Torts
Prof.Duncan
2/16/2016
1.
Defendant,drivingacar,approachesPlaintiff’scar,andproperlystepsonthebrakes.
ForreasonsunrelatedtoanynegligenceonDefendant’spart,herbrakesfailtofunction.Much
tohersurprise,Defendant’scarcontinuesforward,soshequicklypumpsthebrakesagain,but
tonoavail.Defendant’scarcareensintoPlaintiff’scar,injuringPlaintiff.Uponreflecting
calmlyonDefendant’sbrake-failingsituation,abetterchoiceforDefendantwouldhavebeen
forhertoturnhercarquicklytotheright.InPlaintiff’slawsuitagainstDefendantinwhichhe
seekstorecoverfromherinnegligence,willDefendantlikelybeheldliableinnegligence?
a.
Defendantwilllikelynotbeheldliablefornegligenceifinlightofheremergency
circumstancesshebehavedasareasonableprudentperson.
b.
Defendantwilllikelybeheldliableinnegligencebecausesheshouldhavechosenmore
wiselybyturningthecarquicklytotheright.
c.
DefendantwilllikelybeheldliableinnegligenceifshecausedPlaintiff’sinjuries.
d.
Defendantwilllikelynotbeheldliableinnegligencebecauseshewasreactingtoan
emergencysituation.
2.
Defendant,drivingacar,approachesPlaintiff’scar,andproperlystepsonthebrakes.
Defendant’sbrakesfailtofunctionbecauseshecarelesslymaintainedthebrakes.Defendant’s
carcontinuesforward.Inthisemergency,Defendantchoosestosteponthebrakesagain,and
theyfailagain,causingDefendant’scartostrikePlaintiff’scar,injuringPlaintiff.WillDefendant
likelybeheldliablefornegligence?
a.
Defendantwilllikelynotbeheldliablefornegligenceifinlightofheremergency
circumstancesshebehavedasareasonableprudentperson.
b.
Defendantwilllikelybeheldliableinnegligencebecausesheshouldhavechosenbetter
byturningthecarquicklytotheright.
c.
Defendantwilllikelybeheldliableinnegligenceifherbrakesfailedbecauseshe
unreasonablyfailedtoproperlymaintainherbrakes.
d.
Defendantwilllikelynotbeheldliableinnegligencebecauseshewasreactingtoan
emergencysituation.
3.
JudgeLearnedHand’sformulaB<PxLisanalgebraicattempttodescribe:
a.
thestandardofcareinanegligenceaction.
b.
whatthereasonableprudentpersonwouldhavedoneunderthesameorsimilar
circumstances.
c.
dutyinanegligenceaction.
d.
a,b,andcareallcorrect.
1
Explanation–AiscorrectbecausethestandardofcareinanegligenceactioniswhatJudge
Hand’sformulawasexpressing.
Biscorrectbecausewhatthereasonableprudentpersonwouldhavedoneunderthesameor
similarcircumstancesisonewaytocharacterizeJudgeHand’salgebraicformula.
CiscorrectbecauseJudgeHand’sformulacharacterizesthedutyofcareinanegligenceaction.
DiscorrectbecausebecauseA,B,andCareallcorrect.
4.
CurtiswasaguestatHotelwhereat9:00p.m.oneeveningtherewasapoweroutage
thatdeprivedHotelofelectricity.Astherewasnoemergencylightinginhisdarkroom,Curtis
fellandinjuredhimself.CurtissuedHotelforhisinjuries,allegingthatHotelwasnegligentin
nothavinginexpensivebattery-poweredlightingfixturesinstalledinitsguestrooms.Curtis
allegesthatifhisroomhadsuchafixture,hewouldhaveavoidedinjury.Theonlyexpertto
testifyattrialexplainsthatatthetimeofCurtis’sinjury,itwasnotcustomaryinthehotel
industryforin-roomemergencylightingofthissorttobeprovided.MayHotelbesubjectto
liabilityinnegligencealthoughifitwasincompliancewithcustomaryhotelindustrystandards
bynotprovidingin-roomemergencylighting?
a.
No,theevidenceofHotel’scompliancewithcustomaryhotelindustrystandards,bynot
providingin-roomemergencylighting,isconclusiveproofthatHotelwasnotnegligent.
b.
Yes,theevidenceofHotel’scompliancewithcustomaryhotelindustrystandardsis
legallyirrelevantindeterminingwhetherHotelwasnegligent.
c.
Yes,HotelmaybeliableforCurtis’sinjuriesdespitetheindustrycustomifrequiring
emergencylightinginhotelroomsisreasonablewithrespecttotheriskofguestsinjuring
themselvesduringapoweroutage.
d.
No,HotelmaybeliableforCurtis’sinjuriesdespitetheindustrycustomsbecauseCurtis
wasinjuredinoneofHotel’sroomthroughnofaultofhisown.
5.
CharlesisaguestinHeightsHotel.Thebathroominthehotelincludesashower,which
isprotectedbyaslidingdoormadeofordinaryglass.Whiletakingashower,Charlestripsand
fallsontheglassdoor,causingittoshatter.TheshardsofglasscutCharlescausingserious
injuries.Itisastandardpracticeamonghotelstouseshatterproof,safetyglassratherthan
ordinaryglassatshowerenclosures.InanegligenceactionbroughtbyCharlesagainstHeights
Hotel,whateffect,ifany,willHotel’sdeparturefromtheindustrycustomhaveonHotel’s
negligence?
a.
HeightsHotel’sdeparturefromthiscustomisevidenceofitsnegligence.
b.
HeightsHotel’sdeparturefromthiscustomisconclusiveproofofitsnegligence.
c.
EvidenceofHeightsHotel’sdeparturefromthisindustrycustomislegallyirrelevantto
theissueofitsnegligence.
d.
DespiteevidenceofthatHeightsHoteldisregardedcustom,HeightsHotelmaynotbe
subjecttoliabilityinnegligencebecauseCharlestrippedandfell,causinghisinjuries.
2