Tort Law
This domain tests the negligence prima facie case, duty doctrine, causation, strict liability, products liability, and the intentional torts.
Negligence
Duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. Duty runs to foreseeable plaintiffs in the zone of danger (Palsgraf); there is no general duty to rescue absent a special relationship or creation of peril. Professionals are held to the ordinary skill of the profession; children to a child of like age, intelligence, and experience. Res ipsa loquitur permits an inference from an event that ordinarily does not occur without negligence, exclusive control, and no plaintiff contribution.
Causation and defenses
Actual cause by but-for test, or substantial factor where multiple causes concur. Proximate cause limits liability to foreseeable harms; negligent medical treatment and rescue attempts are generally not superseding. Comparative negligence reduces recovery; contributory negligence bars it in pure jurisdictions.
Strict liability and products
Abnormally dangerous activities, wild animals, and defective products. Products claims sound in manufacturing defect, design defect (risk-utility or consumer expectations), and warning defect, and require a foreseeable plaintiff and harm.
Worked example
A driver runs a red light, forcing a truck to swerve; the truck hits a pedestrian. But-for causation is clear. Proximate cause is satisfied because pedestrians at that intersection are foreseeable plaintiffs and the intervening evasive maneuver is a normal response to the emergency, not a superseding cause.
Traps
- Confusing res ipsa with strict liability.
- Omitting the damages element.
- Treating the eggshell-plaintiff rule as affecting liability rather than damages.
- Calling a foreseeable intervening act superseding.