Torts (Exam-level) Question Pack - Questions and Answers

1. A utility company replaced several underground pipes in a residential neighborhood and failed to secure the cover of a sidewalk vault after completing work. A day later, a pedestrian walking at dusk stepped onto the loose cover, which flipped open and caused her to fall into the vault, fracturing her ankle. The vault opening was partially obscured by tree shade, and the utility crew had left no warning signs or barriers around the area.

Neighbors testified that similar incidents with unsecured vaults had occurred in the past during city work, and that complaints had been made about pedestrian hazards when cover plates weren’t bolted. The utility company argued that its work was complete and signed off under municipal inspection guidelines, and that liability should fall on the city. The jurisdiction treats negligence by contractors as actionable independent of government inspection, and requires reasonable safeguards for public safety.

Is the utility company likely to be held liable for negligence?

Yes, because it created a foreseeable hazard to pedestrians by leaving the vault unsecured.
No, because the pedestrian assumed the risk by walking in low light.
Yes, because previous incidents put the company on notice about vault risks.
No, because the city approved the completion of the repair.

Correct answer: A

Explanation: A contractor performing work in public areas owes a duty of care to pedestrians, and leaving a vault cover unsecured creates a foreseeable risk of harm. The company failed to take reasonable steps — such as bolting the cover or placing warnings — to protect passersby. Municipal approval does not absolve liability for negligent conduct.

Why the other options are incorrect:
B Assumption of risk requires knowledge and voluntary acceptance — walking in dusk doesn’t satisfy it.
C Prior incidents may support notice, but A more fully captures the duty and breach.
D Government sign-off isn’t a shield against tort liability for active negligence.

2. A mining company maintained a blasting site on the edge of a rural residential area. It followed all industry safety protocols and set off charges only during authorized hours. Despite taking reasonable precautions, a recent detonation caused vibration that cracked the foundation of a nearby home. The homeowner sued the company for strict liability, arguing that the nature of blasting made the activity abnormally dangerous.

The mining company countered that it used state-of-the-art materials and operated under full regulatory compliance. It noted that the blasting zone was designated for industrial use and claimed that foundation damage was rare and unpredictable. The jurisdiction applies traditional strict liability principles to abnormally dangerous activities and assesses liability based on risk magnitude and inability to eliminate danger through due care.

Is the mining company likely to be held strictly liable?

No, because the company operated in a designated industrial area.
No, because the homeowner’s damage was unforeseeable.
Yes, because blasting creates a high risk of harm that persists despite reasonable precautions.
Yes, because compliance with regulations does not bar recovery for property damage.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: Blasting is considered an abnormally dangerous activity under common law strict liability principles. It carries inherent risk that cannot be fully eliminated by reasonable care. Damage to nearby structures — even if rare — is a foreseeable consequence. Location and compliance do not preclude liability for resulting harm.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Zoning does not override the nature of the activity.
B Unusual damage doesn’t need to be predictable — it needs to stem from the inherent risk.
D While true, D is incomplete compared to C’s full statement of doctrine.

3. A man saw a stranger shove a woman to the ground outside a convenience store and raise a hand as if to strike her. The man tackled the attacker, pinned him, and held him until police arrived. In the process, the attacker suffered a shoulder dislocation and sued the intervening man for battery. The attacker claimed he never actually hit the woman and that he was trying to reclaim an item she had stolen.

The defendant testified that he feared for the woman’s safety based on what he witnessed, and that he used force proportionate to the threat. The jurisdiction recognizes defense of others as a complete privilege to intentional tort liability if the intervener reasonably perceives danger and uses appropriate force.

Is the defendant likely to be held liable for battery?

Yes, because the attacker suffered physical harm and was not the initial aggressor.
No, because the attacker’s intent does not affect the reasonableness of the intervener’s perception.
Yes, because the intervener used force without confirming the underlying dispute.
No, because tackling someone is not sufficient force to establish battery under these facts.

Correct answer: B

Explanation: Defense of others protects a person who reasonably believes someone else is under threat, even if that belief turns out to be mistaken. The force used must be proportionate and aimed at neutralizing the danger. Tackling an aggressor during a perceived imminent threat is justified, and liability for battery does not attach.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A The injury matters only if force was excessive or unjustified.
C Legal confirmation is not required for the privilege to apply.
D Physical contact with intent to restrain can qualify as battery — but here, the privilege shields it.

4. A radio host criticized a local restaurant during a broadcast, saying: “This place is filthy — I saw roaches crawling under the tables last week.” The restaurant owner filed a lawsuit for defamation, asserting the comment was false, injurious to reputation, and based on no personal visit or evidence. The host defended the statement as protected opinion based on general community reputation.

The jurisdiction applies the traditional rule for defamation against private plaintiffs: they must prove a false and defamatory statement of fact made to third parties, with either negligence or actual malice depending on the circumstances. Courts here distinguish between exaggerated opinion and provable factual assertion.

Under these facts, which factor most strongly supports the restaurant’s defamation claim?

The radio host made a public comment during peak broadcast hours.
The radio host did not investigate the truth of his statement before speaking.
The radio host claimed to have personally seen an infestation that never occurred.
The radio host had previously criticized other restaurants without being sued.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: Defamation requires a false factual statement — not mere opinion. By claiming to have personally seen roaches, the host made a specific factual assertion. If that claim is demonstrably false and damaging, it supports liability regardless of motive or repetition.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Public reach impacts damages but not the elements of defamation.
B Lack of investigation may show negligence but is secondary to the falsity of the statement.
D Prior criticisms do not negate liability for specific false statements.

5. A patient was admitted to a hospital following a routine outpatient surgery. During transport between units, the wheels of the gurney locked mid-hallway, causing an abrupt stop. The nurse pushing it braced, but the patient rolled off the gurney and fractured his arm. Hospital staff confirmed the wheel mechanism had failed and that it had not been inspected in several months. No maintenance logs were available for the unit.

The patient sued the hospital, asserting negligence under the theory of res ipsa loquitur. The hospital moved for summary judgment, arguing that the malfunction was an isolated equipment failure and that the nurse was acting appropriately. The jurisdiction permits inference of negligence under res ipsa when an instrumentality is under defendant control and the accident would not occur absent carelessness.

Should the court grant the hospital’s motion?

Yes, because malfunction alone is insufficient to infer negligence.
Yes, because the nurse’s handling was appropriate and the injury unavoidable.
No, because equipment failure suggests exclusive control and breach.
No, because sudden injury to a patient in transport supports a prima facie case of negligence.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: Under res ipsa loquitur, negligence may be inferred when an accident occurs under conditions that ordinarily do not happen without negligence, and the defendant had control over the instrumentality. The hospital controlled the equipment, lacked maintenance records, and the failure led to a predictable injury. This justifies denying summary judgment and sending the issue to a jury.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Malfunction of equipment under hospital control may support inference of negligence.
B Nurse behavior doesn’t negate hospital equipment liability.
D While true, C better captures the legal standard for res ipsa application.

6. A farmer allowed friends to hunt on his land during quail season and never gave formal safety instructions. Several hunters used shotguns in open fields bordering a residential neighborhood. A neighbor who lived adjacent to the farm knew of the hunting but did not request permission and had never spoken to the farmer. One afternoon, the neighbor crossed into the field to visit a friend on the other side and was shot in the leg by one of the hunters, who said he had not seen anyone walk into his line of fire.

The neighbor sued the farmer for negligence, arguing that he had failed to implement proper firearm safety protocols despite knowing the land would be used by others. The farmer contended that the neighbor was trespassing and that he bore no responsibility for the conduct of guests acting outside his supervision. The jurisdiction follows traditional landowner liability rules, and distinguishes between duty owed to invitees, licensees, and trespassers.

Is the farmer likely liable for the neighbor’s injuries?

Yes, because the farmer failed to warn about risks of hunting near property boundaries.
Yes, because the use of firearms creates a nondelegable duty of care.
No, because the neighbor was trespassing at the time of the incident.
No, because responsibility lies with the hunter who discharged the weapon.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: Under traditional rules, a landowner owes limited duties to trespassers — generally only to refrain from intentional harm. The neighbor entered the property without permission, which bars claims based on ordinary negligence. The farmer neither invited nor encouraged the neighbor’s entry and may not be liable for resulting harm.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Duty to warn arises for known entrants, not unknown trespassers.
B Firearm use must still result in a duty grounded in relationship and foreseeability.
D The hunter may be liable, but this question centers on landowner responsibility.

7. A laboratory located in a residential zone began using a specialized chemical that, even in low quantities, releases a dense vapor when exposed to humidity. To contain risk, the lab installed vapor-sealed tanks and monitored atmospheric levels hourly. On a rainy day, vapors escaped from a valve that had weakened unexpectedly, causing eye and throat irritation in residents two blocks away. Local officials confirmed the chemical’s danger and ordered an immediate shutdown.

One resident brought a strict liability claim, arguing that the lab’s operation involved abnormally dangerous activity. The lab argued that it followed the highest industry standards, had no prior safety incidents, and operated with full regulatory permission. It emphasized that only small quantities were involved and that harm resulted from an unforeseeable mechanical flaw.

Is the lab likely strictly liable?

No, because the lab operated with reasonable care and regulatory approval.
Yes, because the chemical activity posed a foreseeable and significant risk of harm.
No, because low-volume operations fall outside strict liability doctrine.
Yes, because the failure to detect a valve defect constitutes negligence.

Correct answer: B

Explanation: Even where reasonable care is used, strict liability attaches to abnormally dangerous activities — those that pose a serious risk not eliminated by precaution. Here, the chemical released vapors that caused physical harm, and the activity was unusual for a residential setting. The valve defect does not negate the inherently hazardous nature of the process.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Reasonable care doesn’t bar strict liability.
C Volume matters less than risk and location.
D Negligence isn’t required under strict liability claims.

8. An intoxicated woman shattered a beer bottle in a tavern and waved the jagged end at a nearby man. A bystander intervened, restrained her arm, and escorted her to a side room. Concerned she might harm others, he locked her inside a storage room and waited until police arrived. The woman was released thirty minutes later and had sustained a sprained wrist from the restraint. She sued the bystander for battery and false imprisonment.

The jurisdiction recognizes the privilege of defense of others, including temporary restraint, when reasonably believed necessary to prevent imminent harm. It also imposes liability for intentional torts when force or confinement is excessive or disproportionate. The bystander testified that he used only necessary force and believed the situation posed serious risk to other patrons.

Is the woman likely to prevail?

No, because the bystander acted with privilege to prevent danger.
Yes, because the restraint constituted unlawful confinement without legal authority.
Yes, because he intentionally caused physical injury.
No, because she was armed and threatened another individual.

Correct answer: A

Explanation: The bystander acted within the privilege of defense of others. Temporary restraint to prevent foreseeable harm — especially during a threatening event — is permitted so long as the confinement is reasonable in scope and duration. A sprained wrist from necessary restraint does not override this privilege.

Why the other options are incorrect:
B Legal authority is not required if common-law privilege applies.
C Injury alone does not defeat the privilege when force is proportional.
D Her conduct justifies restraint, but A articulates the legal protection afforded.

9. A homeowner operated a pottery studio in her garage and used a venting system to release kiln fumes. Over time, the fumes seeped into the windows of a neighbor’s adjacent bedroom, causing discomfort and sleep disruption. The neighbor requested she install a filtering system or restrict firing hours. The homeowner refused, stating she was complying with local zoning and fire department codes.

The neighbor sued, alleging private nuisance due to the recurring interference with his home enjoyment. The homeowner argued her pottery work was legal and typical of residential hobby use. The jurisdiction defines private nuisance as substantial and unreasonable interference with another’s private use and enjoyment of land, regardless of legal compliance.

Which factor most strongly supports the neighbor’s claim?

The homeowner’s activity occurred during evening hours.
The kiln was not subject to regular inspection.
The interference substantially impacted the neighbor’s ability to sleep and breathe.
The homeowner refused to negotiate or compromise.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: Nuisance liability centers on substantial and unreasonable interference. Physical discomfort and disruption to sleep caused by recurring fumes crosses this threshold. Legal compliance and neighborhood norms do not negate interference that materially affects health and home enjoyment.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Evening hours may contribute, but only if impact is substantial.
B Lack of inspection affects regulation, not nuisance standards.
D Refusal to compromise may frustrate resolution but isn’t determinative legally.

10. A hotel guest was injured by a heavy decoration that fell from the ceiling in a shared hallway. Surveillance showed that maintenance personnel had moved the fixture two days earlier, and that a third-party cleaning crew had buffed the floors shortly before it fell. The guest sued both companies, but neither admitted responsibility, and no direct evidence linked the fixture’s collapse to one party over the other.

The jurisdiction applies the doctrine of alternative liability, allowing the burden of proof to shift to defendants who had exclusive control over a risk and where only one could have caused the harm. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff had not identified which entity acted negligently.

Should the court deny summary judgment?

Yes, because the plaintiff is entitled to recover from any jointly liable party.
No, because the plaintiff did not present enough evidence of duty or breach.
Yes, because the defendants are both likely responsible and can clarify fault.
No, because alternative liability requires proof of concerted action.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: Under alternative liability doctrine, when multiple defendants had control over the harm-causing instrumentality, and it is clear one caused the injury but unclear which, the burden shifts to them to prove non-responsibility. The plaintiff need not identify the specific tortfeasor when it is shown that one of them must be liable.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Joint liability requires clearer proof of collaboration.
B Plaintiff need only show harm and lack of attribution among responsible parties.
D Concerted action is not required under this rule.

11. While walking along a riverside trail, a jogger saw a young man flailing in the current and calling for help. The jogger was an experienced swimmer and had his phone and a life preserver in his backpack. Though other passersby had stopped to watch, none had a clear way to help. The jogger hesitated, chose not to intervene, and instead continued jogging. The man drowned moments later.

The victim’s family sued the jogger for negligence, asserting that his skill level, possession of life-saving tools, and presence on the scene created a duty to act. The jogger argued that he had no legal obligation to intervene and that his decision not to engage did not constitute tortious conduct. Evidence showed that the jogger had no relationship to the victim and had not contributed to the dangerous situation.

The jurisdiction follows common law principles for affirmative duties and recognizes a duty to rescue only where a special relationship exists, or the defendant created the peril. It does not impose legal responsibility based solely on moral opportunity or capability.

Is the jogger likely liable for negligence?

Yes, because his swimming ability and possession of equipment made him uniquely able to help.
No, because mere presence does not create an affirmative duty to rescue.
Yes, because he was the only individual capable of providing assistance at the time.
No, because legal responsibility requires that he first attempt a rescue.

Correct answer: B

Explanation: At common law, individuals generally have no legal obligation to rescue others from danger absent a special relationship or causation of the peril. Capability, presence, or skill alone do not create a duty of care. Moral pressure may exist, but tort liability does not attach under these facts.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Skill and equipment do not impose duty without relational or causal trigger.
C Lack of others’ abilities doesn’t create exclusive legal responsibility.
D Duty analysis is based on legal structure, not sequence of action.

12. At a busy airport terminal, a traveler accidentally knocked over another person’s luggage, which led to a minor verbal confrontation. Fearing escalation, a nearby traveler — who claimed to be a retired police officer — physically restrained the man whose bag had been bumped and dragged him into an unused security alcove. The restrained man asked repeatedly to be released but was kept in the area for over twenty minutes until airport staff arrived. He suffered bruising and emotional distress.

The man sued the retired officer for battery and false imprisonment. The defendant claimed he was acting under the privilege of public protection and that his response was proportional given the chaotic environment. Witnesses later stated that the man had not made any threats or gestures that would justify physical restraint and had merely raised his voice in frustration. The airport had no policy empowering civilians to detain others on site.

The jurisdiction applies traditional tort rules, recognizing incomplete privilege when force is used without proper justification. It allows temporary restraint in emergencies but imposes liability where confinement is excessive, prolonged, or based on a mistaken belief.

Is the retired officer likely liable?

No, because he acted to prevent a public disturbance in a high-security location.
No, because the plaintiff did not suffer serious physical injury.
Yes, because he used unlawful force to confine someone without threat or provocation.
Yes, because his mistaken belief does not absolve liability for false imprisonment.

Correct answer: D

Explanation: False imprisonment occurs when a person is confined without legal authority or justification. Even if the defendant believed restraint was necessary, the privilege fails if that belief was mistaken and the restraint was excessive or unnecessary. The prolonged detention and lack of threat make liability likely.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Preventing disturbances must be rooted in a reasonable belief — not mere assumption.
B Emotional distress and unnecessary confinement support recovery.
C Use of force matters, but D better captures the effect of mistaken privilege on liability.

13. A consumer purchased a coffee maker from a national appliance store. The machine was sealed in original packaging, and no damage was visible. On its first use, the machine sputtered, leaked, and then burst into flames after five minutes of operation, causing burns to the purchaser’s hand. Subsequent investigation showed a faulty heating coil that had been improperly sealed at the factory.

The manufacturer claimed that the coffee maker design was safe and widely used, and that such failures were extremely rare. It argued that liability should lie with the retailer, who failed to warn of possible malfunctions. The consumer sued the manufacturer directly for strict products liability, asserting that the defect occurred during production and rendered the product unreasonably dangerous.

The jurisdiction recognizes strict liability for manufacturing defects where a product deviates from its intended design and causes injury during normal use. Sellers and manufacturers may be held liable even if the product is statistically safe overall.

Does the manufacturer face strict liability?

No, because the product design was not inherently dangerous.
No, because the retailer failed to provide safety warnings.
Yes, because the coffee maker had a manufacturing defect that caused injury.
Yes, because retailers and manufacturers share liability for defective goods.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: A manufacturing defect arises when a product departs from its intended construction and causes harm. The coffee maker was defective due to its faulty coil — not its design. Strict liability applies regardless of rarity or retailer negligence.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Design safety doesn’t cure manufacturing flaws.
B Retailers may share liability, but the manufacturer is directly responsible for production defects.
D Shared liability is accurate but not determinative — C isolates the legal cause.

14. A local blogger posted an article listing “Untrustworthy Contractors,” including a small plumbing business in town. He claimed the business “routinely overbills and sends unlicensed workers,” and cited no sources or specific customer complaints. Within two weeks, the business lost three major clients and received negative online reviews referencing the blog post. The owner demanded a retraction, stating that all employees were certified and billing records were transparent.

The blogger responded that the list was based on “community sentiment” and that as a private citizen, he was sharing opinions. The business sued for defamation and commercial disparagement, alleging reputational harm and economic loss. The jurisdiction applies traditional defamation rules to statements about private entities, including heightened scrutiny of unverified factual claims published to third parties.

Which of the following most accurately describes the business’s legal position?

It must prove that the blogger’s statements were made with actual malice.
It must prove that the statements are demonstrably false and caused economic harm.
It may recover only if the statements caused physical injury or property damage.
It may recover only if the blogger had contractual relations with the business.

Correct answer: B

Explanation: Businesses may recover for defamation or commercial disparagement when a false factual statement harms reputation or causes financial loss. The blogger made specific claims (“overbills,” “unlicensed”) with no sources. These are verifiable and, if false, actionable.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Actual malice applies only to public figures — private businesses need show falsity and harm.
C Defamation covers reputational and financial injury, not just physical damage.
D No contractual relationship is required to establish liability.

15. A patient experienced shortness of breath following routine outpatient surgery and returned to the clinic two days later. A nurse practitioner conducted a quick assessment, prescribed antihistamines, and discharged the patient without further tests. The next morning, the patient collapsed at home and was diagnosed with a pulmonary embolism. The patient’s family sued the clinic for negligence in failing to recognize post-operative risk signs.

The clinic argued that the nurse practitioner followed internal protocol and that embolisms are difficult to predict without imaging. The plaintiff presented expert testimony stating that a competent practitioner would have ordered further tests or consulted a supervising physician before prescribing medication. Records showed no communication between staff despite post-surgical warning indicators.

The jurisdiction applies a professional negligence standard to trained healthcare providers, requiring care consistent with the level of skill and training of similarly qualified professionals in similar circumstances.

Is the clinic likely to be held liable?

Yes, because the practitioner failed to follow standard medical procedures.
No, because the embolism was not foreseeable from the initial symptoms.
Yes, because internal clinic protocols cannot override accepted professional standards.
No, because the nurse was not individually named in the lawsuit.

Correct answer: A

Explanation: The nurse practitioner’s failure to conduct appropriate post-operative evaluation or seek input from a physician amounts to a deviation from accepted professional norms. Clinics are vicariously liable for the actions of staff acting within the scope of employment. Expert testimony highlighted a clear breach of duty, making negligence likely.

Why the other options are incorrect:
B Foreseeability in professional negligence is measured by medical standards, not statistical rarity.
C Internal protocols may influence practice, but liability turns on adherence to broader professional standards — A better captures breach analysis.
D Liability can rest with the institution even if the individual actor is not named.

16. A woman entered a discount warehouse store to shop for home supplies. As she browsed, she stepped into an aisle that had recently been mopped by an employee, but no wet floor signs had been posted. She slipped and fell, sustaining a fractured wrist. Video footage showed that the employee had finished mopping the aisle only five minutes earlier and had warned two other patrons verbally, but said nothing to the plaintiff. Store policy required both verbal and visual warnings during cleaning.

The store argued that the spill had been cleaned promptly and that verbal warnings were sufficient. The woman contended that as a business invitee, she was owed a heightened duty of care, including warnings of non-obvious hazards. Testimony revealed that “wet aisle incidents” had occurred at least six times that year, and the store’s regional safety manager had previously emphasized the importance of signage.

The jurisdiction applies traditional premises liability rules and imposes a duty on businesses to make reasonable inspections and warn of dangers that are not obvious to invitees.

Is the store likely liable for negligence?

Yes, because the employee failed to follow internal store policies.
No, because the hazard was created only minutes before the fall.
Yes, because the store failed to warn of a non-obvious condition known to staff.
No, because verbal warnings were sufficient given recent cleaning.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: Business owners owe a duty to protect invitees from non-obvious dangers, especially those they create or know about. The lack of signage, combined with knowledge of past incidents and failure to warn, breaches this duty. Verbal warnings to others do not substitute for visual notice to all entrants.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Internal policy may inform the standard of care, but liability rests on breach of duty, not rule violation alone.
B Timing matters, but hazard creation still triggers immediate duty to warn.
D Warnings must reach the affected individual — here, they didn’t.

17. A fireworks company hosted a licensed pyrotechnic display near a lakeside park. The area was roped off, and spectators were kept behind barriers. One launch malfunctioned and fired sideways, striking a tree and causing it to collapse onto a parked car. The vehicle owner, who had been sitting nearby, was injured. The company presented evidence that the launch protocol had followed national safety standards and that all equipment had passed inspection prior to the show.

The injured plaintiff brought a strict liability claim, asserting that fireworks displays are abnormally dangerous, even if properly conducted. The company responded that outdoor firework shows are customary in public events and do not automatically create strict liability exposure. They emphasized that spectators had been placed at safe distances and that the incident was unpredictable and isolated.

The jurisdiction applies common law strict liability to activities that pose a high degree of risk and cannot be made safe through due care, especially in public-adjacent settings.

Is the company likely strictly liable?

Yes, because the tree collapse resulted from its activity.
No, because pyrotechnics are socially accepted and heavily regulated.
Yes, because launching fireworks poses unavoidable danger to nearby persons and property.
No, because the company took reasonable precautions to protect spectators.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: Fireworks displays involve a risk of explosion, projectile error, and injury that remains even with careful planning. The inherently hazardous nature makes the company strictly liable for harm caused. Regulation and custom do not eliminate liability under strict liability doctrine.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Consequential harm matters, but strict liability hinges on activity type.
B Social acceptance does not override doctrinal criteria.
D Reasonable care is irrelevant to strict liability analysis.

18. During a university theater workshop, a director asked students to rehearse a stage combat scene involving simulated slaps. One student, enthusiastic and nervous, struck her scene partner with a real slap to the face, leaving a red mark and causing pain. The injured student sued for battery, claiming no consent was given for actual contact and that the slap exceeded what was expected from rehearsal instructions.

The director testified that students were told to use stage techniques only and that no physical contact was authorized. Several witnesses confirmed that prior rehearsals involved mimed gestures with no skin contact. The defendant claimed she misunderstood the instructions and believed a light touch was permissible based on informal coaching by another classmate.

The jurisdiction applies standard tort doctrine and recognizes consent as a defense to battery only when the contact was reasonably anticipated and authorized in scope.

Is the defendant likely liable for battery?

No, because the students participated voluntarily in the theater program.
No, because the slap was not intended to cause harm.
Yes, because the contact exceeded the scope of implied consent.
Yes, because she failed to follow directorial safety instructions.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: Consent must be specific and extend to the type and degree of contact. Here, the scene did not involve actual slapping, and the rehearsal context did not authorize physical hits. The plaintiff did not reasonably anticipate being struck — thus, the contact exceeds the scope of consent and supports battery liability.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Participation does not waive rights to physical safety.
B Intent to harm is not necessary — only intent to contact.
D Failing to follow instructions may support negligence, but C addresses battery directly.

19. A real estate agent showed a couple a home she described as “fully renovated from top to bottom.” She emphasized the new plumbing and roof, noting the home’s inspection record as “flawless.” The couple relied on her statements and purchased the home. After moving in, they discovered water damage in the attic and mold growth behind bathroom walls. The inspection had shown prior flooding that had been concealed with cosmetic repairs — a fact the agent had access to but did not disclose.

The couple sued the agent for misrepresentation, alleging that she knowingly made false statements that induced the purchase. The agent claimed she simply repeated the seller’s language and that her comments reflected general sales talk. Local rules impose liability for negligent misrepresentation when professionals offer material factual statements to induce reliance in commercial transactions.

Under these facts, which theory of liability is most likely to succeed?

Intentional misrepresentation, because the agent deliberately concealed the mold.
Strict liability, because the agent sold a defective product.
Negligent misrepresentation, because the agent failed to verify material information.
Commercial disparagement, because the agent devalued other properties by comparison.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: The agent made factual claims about renovations and inspection status with a duty to confirm their accuracy. Her statements went beyond puffery and related to material conditions. Failing to verify or disclose known defects supports negligent misrepresentation, especially in professional contexts.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Intentional misrepresentation requires stronger evidence of knowing deceit.
B Strict liability applies to product manufacturers — not service providers.
D Commercial disparagement addresses false statements about competitors, not sales conduct.

20. A high school allowed students to leave campus for lunch but required written permission from parents for certain neighborhoods considered higher-risk. One student, who had not submitted permission for off-campus travel, left with friends and entered a nearby commercial zone. There, he got into a fight with a food delivery driver and sustained injuries. The student's parents sued the school for negligence, alleging failure to monitor student movement and failure to prevent foreseeable harm.

School records showed the student had previously left campus without approval and that staff had warned him informally. No security personnel were posted during lunch hour, and staff relied on students to follow self-reporting policies. The district's rules stated that off-campus injuries were not the school’s responsibility unless staff had knowledge and failed to act.

The jurisdiction imposes a duty of reasonable supervision on schools during official hours and may hold them liable for failure to control student conduct where risk is foreseeable.

Is the school likely liable?

Yes, because the school failed to prevent a foreseeable risk of off-campus harm.
No, because the student voluntarily violated written policy.
Yes, because the school created the policy but failed to enforce it.
No, because the injury occurred outside school grounds and control.

Correct answer: A

Explanation: Schools owe a duty of reasonable care during school hours. When foreseeable risks arise and students bypass control policies, liability may attach if the institution failed to act. Prior warnings, student history, and lack of monitoring suggest breach.

Why the other options are incorrect:
B Student violation doesn’t negate institutional duty to supervise.
C True in principle, but A better connects duty to harm.
D Control boundaries are flexible when risk flows from supervised context.

21. A professional cycling coach was leading a training session on public roads when one of his students lost control and crashed into a jogger on a pedestrian path. The coach had instructed riders to practice tight group maneuvers and failed to post a spotter where the bike path intersected with the jogging lane. A bystander later testified that collisions often occurred at that junction and that local clubs usually assign marshals for safety.

The jogger sued the coach for negligence, arguing that he breached the standard of care by failing to follow industry custom and ensure safe conditions during high-speed training. The coach responded that posting a spotter was a voluntary precaution, not required under any rule or regulation. He also stated that he was several yards ahead of the group and couldn't predict the accident.

The jurisdiction recognizes that custom may inform the standard of care but does not make it conclusive. Courts consider whether a defendant's departure from typical precautions renders the conduct unreasonable under the circumstances.

Is the coach likely liable for negligence?

Yes, because his group created a foreseeable risk to others in a shared public space.
No, because custom does not conclusively determine negligence.
Yes, because failure to assign a safety spotter constitutes breach of duty.
No, because the rider who crashed was independently responsible for his conduct.

Correct answer: B

Explanation: While industry custom can serve as evidence of what a reasonable person would do, it is not conclusive. A coach may breach the duty of care without violating custom, and conversely, adherence to custom doesn’t guarantee reasonableness. The fact that marshals are common suggests a precaution, not a standard.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A True in principle, but it’s incomplete—B better captures the nuance of how custom influences duty.
C Spotters may be smart, but the absence of one doesn't prove breach alone.
D Delegating responsibility doesn’t absolve leaders when group dynamics pose risk.

22. A pilot flying a small private aircraft experienced sudden engine failure and made an emergency landing in a large, fenced backyard owned by a homeowner in a remote residential area. The pilot exited the plane unharmed and began calling for assistance on his phone. The homeowner, who had witnessed the landing from inside, shouted aggressively at the pilot and immediately ordered his two guard dogs—trained to attack trespassers—to be released into the yard. The dogs bit the pilot repeatedly before emergency responders arrived.

The homeowner defended his actions by pointing to numerous “No Trespassing” and “Beware of Dog” signs posted around the perimeter. He asserted that he believed the pilot was trespassing and posed a threat, and claimed that using dogs was a standard method of property protection. The pilot sued for battery and personal injury, arguing that his entry was justified by necessity and that the homeowner responded with unprovoked and disproportionate force.

The jurisdiction recognizes the defense of private necessity, allowing emergency landings onto private property without liability for trespass. However, it limits landowner privileges in responding to such entries, holding them liable if they intentionally inflict physical harm on individuals whose presence is legally excused.

Is the homeowner likely liable?

No, because the pilot failed to heed clearly posted warning signs.
No, because the pilot’s entry made him a trespasser regardless of intent.
Yes, because using guard dogs constitutes disproportionate force.
Yes, because ordering an attack on someone protected by the privilege of necessity is legally unjustified.

Correct answer: D

Explanation: The pilot’s emergency landing qualifies as privileged entry under the doctrine of private necessity. While the homeowner may protect property from unlawful entry, the use of attack dogs to intentionally injure someone acting lawfully exceeds what is permissible. The pilot is likely to succeed on a claim of battery.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Signs do not override legal privilege.
B Necessity negates the trespass classification.
C While accurate in effect, D better expresses the legal rule about intentional harm against privileged entrants.

23. A fitness company released a new line of resistance bands with adjustable tension settings. One model snapped during use and injured a consumer’s eye, causing partial loss of vision. The consumer sued the manufacturer for strict products liability, alleging a design defect that made the band unsafe under foreseeable conditions. The manufacturer argued that the band was properly tested and the injury resulted from improper anchoring during setup.

At trial, both sides presented expert testimony. The plaintiff’s expert demonstrated that similar bands on the market used reinforced stitching, which would have prevented the breakage. The manufacturer’s expert stated that the failure was statistically rare and that the product met durability standards. Evidence showed that dozens of similar complaints had been filed over six months.

The jurisdiction applies the consumer expectation test for design defect claims: products must be safe for intended use and not carry dangers beyond what an ordinary consumer would anticipate.

Is the manufacturer likely strictly liable?

No, because the band was misused during anchoring.
No, because the injury was unforeseeable and rare.
Yes, because the consumer used the band in a normal manner and was injured by a latent design defect.
Yes, because other manufacturers used safer stitching methods.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: A product fails the consumer expectation test if it poses a danger beyond what ordinary users reasonably expect. The band was used normally, and snapping under tension is not expected. Multiple reports and expert comparisons support the claim of defective design.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Use was within intended scope — anchoring errors were denied.
B Rarity doesn’t negate strict liability for defect.
D Safer alternatives support risk analysis but don’t solely determine liability.

24. A hospital allowed a documentary crew to film inside its emergency department for a program about public health infrastructure. One segment included footage of a patient in distress being wheeled into a trauma bay, followed by a close-up of her face and her spoken name. The segment aired without consent from the patient or her family. The patient later filed a lawsuit, claiming invasion of privacy and emotional harm.

The hospital responded that the footage was captured in a public facility, that the patient’s arrival occurred in a hallway accessible to staff and passersby, and that the documentary had public value. The jurisdiction recognizes the tort of public disclosure of private facts, requiring that the information be highly offensive to a reasonable person and not of legitimate public concern.

Which factor most strongly supports the patient’s claim?

The hallway where the footage was captured was not technically private.
The documentary focused on emergency systems, not personal conditions.
The patient's identity and medical distress were revealed without consent.
The hospital allowed filming under general institutional guidelines.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: Public disclosure of private facts occurs when sensitive personal information is exposed without consent. Broadcasting the patient’s face, name, and condition crosses that line, especially where the medical details are not necessary to inform the public interest in emergency policy.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Legal access to space doesn’t erase privacy rights over identity and health.
B Public value does not override offensiveness and privacy harm.
D Institutional policy doesn’t cure liability for failure to obtain patient consent.

25. A diagnostic clinic placed a patient on a raised imaging table for a routine scan and asked him to remain still while the technician adjusted equipment controls in an adjoining room. The patient fainted during the brief absence and fell from the platform, suffering a fractured arm and concussion. The table had no safety rails or padding and was positioned near a sharp corner of the room. No emergency protocols were triggered, and logs showed the technician had skipped daily safety checks.

The clinic argued that fainting was a medical event outside their control and that the technician followed normal procedure. The patient sued, alleging negligence and invoking res ipsa loquitur, claiming the incident occurred under conditions unlikely to happen absent negligence, and that the equipment and surroundings were wholly under the clinic’s control.

The jurisdiction permits res ipsa loquitur when the injury is of a type that does not ordinarily occur without negligence, the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the harm.

Should the court allow the claim to proceed under res ipsa loquitur?

Yes, because unattended elevation poses a foreseeable risk of injury.
No, because fainting is a spontaneous, unpredictable condition.
Yes, because the patient’s injury resulted from clinic-controlled equipment and inadequate precautions.
No, because medical environments require expert testimony to establish breach.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: The conditions satisfy res ipsa loquitur: the injury would not ordinarily occur without negligent supervision and setup; the platform and room layout were under exclusive clinic control; and the patient had no opportunity to protect himself. The absence of rails and ignored safety checks further justify allowing the case to proceed.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A While true in principle, C better reflects the complete doctrine.
B Spontaneous health events don’t excuse foreseeable equipment-related injury.
D Expert testimony is helpful but not required for res ipsa to apply.

26. A man attended a professional motocross exhibition as a spectator. The event featured elevated jumps and tight turns surrounded by low fencing. The man crossed over a barrier to take a selfie near the track and stood close to the outer curve. A rider lost control during the next lap and crashed into the fence, hitting the man and causing serious injuries. The rider’s bike met all safety standards and the fence had been placed as required under municipal code.

The man sued the event organizers and the rider for negligence. The defendants argued that the man had assumed the risk by entering a restricted zone marked “Track Personnel Only,” and that the accident was unforeseeable due to the rider’s split-second swerve. The plaintiff responded that inadequate supervision and barrier placement led to his injury.

The jurisdiction applies pure comparative fault and recognizes that plaintiffs may recover even when their own conduct contributed to the harm, but it also honors the affirmative defense of express or implied assumption of risk where supported by the facts.

Is the plaintiff likely to recover damages?

No, because the rider acted reasonably under the circumstances.
No, because assumption of risk bars recovery for voluntary exposure to danger.
Yes, because his injuries stemmed from breach of safety standards.
Yes, because comparative fault permits partial recovery even when the plaintiff contributed to the injury.

Correct answer: D

Explanation: Under pure comparative fault, plaintiffs may recover damages even when partially responsible. The man entered a restricted zone, but event organizers still owed a duty to protect against foreseeable risks in areas accessible to the public. His conduct may reduce recovery but does not bar it.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A The rider’s reasonableness doesn’t excuse organizational negligence.
B Assumption of risk may apply, but D reflects the governing recovery rule.
C Safety standards were reportedly met — breach isn’t clearly shown.

27. A beach resort featured a secluded cabana area reserved for private events. One afternoon, a guest wandered into the space to look at the ocean view and sat briefly in a lounge chair. A resort employee asked him to leave, but the guest remained while talking on the phone. After several minutes, the employee placed a hand on the guest’s shoulder and physically guided him to the edge of the property.

The guest later sued the resort for battery and trespass, asserting that he had not been warned about restrictions and had been touched without consent. The resort argued that the area was marked as private and that its employee used minimal force to escort the guest out. Testimony confirmed that the sign near the entrance read “Event Cabana – No Public Access,” and that the guest had passed a small rope divider.

The jurisdiction defines battery as harmful or offensive physical contact made without privilege or consent. Trespass requires unauthorized entry onto land, but minimal contact in removing a trespasser may be privileged where reasonable force is used.

Is the resort likely liable for battery?

Yes, because the guest was touched without permission.
No, because he was a paying guest of the property.
Yes, because no physical harm occurred.
No, because the employee used proportionate, privileged force to remove a trespasser.

Correct answer: D

Explanation: Landowners may use reasonable, non-threatening physical contact to remove trespassers. The employee gently guided the guest off restricted property — this action qualifies as privileged under common law. No excessive force or harmful contact was used.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Consent is typically required, but privilege permits reasonable physical guidance.
B Guest status doesn't grant unlimited access.
C Battery requires either harm or offense — and privilege negates liability here.

28. A man bought a portable camping stove and used it on a family outing. While igniting it, the device released an unexpectedly large burst of flame, burning his hand. The stove operated as designed but included no warnings about how wind conditions could affect flame behavior during ignition. The packaging mentioned "use outdoors only," but did not caution users to block wind or stand away when lighting.

The man sued the manufacturer for failure to warn, alleging that the product was unreasonably dangerous in foreseeable outdoor conditions. The company argued that the stove performed properly and that wind is a variable users are expected to monitor. Evidence showed several similar injuries had occurred during breezy conditions and that other brands provided wind-specific safety instructions.

The jurisdiction applies standard products liability principles and requires manufacturers to provide adequate warnings about non-obvious risks associated with foreseeable uses of their products.

Is the manufacturer likely liable?

Yes, because the stove emitted excessive flame.
Yes, because failure to warn of wind-related ignition danger made the product unreasonably dangerous.
No, because the stove functioned properly.
No, because flame injuries are a known risk of outdoor appliances.

Correct answer: B

Explanation: Even when a product functions as designed, failure to warn of foreseeable risks — like dangerous ignition behavior in outdoor wind — can support liability. The lack of specific caution in an outdoor-use product creates exposure to injury and makes the warning inadequate.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Flame intensity alone isn’t determinative without context.
C Proper operation doesn’t cure failure to warn.
D Known risks must be disclosed unless they are obvious.

29. A bakery filed a lawsuit against a rival coffee shop that had recently hired one of its managers. The bakery alleged that the manager had taken proprietary recipes and supplier lists to the new employer, who then began marketing goods that mimicked the bakery’s menu. Customers testified they had switched loyalties after noticing near-identical pastries and prices.

The coffee shop argued that it had not solicited any confidential information and that its new product line was based on general baking knowledge and widely available ingredients. The manager denied copying anything and claimed the recipes were based on personal experience and tweaks made independently over time. Internal messages showed encouragement from the coffee shop owner to “match the bakery’s look and taste.”

Under these facts, which legal theory most directly supports the bakery’s claim?

Defamation, because false impressions were created about originality.
Intentional interference with contractual relations.
Misappropriation of trade secrets.
Nuisance, due to disruption of business harmony.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: Trade secret misappropriation includes using confidential commercial information taken from a competitor — such as recipes and supplier data — to gain advantage. While recipes can be non-secret, supplier lists and proprietary preparation methods often qualify. The coffee shop’s coordinated replication and prior employment relationship support the claim.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Defamation requires public false statements, which were not made.
B No direct contractual interference with third parties was shown.
D Nuisance relates to land use or community harm, not competitive practices.

30. A homeowner allowed a neighbor to use her pool on weekends. One Saturday, the neighbor invited a friend — without asking the homeowner — and the friend slipped on wet tiles near the pool stairs, breaking his arm. The tiles had become slick from sunscreen residue and puddling, but the homeowner had not cleaned the area or posted warnings. She argued she was unaware of the friend’s visit and had no duty toward someone she didn’t invite.

The injured party sued, alleging the pool area was dangerous due to negligent maintenance. The homeowner argued that the friend was an unknown licensee and that she had not actively created the hazard. Evidence showed the homeowner routinely allowed neighbors to bring guests and had previously been told about the slipperiness near the stairs.

The jurisdiction applies traditional landowner rules, requiring owners to warn licensees of known, non-obvious dangers on their property.

Is the homeowner likely liable?

Yes, because the pool was inherently dangerous and unsupervised.
No, because she had no knowledge of the hazard.
Yes, because she failed to warn a licensee of a known, slippery condition.
No, because the visitor was not directly invited.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: Landowners must warn licensees — even indirect guests — about known hazards. The homeowner knew the tile area became slippery and had allowed similar visitors before. Her failure to remedy or warn supports liability under standard licensee rules.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Pools pose risk, but liability turns on known hazards.
B Evidence showed prior knowledge.
D Direct invitation isn’t necessary for licensee status if entry was foreseeable and permitted.

31. A delivery driver entered a gated industrial complex to pick up a scheduled shipment. After parking in the designated area, he walked through a rear corridor to locate the loading dock. Unbeknownst to him, the corridor lights had been shut off for maintenance, and the floor had recently been mopped, leaving a slick surface. There were no warning signs posted near the entrance, and the corridor had no windows or alternate lighting. The driver slipped and suffered a knee injury that required surgery.

The property manager argued that the driver was a licensee, not an invitee, and that the building had been closed for renovations, so no duty was owed. However, the delivery had been confirmed by email that morning, and employees onsite expected the pickup. The driver sued for negligence, asserting that the complex owed him a duty to warn of hidden dangers, especially when they requested his presence.

The jurisdiction applies traditional premises liability rules, classifying individuals invited for business purposes as invitees and requiring landowners to exercise reasonable care to protect them from dangerous conditions not readily observable.

Is the complex likely liable?

No, because the driver voluntarily entered a non-lit area.
No, because licensees must inspect surroundings for their own safety.
Yes, because hidden hazards triggered a duty to warn invitees.
Yes, because the delivery confirmation established a contractual duty of care.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: The driver was a business invitee, and the complex had a duty to warn of hidden dangers such as a dark, freshly mopped floor. Failing to post signs or supply lighting breached this duty. Invitees rely on the landowner’s care to identify risks that aren’t obvious.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Voluntary entry doesn’t eliminate the landowner’s duty.
B Invitees are owed more protection than licensees.
D Contractual duty may exist, but liability arises from premises negligence.

32. A street performer with a permit set up his act near a crowded café patio. His routine included juggling flaming torches, and a strong gust of wind blew one torch off course, striking a patron and burning her arm. Witnesses said the performer had noted the wind but continued anyway. The performer claimed the injury was an accident and argued that his permit granted permission for public performance.

The patron sued for negligence and battery, claiming that the performer acted recklessly by proceeding under unsafe conditions. The city permit required performers to cease activities during inclement weather or when public safety could be compromised. Footage showed several spectators moving away minutes before the incident.

The jurisdiction imposes liability when intentional acts or reckless disregard for safety lead to foreseeable physical harm, even if the setting is public and the activity authorized.

Is the performer likely liable?

Yes, because continuing the act in windy conditions created a foreseeable risk of injury.
No, because he acted within the scope of his permit.
No, because patrons assumed the risk by remaining in the area.
Yes, because juggling with fire qualifies as an abnormally dangerous activity.

Correct answer: A

Explanation: The performer was authorized to perform but had a duty to modify or suspend his act under dangerous conditions. Proceeding with flaming torches in high wind near patrons is unreasonable and breaches that duty. The injury was foreseeable and preventable.

Why the other options are incorrect:
B Permits do not shield against negligence.
C Assumption of risk requires full awareness — spectators lacked detailed knowledge.
D Abnormally dangerous classification doesn’t apply to public entertainment activities.

33. A manufacturer released a new hairdryer with adjustable temperature settings. The device passed all safety testing, but several consumers reported burns on the highest setting after brief use. One woman suffered second-degree burns to her scalp and sued the manufacturer under a design defect theory. She used the product according to instructions and maintained normal distance while drying.

At trial, experts testified that comparable dryers capped heat output lower, and that this model lacked an auto-shutoff feature when surface temperature exceeded a threshold. The manufacturer argued that the product met technical standards and carried standard warnings about high heat exposure. It asserted that the risk was known and avoidable with proper care.

The jurisdiction applies the risk-utility test in design defect cases, balancing product usefulness against the risk of harm, and considering availability of safer designs.

Is the manufacturer likely liable?

No, because the plaintiff did not read the product manual.
Yes, because safer alternative designs existed and the risk outweighed the utility.
No, because the injuries were mild and temporary.
Yes, because the warnings were insufficiently prominent.

Correct answer: B

Explanation: The risk-utility test examines whether the product's design imposed unreasonable danger relative to its benefit. Here, safer alternatives existed, and expert testimony indicated that risks from heat were foreseeable and preventable. The plaintiff used the product normally, strengthening her claim.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Manual reading does not negate liability when risks are tied to design.
C Severity does not determine whether a defect exists.
D Warning adequacy matters, but this claim is about inherent design.

34. A public interest group organized a protest outside a corporate headquarters and handed out flyers urging customers to boycott the company. One of the flyers falsely stated that the company used child labor overseas, citing a fabricated article. Several clients canceled contracts within days. The company sued the organizers for economic harm, asserting intentional interference with business relationships.

The organizers defended their actions as political speech and claimed that no contracts were specifically targeted. However, discovery revealed emails showing they intended to “pressure suppliers” and “disrupt operations until change happens.” The jurisdiction protects protest speech but allows claims against parties who knowingly publish false information to interfere with business.

Is the group likely liable?

No, because public protests are protected by the First Amendment.
No, because the company failed to show actual contract losses.
Yes, because knowingly publishing false information to harm business relations creates liability.
Yes, because peaceful protest is not a defense to economic harm.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: Intentional interference requires a knowing disruption of contractual or economic relations through wrongful means. Publishing false accusations with the intent to harm business partners meets that threshold. Political motive does not shield against liability when false statements cause financial loss.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Protection ends when speech includes deliberate falsehoods.
B Contract cancellations were documented.
D Peaceful protest alone doesn’t create liability — falsehood does.

35. A woman attending a dinner party at a friend’s home excused herself to the restroom. As she entered, the tile floor was wet from a leaking pipe under the sink. There was no rug or towel to absorb moisture, and no sign warning of the hazard. She slipped and broke her wrist. The host had noticed the leak that morning but delayed calling a plumber.

The guest sued for negligence. The host responded that the guest was a social visitor, not a business invitee, and argued that a puddle under a sink was obvious. Evidence showed the bathroom light was dim and the tile reflective, making the moisture hard to detect. The jurisdiction treats social guests as licensees, requiring landowners to warn of known, latent dangers not visible upon reasonable inspection.

Is the host likely liable?

No, because the guest had a duty to watch for wet surfaces.
Yes, because licensees must be warned of hidden, known hazards.
No, because broken pipes are not reasonably preventable.
Yes, because failing to clean or mark a known puddle breaches the duty to licensees.

Correct answer: D

Explanation: The host knew about the leak and took no steps to warn or mitigate the hazard. Licensees must be informed of concealed risks the owner knows about. The puddle was not easily visible, and the injury occurred due to this failure.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A General awareness doesn’t cover concealed dangers.
B True in principle, but D better connects breach to the facts.
C Plumbing failure isn’t the issue—lack of warning is.

36. A new amusement park built a multi-level obstacle course with swinging ropes, narrow planks, and rotating barrels. Participants signed a waiver acknowledging “inherent risks of physical contact, falling, and environmental exposure.” One guest, while moving between obstacles, slipped and fell from a platform due to a loose board, suffering spinal injuries. Maintenance logs showed that the board had come loose two days earlier and that a technician had flagged it for immediate repair—but no action had been taken.

The guest sued for negligence, arguing that the waiver did not release the park from liability for known hazards that could be corrected through reasonable maintenance. The park countered that participants accepted the risk by signing and that safety briefings warned of potential instability during movement. Staff testimony revealed that park policy required daily inspections, but logs showed gaps over the prior week.

The jurisdiction enforces express assumption of risk when participants knowingly accept dangers inherent in recreational activities, but does not allow waivers to excuse negligence related to correctable premises hazards.

Is the park likely liable?

No, because the guest voluntarily undertook a risky activity.
No, because she was warned about potential falls during briefings.
Yes, because the waiver did not cover failure to repair a known condition.
Yes, because obstacle courses are subject to strict liability in recreation law.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: While guests may assume the inherent risks of activities like obstacle navigation, they do not waive liability for preventable hazards that fall under basic maintenance duties. The park failed to repair a flagged defect, making the waiver ineffective as a defense.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Assumption of risk does not excuse negligent failure to fix known dangers.
B Warnings cannot substitute for repair of specific, identifiable hazards.
D Strict liability does not generally apply to amusement attractions.

37. A teenager borrowed his sister’s scooter and rode it to the local mall. While weaving through parked cars, he clipped the side mirror of a vehicle and fell, striking his head against the pavement. He was wearing earbuds and did not hear a pedestrian yelling to warn him about broken pavement nearby. The pedestrian had spotted a large crack earlier and stood nearby after alerting mall security, who had not yet responded.

The boy’s parents sued the pedestrian, claiming negligence for failing to prevent the accident after seeing the hazard. The pedestrian argued he had no special relationship with the teen and had taken reasonable steps by notifying security. The mall acknowledged prior complaints about uneven concrete and was named as a separate defendant.

The jurisdiction imposes a duty to act only where a special relationship exists or the individual creates the risk. Mere observation of a hazard does not trigger legal responsibility absent control, proximity, or knowledge of imminent harm.

Is the pedestrian likely liable?

Yes, because he failed to physically intervene after seeing the hazard.
Yes, because he did not follow up with mall staff or move the teen to safety.
No, because he had no legal duty to control or warn the teen directly.
No, because mall liability supersedes individual responsibility for property defects.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: The pedestrian observed the hazard and took reasonable steps by reporting it. Without a special relationship or control over the situation, he had no legal duty to intervene further. Liability lies with those who maintain or control the premises, not bystanders.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Duty to rescue or intervene doesn’t arise from observation alone.
B Continued action isn’t required absent a triggering relationship.
D Mall liability doesn’t cancel the analysis of others’ legal duty.

38. A man underwent cataract surgery at a clinic that used disposable eye pads and antiseptics during prep. Hours after the procedure, he developed severe redness and pain, later diagnosed as a chemical burn. The antiseptic used contained a compound that had caused irritation in a small percentage of patients in recent trials. The manufacturer had issued an updated warning two months prior, but the clinic had not updated its inventory or protocols.

The patient sued the clinic for negligence in failing to adopt safer antiseptic alternatives and for not warning of the compound’s known risk. The clinic responded that reactions were rare, the product was approved for medical use, and no protocol required substitution unless instructed by regulators. Nurses testified that the clinic hadn’t modified supplies due to cost and convenience.

The jurisdiction recognizes a medical provider’s duty to stay current with safety warnings and minimize known risks to patients, even if products meet regulatory standards.

Is the clinic likely liable?

Yes, because the product caused injury during a medical procedure.
No, because the compound was used in compliance with existing safety regulations.
Yes, because the clinic failed to modify use or warn patients after updated risk information.
No, because product manufacturers bear responsibility for chemical safety.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: Medical providers must monitor safety advisories and inform patients of known risks. Failing to switch from a product after updated warnings—combined with no patient warning—breaches their duty of care. Regulatory compliance alone doesn’t excuse negligence.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Injury alone doesn’t create liability without breach.
B Approval doesn’t override updated safety responsibilities.
D Manufacturer liability does not eliminate provider duty to act on new information.

39. A social media influencer posted a video criticizing a boutique skincare brand, stating that its products “cause allergic reactions and might violate safety standards.” The video contained no scientific references and was based on two anonymous comments received via direct message. Over the next week, the brand lost several wholesale accounts and was inundated with cancellation requests.

The brand sued for defamation, asserting the claims were false and damaging to reputation and business. The influencer argued the video was “opinion content” aimed at sharing community concerns. No product recalls or formal complaints had ever been filed against the brand. The jurisdiction applies standard defamation law and considers statements about commercial entities actionable when false and conveyed as factual.

Which factor most strongly supports the defamation claim?

The influencer used anonymous comments without verification.
The video reached a large audience and affected brand revenue.
The statements were phrased as factual safety violations without disclaimers.
The influencer had previously criticized other brands in similar ways.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: The influencer made specific factual claims about product safety and allergic reactions, implying regulatory violation. Without evidence or disclaimers, such claims are considered false assertions of fact, supporting defamation liability if they cause harm.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Anonymous sources may be unreliable, but liability turns on factual representation.
B Reach amplifies damage but doesn’t establish falsity.
D Past criticism isn’t dispositive in proving liability for the specific content.

40. A teenager attended a friend's pool party at a private residence. While playing near the deep end, he dove in headfirst and struck the bottom, suffering a concussion. There were no depth markings or “No Diving” signs posted, and the host had removed the diving board weeks earlier. Witnesses said the teen was not warned and that multiple guests had jumped in similarly that day.

The host argued that the injury was unforeseeable and that guests understood pool etiquette. The injured teen’s parents sued for negligence, asserting that the host knew the depth posed a risk and failed to warn guests or prevent diving. Evidence showed the pool was unusually shallow near the edges, and that the host had previously cautioned his own children against diving in that area.

The jurisdiction applies standard premises liability for licensees, requiring owners to warn of known, non-obvious dangers. Recreational settings do not eliminate duty to mitigate foreseeable injury risks.

Is the host likely liable?

No, because the teen voluntarily dove without asking about depth.
Yes, because removing the diving board implied warning against diving.
No, because the danger was obvious and commonly known.
Yes, because the host failed to warn of a hidden depth risk he knew could cause injury.

Correct answer: D

Explanation: The host knew the depth posed a risk, had previously cautioned others, and failed to post warnings. Under licensee rules, owners must disclose hidden dangers not apparent to guests. Liability is likely due to the host’s prior knowledge and silence.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Voluntary action doesn’t eliminate landowner’s duty.
B Removing equipment may imply change but does not substitute for warnings.
C Pool depth was not readily visible, especially during active play.

41. A college student began experiencing flu-like symptoms after drinking water from her apartment tap. Testing revealed traces of a harmful contaminant linked to corrosion in old city pipes. She reported the issue to her landlord, who claimed that the apartment’s plumbing met code and that responsibility rested with the city. However, evidence showed the landlord had ignored prior complaints about discolored water and had failed to install filters required under updated tenant safety regulations.

The student sued for negligence, alleging that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. The landlord argued that since the city supplied water and no law mandated private filtration, he was not responsible. Inspection records showed no recent pipe maintenance, and similar complaints were documented from other tenants months earlier.

The jurisdiction requires landlords to take reasonable measures to maintain habitable premises, especially where hazards are known or preventable with minimal burden.

Is the landlord likely liable?

No, because water quality is regulated by public utilities.
Yes, because prior tenant reports made the risk foreseeable.
No, because the student failed to show the contaminant originated on site.
Yes, because housing codes obligate landlords to prevent health risks regardless of municipal responsibility.

Correct answer: B

Explanation: When landlords receive complaints and fail to act on risks that directly affect tenant health, they breach their duty of care. Even if the city provides water, private plumbing systems and maintenance fall under the landlord’s control. Prior reports made the harm foreseeable.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Municipal sourcing doesn’t remove duty over pipes within the residence.
C Source uncertainty may matter, but evidence tied the problem to the premises.
D Safety codes help guide standards, but foreseeability drives this outcome.

42. A store security guard observed a shopper place a lipstick into her purse. Believing she was attempting to steal, he detained her in a back office and questioned her for over an hour. The shopper repeatedly denied wrongdoing and asked to leave, but the guard refused and never contacted the police. Surveillance later showed that the shopper had picked up the lipstick near the register after already paying and placed it in her purse while organizing her bag.

The shopper sued for false imprisonment, alleging that the guard acted without reasonable cause and used excessive detention. The store defended the guard’s actions by citing shopkeeper’s privilege, claiming that the incident warranted investigation and that the shopper was free to explain herself. The guard admitted he did not verify purchase records or review footage before detaining her.

The jurisdiction allows brief detention under shopkeeper’s privilege when the merchant has a reasonable belief of theft and detains the individual for a reasonable time using non-coercive means.

Is the store likely liable?

No, because shopkeeper’s privilege permits questioning of suspected thieves.
Yes, because the guard lacked reasonable cause and prolonged the detention.
Yes, because the shopper did not consent to being detained.
No, because security staff are allowed to investigate suspicious behavior.

Correct answer: B

Explanation: Shopkeeper’s privilege requires reasonable suspicion and limited, respectful detention. The guard failed to verify the incident, extended the detention unnecessarily, and ignored the shopper’s requests to leave. These facts exceed the privilege’s bounds and create liability.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Privilege applies only with proper cause and reasonable duration.
C Lack of consent isn’t dispositive—privilege may override it when used properly.
D Investigation must be grounded in confirmed suspicion and proportionality.

43. A city contracted with a waste removal company to handle hazardous materials. While transporting a shipment of industrial solvent, a truck overturned on a public street, spilling chemicals that caused skin irritation and dizziness among nearby residents. The driver had taken a sharp turn at excessive speed, contrary to route guidelines. Investigation revealed that the company had hired the driver without checking his safety record, which included a prior crash involving chemical transport.

Affected residents filed suit against the waste removal company, alleging negligent hiring. The company responded that the driver was trained and licensed, and that all trucks met federal safety regulations. Records showed the company never verified the driver's prior employment or reviewed his driving history during hiring.

The jurisdiction recognizes negligent hiring claims when employers fail to screen individuals whose roles create risk of harm to the public, especially in dangerous industries.

Is the company likely liable?

No, because the driver held a valid license at the time of the accident.
Yes, because transporting hazardous materials imposes a heightened duty to vet employees.
No, because the company complied with transportation safety standards.
Yes, because the driver's past driving record was inadmissible.

Correct answer: B

Explanation: Companies engaged in high-risk services must exercise heightened caution in hiring. Failing to check driving history—especially in hazardous transport roles—constitutes breach. The resulting spill and injuries connect directly to this hiring negligence.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Licensing shows minimum qualification, not diligence in selection.
C Compliance does not excuse poor hiring practices.
D Record admissibility affects trial evidence, not liability analysis.

44. A café owner installed a high-definition security camera on a pole outside the shop to monitor sidewalk activity and deter loitering. The camera captured footage of neighboring apartment windows, including scenes of residents inside. One tenant discovered that clips of her dancing alone were included in the café’s social media posts advertising neighborhood vibrancy. She never consented and alleged emotional distress and embarrassment.

The owner argued that all footage was taken in public view and that no private information was revealed. However, the camera’s angle made interior views visible through apartment windows, including behavior not intended for public display. The jurisdiction recognizes invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion when visual or auditory surveillance exceeds what is reasonably observable from a public standpoint.

Is the tenant likely to succeed in her claim?

Yes, because the footage disclosed intimate conduct without consent.
No, because the windows were open and visible from the street.
No, because security footage serves a legitimate public purpose.
Yes, because recording private behavior from public space violates reasonable privacy expectations.

Correct answer: D

Explanation: Surveillance is permissible for security, but capturing and sharing footage of private conduct visible only through elevated or intrusive means breaches privacy norms. Recording someone inside their home—even indirectly—is likely actionable when repurposed publicly.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A True in effect, but D better grounds liability in legal doctrine.
B Visibility does not override reasonable privacy expectations.
C Purpose matters, but misuse affects liability more.

45. A man attended a rooftop concert hosted by a luxury hotel. Midway through the event, one of the decorative planters fell from the railing and struck him on the shoulder, causing a fracture. Witnesses said the planter had wobbled earlier, and staff had adjusted it but did not remove it or secure it properly. The hotel claimed that the planter met weight and safety guidelines, and that windy conditions may have contributed.

The man sued for negligence, asserting the hotel failed to inspect or correct a known hazard. Internal reports showed that two staff members had expressed concern about decorative items blowing during previous events. The planter was not anchored, and no barriers had been installed near the edges.

The jurisdiction holds event hosts liable for unsafe conditions in areas where patrons are invited, especially for elevated locations with environmental exposure.

Is the hotel likely liable?

No, because weather was an intervening cause.
Yes, because staff acted within reasonable discretion.
No, because planter placement complied with visual safety design.
Yes, because the hotel failed to secure a visible hazard despite prior concerns.

Correct answer: D

Explanation: Hosts must act on known risks, particularly in elevated public settings. The planter was visibly unstable, prior warnings existed, and no corrective measures were taken. Weather may exacerbate danger, but foreseeable conditions do not eliminate responsibility.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Intervening causes don’t excuse failure to mitigate known hazards.
B Discretion is limited when safety risks are known.
C Design compliance does not override duty to prevent injury.

46. A visitor to a botanical garden was walking near an irrigation pond when a sudden gush from an automated pipe knocked her off balance, causing her to tumble into the shallow water and sustain a broken wrist. The pipe had a timed release feature, and no warning signs were posted in the vicinity. Staff later revealed that the timer had been inconsistent for weeks and that previous near-incidents had been recorded but not addressed.

The garden’s management argued that the area was a natural feature, and visitors were expected to exercise caution near the pond. They stated that the pipe was not defective and operated according to its system schedule, which varied slightly due to water pressure changes. The injured woman sued for negligence, claiming the pond layout and hidden burst risk created an unreasonable hazard to visitors.

The jurisdiction imposes a duty of care on proprietors of recreational spaces, requiring them to mitigate dangers created by artificial conditions not readily apparent to the public.

Is the garden likely liable?

Yes, because the timed pipe release created a hidden danger.
No, because the pond was a natural hazard within a recreational environment.
No, because visitors assume ordinary risks in public spaces.
Yes, because management failed to repair or warn despite prior incidents.

Correct answer: A

Explanation: The pond was natural, but the burst pipe was an artificial hazard that posed an unexpected risk. The absence of warning signage and prior knowledge of timing inconsistencies support liability. Recreational spaces must be made safe against concealed dangers caused by installed equipment.

Why the other options are incorrect:
B The artificial pipe distinguishes this hazard from natural conditions.
C Assumption of risk applies to known or obvious dangers.
D While true in principle, A expresses the correct basis for liability.

47. A pharmacist filled a prescription for a woman with a severe penicillin allergy, substituting a generic antibiotic listed in the same drug class. The substitution was permitted by state law, but the pharmacist overlooked an allergy notice on the patient’s profile. The woman suffered an anaphylactic reaction and was hospitalized. The pharmacy had no internal alert system to block substitutions where allergy warnings were present.

The patient sued the pharmacy for professional negligence. The pharmacy defended the substitution as legal and argued that the allergy warning was available but not flagged prominently. They claimed the patient had previously filled a similar prescription without reaction, but records showed it was a different class of medication.

The jurisdiction applies professional negligence standards to pharmacists, requiring them to act with the care and diligence of a reasonably competent practitioner under similar circumstances.

Is the pharmacy likely liable?

Yes, because the pharmacist failed to check allergy information before substitution.
No, because substitutions within a drug class are legally permitted.
No, because the allergy profile did not block dispensing automatically.
Yes, because generic substitutions are held to a strict liability standard.

Correct answer: A

Explanation: Pharmacists must verify allergy information, especially before substituting medications. The failure to check or act on visible allergy alerts breaches professional duty. Legal substitution rights do not excuse ignoring contraindications, and the pharmacist is likely liable for harm caused.

Why the other options are incorrect:
B Permission to substitute doesn’t override duty to confirm safety.
C System flaws do not excuse individual professional responsibility.
D Strict liability does not apply to dispensing unless product defects are involved.

48. A property owner hired a cleaning service to clear leaves from the gutters of a multi-story home. The technician used a company ladder and set it up on a patch of uneven soil. During use, the ladder slipped, and the technician fell and broke his hip. He sued the property owner, claiming unsafe work conditions and alleging negligence in failing to warn him about unstable ground where past workers had complained.

The owner responded that the technician was an independent contractor and brought his own safety equipment. The owner was not present during the job and had never directly supervised the work. The technician admitted he chose the ladder placement but stated that the area was deceptively firm and appeared safe.

The jurisdiction recognizes that landowners may be liable to independent contractors if they fail to warn about hidden dangers they are aware of and that are not obvious upon reasonable inspection.

Is the property owner likely liable?

No, because independent contractors assume risks associated with their work.
Yes, because the owner had a duty to warn of a known, concealed hazard.
No, because ladder placement was solely the technician’s decision.
Yes, because the contractor brought faulty equipment.

Correct answer: B

Explanation: Even though the technician was an independent contractor, the owner had prior knowledge of unstable soil and failed to warn. The hazard was not readily visible, making the duty to disclose applicable. Landowners must share known dangers that contractors may not detect during routine setup.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Assumption of risk applies to known and obvious dangers.
C Decision-making does not relieve owners of warning duties.
D Faulty equipment wasn’t alleged — the focus is on site conditions.

49. An employee posted anonymous comments on a web forum criticizing his employer’s compensation practices and alleged that the company regularly violated overtime laws. The employer traced the posts through IP records and terminated the employee for “spreading false and damaging information.” The employee sued for defamation and wrongful termination, arguing the allegations were truthful and made anonymously without identifying specific individuals.

The employer responded that the comments harmed its public image and misrepresented its practices. Records showed that the company had previously been fined for overtime violations, but the employee’s exact claims included speculative phrases like “everyone knows they cheat workers.” The jurisdiction distinguishes protected opinion from defamatory fact but allows employers to take disciplinary action against employees for reputational harm even outside the workplace.

What is the strongest basis for the employee’s defamation claim?

The comments were made anonymously and lacked personal identification.
The employer’s disciplinary policy was not disclosed ahead of time.
The company had been fined previously, lending truth to the statements.
The posted statements were factual allegations tied to verifiable misconduct.

Correct answer: D

Explanation: The comments alleged specific legal violations that can be verified and were not merely opinion. Prior fines support the truthfulness of the statements. Defamation claims hinge on whether the remarks were false assertions of fact—and here, they appear accurate.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Anonymity doesn’t preclude liability or protection.
B Company policy isn’t central to a defamation claim.
C Past fines suggest veracity but don’t conclusively prove truth.

50. A couple moved into a newly built home in a development marketed as “quiet and serene.” Within two weeks, loud construction began on an adjacent lot, starting daily at 6 a.m. and including heavy drilling and concrete pouring. The couple reported significant sleep disruption and headaches from the persistent noise. The builder responded that ongoing development was always expected and pointed to disclosures in marketing materials referencing “early phase growth.”

The couple sued the builder for private nuisance. They argued that the noise was excessive, poorly timed, and interfered with reasonable enjoyment of their property. The builder argued that construction was temporary and within zoning allowances, and that other buyers had not complained.

The jurisdiction permits nuisance claims when ongoing activity substantially and unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of residential property, even if the activity is legal.

Is the builder likely liable?

No, because zoning allows daytime construction in residential zones.
No, because other homeowners did not file similar complaints.
Yes, because disruptive construction can constitute nuisance if it impairs property enjoyment.
Yes, because marketing language created a legal guarantee of quiet.

Correct answer: C

Explanation: Nuisance does not require illegality—only substantial and unreasonable interference. Regular drilling at 6 a.m. qualifies as excessive, especially when the builder knew it undermined residents’ peace and failed to mitigate. Marketing claims may bolster expectations, but nuisance rests on actual interference.

Why the other options are incorrect:
A Zoning allows activity but does not preclude nuisance liability.
B Other homeowners’ silence does not negate individual harm.
D Marketing language does not rise to legal warranty.

Item added to your cart

Torts (Exam-level) Question Pack - Questions and Answers

Country/region