

Explanation

Actual knowledge of a dangerous condition plus a failure to remedy it within a reasonable time is strong evidence of breach. The status of the entrant may affect the duty owed, but a known hazard creates a clear obligation to act.

Question 15Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A child of nine years old injures a neighbor while playing with a lawn mower. What standard generally governs the child's conduct in a negligence action?

  1. A strict liability standard for all injuries caused by children
  2. The conduct of a reasonable child of the same age, intelligence, and experience, unless engaged in an adult activity Correct answer.
  3. No standard applies because children cannot be negligent
  4. The conduct of a reasonable adult under all circumstances

Explanation

Minors are generally held to a child standard that accounts for age, intelligence, and experience. The adult standard applies when the child engages in a dangerous adult activity such as operating a motor vehicle.

Question 16Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A customer slips on a clear liquid in a supermarket aisle. The store's policy requires inspections every thirty minutes, and the spill appeared moments before the fall. Is the store likely liable?

  1. Yes, because the store owes an absolute duty to keep floors dry
  2. No, because the store did not have actual or constructive notice of the spill Correct answer.
  3. Yes, because the spill was on the premises regardless of notice
  4. No, because customers assume the risk of slipping in stores

Explanation

A possessor is liable for a condition only if it knew or should have known of the hazard and had a reasonable opportunity to act. Where the spill occurred moments earlier and the inspection schedule was followed, there is no constructive notice.

Question 17Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A driver's tire blows out because a mechanic negligently failed to secure it. The driver, unable to steer, strikes a pedestrian. Which doctrine best explains whether the mechanic owes a duty to the pedestrian?

  1. Assumption of risk, because pedestrians use roads voluntarily
  2. Foreseeable plaintiff doctrine, because the pedestrian is within the class of persons at risk from the mechanic's negligence Correct answer.
  3. Contributory negligence, because the pedestrian was near traffic
  4. Privity of contract, because only the driver contracted with the mechanic

Explanation

A defendant owes a duty to foreseeable plaintiffs who are within the zone of danger created by the negligent conduct. A pedestrian on a road is a foreseeable victim of a negligently maintained vehicle.

Question 18Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A landlord retains control over a common stairway in an apartment building and knows it is poorly lit. A tenant is assaulted there. Under modern trends, what duty does the landlord owe?

  1. No duty, because the tenant could have moved out
  2. A duty to guarantee tenants' safety absolutely
  3. No duty, because criminals are always superseding causes
  4. A duty to exercise reasonable care to protect tenants from foreseeable criminal acts in areas under the landlord's control Correct answer.

Explanation

Landlords may owe a duty of reasonable care for common areas within their control, including taking precautions against foreseeable criminal conduct. The duty is one of reasonable care, not an absolute guarantee.

Question 19Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A defendant argues that because the plaintiff was highly intoxicated, the defendant should be held to a lower standard of care. How should the court respond?

  1. The standard is lowered because intoxication impairs judgment
  2. The reasonable person standard is objective and does not vary with the defendant's voluntary intoxication Correct answer.
  3. The standard is raised because the defendant was aware of the risk
  4. The standard is determined by the plaintiff's intoxication level

Explanation

Voluntary intoxication does not lower the standard of care; the defendant is held to the objective reasonable person benchmark. A defendant who chooses to become intoxicated bears the consequences of diminished capacity.

Question 20Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A manufacturer sells a power tool without a guard required by industry custom. A user is injured. How does industry custom bear on the breach analysis?

  1. Custom is relevant evidence of reasonable care but does not conclusively establish the standard Correct answer.
  2. Custom is conclusive, so compliance always defeats a negligence claim
  3. Custom automatically creates strict liability
  4. Custom is irrelevant and may never be considered

Explanation

Evidence of industry custom can help the factfinder determine what a reasonable person would do, but custom is neither dispositive nor a safe harbor. Entire industries may be negligent, so noncompliance with custom supports breach.

Question 21Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A hospital's emergency room is staffed by an independent contractor physician. A patient alleges the physician was negligent. Which doctrine might allow the patient to hold the hospital liable?

  1. Strict products liability for medical services
  2. Negligence per se, based on hospital accreditation rules
  3. Res ipsa loquitur, which shifts the burden of proof to the hospital
  4. Apparent agency, where the hospital holds the physician out as its own agent and the patient reasonably relies Correct answer.

Explanation

Apparent or ostensible agency can bind a hospital for the negligence of an independent contractor when the hospital represents the provider as its own and the patient reasonably relies on that representation. Res ipsa and negligence per se address proof of breach, not attribution of the contractor's conduct.

Question 22Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A defendant's negligence creates a risk of fire. A fire starts, and a looting mob later causes additional damage. Which principle governs whether the defendant is liable for the looted property?

  1. The scope-of-risk analysis, which asks whether the intervening act is a foreseeable response to the danger created Correct answer.
  2. The rule that the defendant is strictly liable for all consequences of any fire
  3. The rule that intervening criminal acts always break the chain of causation
  4. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which presumes the defendant caused all harm

Explanation

Liability extends to harms within the scope of the risk that made the conduct negligent. An intervening act, even criminal, does not supersede if it is a foreseeable response to the situation the defendant created.

Question 23Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A city fails to maintain a traffic light, and an officer directing traffic at the broken intersection negligently waves two cars into a collision. Which analysis best determines the city's liability?

  1. The city cannot be liable because the officer is an independent contractor
  2. The city may be liable because the officer's negligent performance of a delegated traffic-control duty is a foreseeable consequence of the city's failure to maintain the signal Correct answer.
  3. The city is strictly liable for all accidents at malfunctioning signals
  4. The city cannot be liable because governmental entities owe no duty to drivers

Explanation

A governmental entity that undertakes to maintain signals and provide traffic control owes a duty of reasonable care to foreseeable road users. Negligent performance by its officer in response to the malfunction is a foreseeable consequence of the failure to maintain.

Question 24Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A patient sues a specialist who practices in a small rural community. Which standard of care most likely applies in a jurisdiction that has abandoned the strict locality rule?

  1. The skill of a reasonable layperson in the patient's community
  2. The skill of the most advanced specialist anywhere in the world
  3. The skill and knowledge of a reasonably competent specialist in similar circumstances, measured by a national or similar-community benchmark Correct answer.
  4. The skill of the average general practitioner in the same county

Explanation

Modern courts often use a national standard for specialists or a similar-community standard, reflecting access to information and training. The specialist is measured against reasonably competent peers, not the local generalist or the best specialist worldwide.

Question 25Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A defendant's conduct creates a risk that a third party will intentionally harm the plaintiff. When does the defendant owe a duty to control the third party's conduct?

  1. When the defendant has a special relationship with the third party or the plaintiff that gives rise to a duty to protect or control Correct answer.
  2. Whenever the defendant could foresee any harm to anyone
  3. Never, because intentional acts always supersede
  4. Only when the defendant has physically caused the third party's act

Explanation

A duty to control a third party arises from a special relationship, such as a therapist-patient or parent-child relationship, that gives the defendant the ability and responsibility to control or warn. Foreseeability alone does not create a duty to control others.

Question 26Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

In a negligence action, what is the primary function of the duty of care?

  1. To determine whether the plaintiff's conduct was a proximate cause of the injury.
  2. To set the standard of proof required to overcome the defendant's evidence.
  3. To define the relationship between the parties that gives rise to a legal obligation to exercise reasonable care. Correct answer.
  4. To establish the specific amount of damages recoverable for emotional distress.

Explanation

Duty is the threshold element that asks whether the defendant owed any legal obligation to the plaintiff at all. It is typically analyzed through foreseeability of harm and the relationship between the parties, not through damages or causation. Without a duty, no negligence claim can proceed regardless of how careless the conduct was.

Question 27Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A general duty of reasonable care is owed to which class of persons?

  1. Foreseeable plaintiffs who are within the zone of risk created by the defendant's conduct. Correct answer.
  2. Only individuals who can prove they were specifically identified in advance by the defendant.
  3. Only persons who have paid consideration for the defendant's services.
  4. Only those who have entered into a contractual relationship with the defendant.

Explanation

Under the general duty rule, a defendant owes reasonable care to foreseeable plaintiffs who are within the zone of danger created by the defendant's conduct. Contract or payment is not required for a duty to arise in tort. The key inquiry is whether the plaintiff's injury was a foreseeable consequence of the conduct.

Question 28Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

What does the 'reasonable person' standard in negligence require of a defendant?

  1. The defendant must exercise the care that a hypothetical person of ordinary prudence would use under similar circumstances. Correct answer.
  2. The defendant must act in the same manner as an average member of the community would in all circumstances.
  3. The defendant must exercise the highest level of care possible regardless of cost or practicality.
  4. The defendant must follow the specific instructions of the plaintiff in every situation.

Explanation

The reasonable person standard is objective and asks how a hypothetical person of ordinary prudence would behave under like circumstances. It does not require perfection or the highest possible care, nor does it demand conformity to a community average. It balances the likelihood and severity of harm against the burden of precautions.

Question 29Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A homeowner fails to repair a broken step on the front porch. A mail carrier delivering a package trips on the step and is injured. What duty does the homeowner owe to the mail carrier?

  1. No duty, because the mail carrier was not invited onto the property.
  2. A duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the carrier from known dangers on the premises. Correct answer.
  3. A duty to maintain the premises in perfect condition at all times.
  4. A duty to warn only if the homeowner actually knew the carrier would come at that exact time.

Explanation

A possessor of land generally owes a duty of reasonable care to invitees, including mail carriers who come onto the property for a purpose connected with the possessor's business or activities. The homeowner must warn of or repair known dangerous conditions. The duty is not absolute and does not require perfect maintenance.

Question 30Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A professional engineer designs a bridge. In a negligence action, what standard of care generally applies to the engineer's work?

  1. The standard of a reasonably competent engineer in the same field under similar circumstances. Correct answer.
  2. The standard of an ordinary person without specialized training.
  3. The standard set by the lowest-cost design available on the market.
  4. The standard of the most highly skilled engineer in the world.

Explanation

Professionals are held to the standard of a reasonably competent member of their profession, taking into account the skill and knowledge ordinarily possessed by practitioners in the field. They are not held to the standard of a layperson, nor to the highest possible skill level. The standard is objective and measured by professional norms.

Question 31Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A defendant argues that because the plaintiff was trespassing on the defendant's land, the defendant owed no duty of care. Under the traditional common law rule, what duty does a landowner owe to a trespasser?

  1. A duty to refrain from willful, wanton, or intentional misconduct that causes injury. Correct answer.
  2. A duty to exercise reasonable care for the trespasser's safety in all activities.
  3. A duty to warn of all known dangers on the property.
  4. A duty to inspect the premises regularly for hidden hazards.

Explanation

Under the traditional rule, a landowner owes a trespasser only the duty not to injure them willfully, wantonly, or through intentional misconduct. There is no general duty of reasonable care or to warn of known dangers. However, the modern trend in many jurisdictions has moved toward a reasonable care standard in certain circumstances.

Question 32Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A defendant's conduct creates a risk of harm to a class of persons, but the plaintiff is not a member of that class. How does this affect the defendant's duty to the plaintiff?

  1. The defendant generally owes no duty to the plaintiff because the plaintiff is outside the zone of foreseeable risk. Correct answer.
  2. The defendant owes a duty only if the plaintiff can prove actual knowledge of the risk.
  3. The defendant owes a duty to all persons regardless of whether they are within the foreseeable class.
  4. The defendant owes a duty only if the plaintiff has a preexisting relationship with the defendant.

Explanation

Duty is generally limited to foreseeable plaintiffs who are within the zone of risk created by the defendant's conduct. If the plaintiff is not a member of the class of persons whose harm was foreseeable, the defendant typically owes no duty to that plaintiff. This principle is known as the foreseeable plaintiff rule.

Question 33Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A defendant violates a statute that requires safety guards on machinery. The statute was enacted to protect workers from injuries. A worker is injured because the guard was missing. Under the doctrine of negligence per se, what must the plaintiff establish?

  1. That the defendant had actual knowledge of the statute before the injury.
  2. That the defendant intended to cause the injury.
  3. That the plaintiff was a member of the class the statute was intended to protect and the injury was of the type the statute was intended to prevent. Correct answer.
  4. That the statute is the only possible source of the defendant's duty.

Explanation

Negligence per se allows a plaintiff to establish breach of duty by showing the defendant violated a statute and that the plaintiff was within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect, and the injury was the type the statute was designed to prevent. Intent to cause injury is not required. The statute provides the standard of care, but the plaintiff must still prove causation and damages.

Question 34Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A defendant argues that because the plaintiff was highly intoxicated, the defendant should be held to a lower standard of care. How does the law generally respond to this argument?

  1. The defendant's standard of care is lowered only if the plaintiff was also negligent.
  2. The defendant's standard of care remains that of a reasonable person; the plaintiff's condition does not lower the defendant's duty. Correct answer.
  3. The defendant's standard of care is raised because the plaintiff was vulnerable.
  4. The defendant's standard of care is lowered because the plaintiff's intoxication contributed to the injury.

Explanation

The standard of care owed by a defendant is objective and does not change based on the plaintiff's condition, including intoxication. The defendant must still exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. The plaintiff's intoxication may be relevant to comparative or contributory negligence, but it does not reduce the defendant's duty.

Question 35Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A landowner knows that children frequently trespass on his property to swim in a pond. He fails to fence the pond or post warnings. A child is injured while swimming. Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, what must the plaintiff show?

  1. That the landowner actually knew the child would be injured.
  2. That the landowner failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate a foreseeable risk to children. Correct answer.
  3. That the landowner had a duty to make the property completely safe for all entrants.
  4. That the child was invited onto the property by the landowner.

Explanation

The attractive nuisance doctrine imposes a duty on landowners to exercise reasonable care to protect children from foreseeable risks created by conditions on the land that are likely to attract them. The landowner need not have actual knowledge of the specific injury, nor is the child required to be an invitee. The doctrine balances the utility of the condition against the risk to children.

Question 36Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A defendant's conduct creates a risk of fire. A fire starts, and a looting mob later causes additional damage. Which doctrine limits the defendant's liability for the mob damage?

  1. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which allows an inference of negligence from the circumstances.
  2. The doctrine of proximate cause, which requires that the harm be a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct. Correct answer.
  3. The doctrine of assumption of risk, which applies when the plaintiff voluntarily encounters a known danger.
  4. The doctrine of contributory negligence, which bars recovery if the plaintiff was also at fault.

Explanation

Proximate cause limits liability to harms that are a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence. If the intervening act of a third party, such as a looting mob, is not foreseeable, the defendant may not be liable for that additional damage. The other doctrines address different aspects of negligence and do not directly limit liability for superseding causes.

Question 37Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A patient sues a specialist who practices in a small rural community. Which standard of care most likely applies in a jurisdiction that follows the majority rule?

  1. The standard of a specialist practicing in a major urban medical center.
  2. The standard of a specialist in the same or similar community with similar facilities and resources. Correct answer.
  3. The standard of a general practitioner in the same community.
  4. The standard of the average person without medical training.

Explanation

Under the majority rule, a specialist is held to the standard of a reasonably competent specialist in the same or similar community, taking into account the facilities and resources available. The locality rule has been relaxed in many jurisdictions, but the standard still considers similar circumstances. A specialist is not held to the standard of a general practitioner or a layperson.

Question 38Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A defendant's conduct creates a risk that a third party will intentionally harm the plaintiff. When does the defendant owe a duty to protect the plaintiff from the third party's conduct?

  1. Never, because the third party's intentional act is always a superseding cause.
  2. When the defendant's conduct creates a foreseeable risk of harm from the third party. Correct answer.
  3. Only when the plaintiff has a preexisting relationship with the third party.
  4. Only when the defendant has actual knowledge of the third party's specific intent to harm the plaintiff.

Explanation

A defendant may owe a duty to protect a plaintiff from foreseeable harm caused by a third party, even if the third party acts intentionally. The key is whether the risk of harm was foreseeable. Actual knowledge of the specific intent is not required, and the third party's act is not always a superseding cause.

Question 39Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A defendant's negligence causes a minor injury to the plaintiff. While being treated at the hospital, the plaintiff contracts an infection due to the hospital's negligence. Is the defendant liable for the infection?

  1. No, because the hospital's negligence is a superseding cause that breaks the chain of causation.
  2. Yes, but only if the defendant had actual knowledge of the hospital's negligent practices.
  3. No, because the defendant is only liable for the original injury.
  4. Yes, if the infection was a foreseeable consequence of the original injury and the medical treatment. Correct answer.

Explanation

A defendant is liable for foreseeable harms that flow from the original injury, including complications arising from medical treatment. The hospital's negligence is generally not a superseding cause if the need for treatment was foreseeable. Actual knowledge of the hospital's practices is not required.

Question 40Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach of Standard

A defendant argues that because the plaintiff was a highly skilled professional, the defendant should be held to a higher standard of care. How does the law generally view this argument?

  1. The defendant's standard of care is lowered because the plaintiff is better able to avoid injury.
  2. The defendant's standard of care is determined by the plaintiff's profession's standards.
  3. The defendant's standard of care is raised to match the plaintiff's professional expertise.
  4. The defendant's standard of care is the same as for any other plaintiff; the plaintiff's expertise does not change the defendant's duty. Correct answer.

Explanation

The standard of care owed by a defendant is objective and does not vary based on the plaintiff's expertise or profession. The defendant must exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, regardless of the plaintiff's skills. The plaintiff's expertise may be relevant to comparative negligence, but it does not alter the defendant's duty.

Question 41Causation, Remoteness and Defences

In a negligence claim, what does the 'but for' test primarily establish?

  1. Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent
  2. Whether the defendant owed the claimant any duty of care
  3. Whether the harm was too remote to be recoverable
  4. Whether the defendant's breach was a factual cause of the claimant's harm Correct answer.

Explanation

The 'but for' test asks whether the harm would have occurred without the defendant's breach. If the harm would have happened regardless, the breach is not a factual cause. It is the starting point of causation before any question of remoteness or defences arises.

Question 42Causation, Remoteness and Defences

A doctor negligently fails to diagnose a condition that, even with proper diagnosis, would have progressed identically. Applying the ordinary 'but for' test, what is the result?

  1. The doctor is liable because medical cases reverse the burden of proof
  2. The doctor is not liable because the breach made no difference to the outcome Correct answer.
  3. The doctor is liable only if the patient can show a lost chance of recovery
  4. The doctor is liable because diagnosis was delayed regardless of outcome

Explanation

Under the 'but for' test the claim fails if the claimant would have suffered the same harm even without the breach. A delay that changes nothing causally breaks the chain at the factual stage. Liability therefore does not attach on these facts.

Question 43Causation, Remoteness and Defences

Which phrase best describes the 'material contribution to harm' approach?

  1. The breach must be the sole cause of the harm
  2. The breach must have made a more than negligible contribution to the harm Correct answer.
  3. The breach must be the dominant cause beyond reasonable doubt
  4. The breach must be the most likely single cause of the harm

Explanation

Material contribution allows causation to be established where the breach added materially to the risk or severity of harm, even if other factors also contributed. The contribution need only be more than negligible. It is used where the 'but for' test cannot be satisfied for cumulative harm.

Question 44Causation, Remoteness and Defences

Two independent factories each negligently discharged pollutants that cumulatively damaged a river. The claimant cannot prove which factory caused which portion. Which principle is most relevant?

  1. Res ipsa loquitur shifting the burden to both defendants
  2. Novus actus interveniens breaking the chain for both defendants
  3. Volenti non fit injuria barring the claim entirely
  4. Material contribution to harm allowing recovery from each contributor Correct answer.

Explanation

Where harm is cumulative and indivisible, material contribution permits recovery against parties whose breaches each added materially to the harm. The claimant need not apportion precisely which defendant caused which part. This avoids the injustice of total failure of proof.

Question 45Causation, Remoteness and Defences

What is the general effect of a finding of contributory negligence?

  1. It suspends the limitation period
  2. It reduces the damages awarded to the claimant Correct answer.
  3. It defeats the claim entirely
  4. It transfers liability to a third party

Explanation

Contributory negligence is a partial defence: the court apportions responsibility and reduces damages to reflect the claimant's share of fault. It does not extinguish the claim. The reduction is assessed according to what is just and equitable.

Question 46Causation, Remoteness and Defences

A cyclist rides at night without lights and is struck by a speeding driver. The court finds the driver breached a duty and the cyclist was contributorily negligent. What is the likely outcome?

  1. The driver must pay full damages because speeding is more serious
  2. The cyclist recovers nothing because of the missing lights
  3. The driver escapes liability entirely due to the cyclist's fault
  4. The cyclist's damages are reduced to reflect their share of responsibility Correct answer.

Explanation

Where both parties are at fault, the court apportions damages and reduces the claimant's award by their contributory share. The seriousness of each party's conduct informs the percentage but does not eliminate liability. Full recovery or total defeat are both inconsistent with apportionment.

Question 47Causation, Remoteness and Defences

For the defence of volenti non fit injuria to succeed, what must the defendant show?

  1. The claimant was careless about their own safety
  2. The claimant signed a written waiver of all rights
  3. The claimant freely and knowingly consented to the risk of harm Correct answer.
  4. The claimant was warned of a risk by the defendant

Explanation

Volenti requires the claimant to have voluntarily accepted the legal risk of the defendant's negligence with full knowledge of its nature and extent. Mere carelessness or a warning is insufficient. Consent must be genuinely free and informed.

Question 48Causation, Remoteness and Defences

An employee is injured at work after being told of a specific danger and continuing to work under pressure from an employer's instruction. Can the employer rely on volenti?

  1. No, because continuing to work under pressure is not necessarily free consent Correct answer.
  2. Yes, because the employee knew of the danger and continued working
  3. No, because volenti never applies in employment contexts
  4. Yes, because workplace injuries are always covered by volenti

Explanation

Volenti demands genuinely free consent to the legal risk. An employee who continues working under pressure or economic necessity may lack the freedom required. Knowledge of the risk alone does not establish the defence.

Question 49Causation, Remoteness and Defences

What does the defence of illegality (ex turpi causa) generally require?

  1. That the claimant's claim arises from their own serious criminal or wrongful conduct Correct answer.
  2. That the defendant committed a crime
  3. That the harm occurred during working hours
  4. That the claimant was slightly careless

Explanation

Illegality bars a claim where it would be an affront to the legal system to allow recovery arising from the claimant's own serious wrongdoing. The conduct must be sufficiently grave and connected to the harm. Minor or incidental wrongdoing is insufficient.

Question 50Causation, Remoteness and Defences

A burglar is injured by a defective floor while trespassing in a warehouse. Which defence is most directly engaged?

  1. Necessity
  2. Contributory negligence
  3. Volenti non fit injuria
  4. Illegality Correct answer.

Explanation

The burglar's claim arises from their own serious criminal conduct, which engages the illegality defence. The court considers whether allowing recovery would undermine the integrity of the legal system. Other defences may be considered but illegality is the most direct fit.