Tort Law Concepts Quiz

Unintentional events resulting in injuries, death, and property damage. They can occur with or without fault.

A legal concept where liability is imposed regardless of fault. The focus is on causation between an action and the harm.

A legal wrong that results in harm to another. It's about protecting people from harm, not just preventing accidents.

A type of tort where the defendant intended to cause the harm or knew with substantial certainty that their actions would cause harm.

A type of tort where the defendant did not intend to cause harm but acted negligently, leading to the plaintiff's injuries.

A legal concept where a defendant is held liable for harm caused if they acted recklessly, disregarding a high risk of serious harm.

Legal responsibilities or obligations that one party owes to another to act with reasonable care to avoid potential harm.

A defense to a claim that negates liability by proving that the defendant acted reasonably in the circumstances or the plaintiff's own actions contributed to the harm.

A legal doctrine that expands product liability beyond just the customer who purchased the product to include anyone harmed by the product's defect, even bystanders.

A legal principle that holds individuals accountable for potential harm caused by their actions or inactions. It mandates acting reasonably to prevent foreseeable injuries to others.

Legal exceptions to the general principle of reasonable care, often applied to specific situations or relationships.

An unintentional tort where a defendant's negligence leads to another person's injury.

A category of damages awarded to compensate for actual losses suffered due to an injury or harm, often from an accident or negligence.

A category of damages awarded to punish wrongdoers for malicious, reckless, or egregious misconduct beyond compensating the injured party.

A question of law determined by the court, based on policy considerations.

Did the defendant's actions fall below the standard of care owed to the plaintiff?

Is there a causal connection between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injury?

Did the defendant's duty encompass the general type of harm suffered by the plaintiff?

Legally recognized losses the plaintiff suffered due to the defendant's breach of duty.

The burden of proving each element of a negligence claim rests on the plaintiff.

Presenting evidence to establish the elements of a negligence claim.

Persuading the jury that the plaintiff has met the burden of proof.

The defendant can succeed if the plaintiff fails to prove any of the elements of a negligence claim.

Duty of care can arise if a defendant creates a risk of harm.

Duty of care can arise if a special relationship exists between the defendant and the plaintiff.

Duty of care can arise if the defendant violates a law or regulation.

Foreseeability is not a factor when determining duty, as duty is a policy decision.

A legal concept that defines the relationship between a parent and their child, typically involving rights and duties.

A category that classifies individuals entering someone else's property based on the nature of their presence and the duty owed to them.

An individual who is invited onto a property for the potential benefit of both the landowner and the invitee, which often involves a mutual benefit for both parties.

A person who enters a property with the permission of the landowner for a purpose other than business or economic benefit, such as a social guest.

Individuals who enter property without any form of permission or legal right to do so.

This duty refers to the legal obligations a landowner has to an invitee, including preventing harm from traps, willful or wanton misconduct, and informing them about known potentially harmful conditions.

The landowner's duty to licensees encompasses preventing harm from traps and intentional or reckless misconduct, along with informing them of conditions the landowner knows could cause harm.

The duty owed to trespassers is limited to preventing harm from traps and willful or wanton misconduct, but doesn't extend to the landowner's knowledge of potential dangers.

In this legal situation, the plaintiff argued that the landowner, American Industries, created a hazardous condition through the defective railing.

American Industries argued that Johnathan was a trespasser because they were unaware of his presence and had not granted him permission to be on the property. They further argued there was no expectation for non-employees to be on the property.

The court determined that Johnathan was a licensee, not an invitee, due to American Industries' lack of knowledge regarding the defective staircase.

This legal concept explores whether a landowner can be held liable for injuries to individuals on their property if they were not specifically invited for mutual benefit but were present due to other factors, such as being a child of a tenant or a visitor to a public building.

The 'Carlisle rule' expands the invitee status to include members of the public invited into a public building, but the court determined that the building in question was not a public building, making it inapplicable

The court rejected the Ruvalcabas' argument that Johnathan was an 'attractive nuisance,' a claim that would have considered the building's features potentially luring children, as they failed to provide any evidence supporting this claim.

The court concluded that American Industries was not negligent because Johnathan was not classified as an invitee, and therefore, as either a licensee or trespasser, the burden of proof for negligence on the landowner's part was not met.

A legal doctrine that extends invitee status to members of the public visiting a public building. This means that the owner of the building has a duty to warn visitors of potential dangers, regardless of whether the visitor is a traditional invitee, licensee, or trespasser.

A landowner's duty to a social guest (licensee) is to warn them of known dangers that could cause harm. This duty exists even if the landowner does not know the cause of the danger, as long as they know the condition exists and could cause harm.

A landmark case that eliminated the traditional landowner/occupier trichotomy, replacing it with a general duty of reasonable care for all persons on the land, regardless of their status as invitee, licensee, or trespasser.

A legal defense that argues the plaintiff contributed to their own injuries by failing to exercise reasonable care for their own safety. It's a partial defense, meaning it can reduce the defendant's liability, but not eliminate it.

An exception to the trespasser duty rule that applies when a dangerous condition on the land is likely to attract children, creating a risk of injury. This duty typically applies to landowners, but can also extend to occupiers.

A legal concept that emphasizes the importance of preventing future harm. It's a key principle in tort law, shaping rules around liability and duty of care.

The person who owns the land. They have legal rights and responsibilities related to the land and its use.

The person who possesses and occupies the land. This can be the owner, a tenant, or someone else who has control over the land's use and maintenance.

A legal relationship where people voluntarily agree to participate in a common undertaking, creating a duty to care for each other's safety.

A legal duty that arises when someone actively takes on the responsibility of caring for another person's safety, even if there is no underlying legal obligation.

A legal concept that describes actual connection between a defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries. It means the injuries wouldn't have occurred without the defendant's conduct.

A legal duty to act to assist someone in danger, even though there is no prior relationship, if you create or contribute to the danger by starting to provide aid and then stopping.

A legal concept where a person is responsible for harm caused by their actions, even without intending to cause harm, if they fail to act with reasonable care. This is the basis for most negligence lawsuits.

A legal relationship that creates a duty of care, such as a parent to their child or a jailer to a prisoner.

A legal obligation arising when a person creates a dangerous situation, even without intending to do so, and has a duty to take reasonable action to prevent harm to others.

A legal concept where a defendant can argue that they had no duty to act because the plaintiff, who was a professional in a specific field, understood the risks involved and made a conscious decision to act despite the danger.

A legal doctrine that establishes a psychotherapist's duty to warn potential victims when a patient poses a serious threat of harm to another person.

A legal principle that applies to a person who begins to provide aid to someone in danger, and then stops, potentially leaving them in a worse position. This creates a legal duty to continue providing aid until a qualified professional takes over.

A situation where a defendant may have a duty to act because, although they did not initially create the dangerous situation, they became aware of it and failed to take steps to prevent harm.

This test considers all circumstances surrounding a situation, including the nature, location, and prior incidents. It helps determine if a landowner had a duty to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable criminal acts.

This legal concept emphasizes the duty of care owed by professionals, like medical professionals or financial advisors, to act in the best interest of their clients and to provide accurate information and advice.

A legal concept where a person is considered a visitor invited onto a property for a specific purpose, usually related to the landowner's business or activity. This category comes with a higher duty of care from the landowner.

The defendant's argument against the Tarasoff Doctrine, claiming that therapists owe no duty to warn third parties.

A legal concept where the court evaluates the defendant's actions against the standard of care, which is how a reasonable person would have acted in a similar situation, to determine whether they were negligent.

The concept that a person cannot be held liable for harm caused by another person's actions unless they had a legal duty to act or prevent the harm from occurring.

A legal document filed in court by a party who is not directly involved in the case but has a relevant interest. It provides additional information or arguments to assist the court in making a decision.

This legal concept refers to situations where a defendant who is aware of a danger takes a calculated risk, knowing the potential consequences, and their actions can then be considered reckless. This is a more serious level of negligence.

A legal standard used to determine if a landowner owed a duty of care to protect an invitee from criminal activity. It requires proving that specific similar crimes happened on the property before.

The legal doctrine that holds a business owner responsible for protecting customers from predictable criminal attacks on their property.

This principle applies to property owners and occupiers, particularly when the property itself poses a danger. It imposes a duty to warn visitors of hazards on the property that could lead to injury.

A type of legal action where a group of people with similar grievances sue a defendant together.

A landmark legal case that established that a psychotherapist who learns of a patient's dangerous intent to harm another has a duty to warn the potential victim. This case expanded the duty of care beyond specific relationships.

A legal doctrine that establishes a landowner's liability for injuries suffered by an invitee due to criminal acts. This principle recognizes the importance of taking reasonable precautions to prevent predictable risks.

The legal concept that a person's actions or omissions can be considered negligent if they create a risk of harm to someone else.

An exception to the general duty principle of reasonable care, applied in specific situations or relationships. These limitations may arise from considerations like public policy or the nature of the relationship.

A legal doctrine that requires a psychotherapist to warn potential victims when their patient poses a serious threat of harm to another person. This legal responsibility balances the need for patient confidentiality with the protection of potential victims.

The defendant's argument in the case, claiming that they did not owe Johnson a duty of care to protect her from Motz's criminal act. This argument is based on the claim that the act was unforeseeable and they were not responsible for the actions of a third party.

A legal rule that establishes a standard of care for children engaged in inherently dangerous activities, requiring them to be held to the same standard as adults.

A legal doctrine that determines whether a person is legally liable for harm caused by their negligence. It calculates the potential harm, the probability of that harm occurring, and the burden of taking precautions against it.

A legal standard used in some jurisdictions to determine a child's liability. It measures a child's conduct against that of other children with similar age, intelligence, experience, and maturity levels.

A legal term that describes activities with a high inherent risk of injury or harm, such as operating powerful motorized vehicles.

The burden on a party to provide sufficient evidence in court to support their claim or defense.

Legal doctrine that excuses a defendant's negligence if they acted reasonably under a sudden emergency situation.

This standard is applied to people with physical disabilities, requiring them to act like a reasonable person with that disability.

This standard is applied to children, requiring them to act like a reasonable person of their age, intelligence, and experience.

An argument in a negligence case where the defendant's actions created a risk of harm, increasing their duty of care to prevent injury.

An argument in a negligence case where the defendant's actions violated a law or regulation, establishing a clear breach of duty.

In negligence cases, evidence regarding customary industry practices can be admitted to show if a defendant deviated from the norm. This helps determine whether the defendant acted as a reasonably prudent person.

The ‘Land-Owner Occupier Trichotomy’ used to be a key rule. However, after ‘ Rowland v. Christian’, the law shifted. Now, any owner of land has a duty to act reasonably to prevent injuries to others, regardless of their status on the land.

The ‘reasonably prudent person’ standard is a key concept in negligence. It sets the benchmark for how someone should act in similar circumstances to prevent foreseeable harm.

The ‘Statler Doctrine’ expands product liability beyond the original buyer to anyone harmed by a defective product, including bystanders. This ensures that harm resulting from product defects is not limited to the initial buyer.

‘Actual causation’ in negligence cases means there is a direct link between the defendant's action and the plaintiff’s injury. This focuses on the factual connection between the defendant’s conduct and the harm.

‘Proximate causation’ in negligence cases considers whether the general type of harm suffered by the plaintiff was within the scope of the defendant’s duty. It helps determine if the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions.

In a negligence case, a ‘duty of care’ arises when the defendant owes a legal obligation to protect a specific class of people from potential harm. This is a legal responsibility to act reasonably in these circumstances.

A ‘breach of duty’ in negligence occurs when the defendant's actions fall below the standard of care owed to the plaintiff. This means failing to meet the legal obligation to act reasonably and causing harm.

In negligence law, ‘damages’ refer to the legally recognized losses the plaintiff suffered due to the defendant's breach of duty. These can include various forms of harm, such as physical injuries, emotional distress, or economic losses.

A legal doctrine stating that violating a law or regulation automatically creates negligence. The plaintiff needs to show they were a protected class and suffered the harm the statute was meant to prevent.

Circumstantial Evidence

The case where a plaintiff was injured by a falling barrel of flour and used circumstantial evidence to prove negligence.

A form of circumstantial evidence where the nature of the accident itself suggests negligence.

The case where a driver's family used Res Ipsa Loquitur to prove negligence when a car ended up off the road.

The defendant's action or inaction caused a specific harm.

The case where a horse was spooked by passing motorcycles, but negligence wasn't found.

The duty owed to an invitee includes preventing harm from traps, willful or wanton misconduct, and notifying them of known potentially harmful conditions.

The duty owed to a licensee includes preventing harm from traps and intentional or reckless misconduct, and notifying them of known potentially harmful conditions.

The duty owed to a trespasser is limited to preventing harm from traps and willful or wanton misconduct.

A party can be found liable for negligence if they disregarded a common safety practice or custom, and that disregard directly caused someone's injuries.

A court's decision in the T.J. Hooper case established the principle that a company can be found liable for negligence if it fails to use reasonably available safety measures, even if those measures are not yet industry standards.

In the T.J. Hooper case, tugboat captains were found negligent because they failed to equip their boats with radios, despite the availability of these tools.

A person has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid injury. This standard is based on what a reasonably prudent person would do in similar circumstances.

The court in Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Goodman ruled that a person approaching a railroad crossing has a duty to get out of their car to check for oncoming trains, even if there is limited visibility.

The Pokora v. Wabash Ry. Co. case limited the ruling in Goodman, finding that getting out of a car at a railroad crossing is not a common practice and can actually be more dangerous.

In Pokora, the court acknowledged that drivers rely on train warnings like bells and whistles. The lack of those warnings contributed to the plaintiff's lack of awareness of the approaching train.

A state statute can be used to establish a standard of care for a particular situation, potentially leading to liability for violating that statute.

In Ferrell v. Baxter, the court considered whether a driver's violation of a state safety statute constituted negligence in a car accident.

A court may find negligence even if a specific action or omission wasn't an established custom. If the available technology suggests a safer practice, the defendant may be liable for not using it.

The T.J. Hooper case highlights the importance of keeping up with advancements in safety technology. Companies have a responsibility to implement new technologies that can prevent harm, even if these innovations are not widespread industry practices.

A person's duty of care can arise from various situations, such as creating a risk, having a special relationship with another person, or violating a law.

In cases involving an accident, the defendant's actions must have caused the plaintiff's injuries for the defendant to be held liable.

The T.J. Hooper case illustrates that companies have a continuous duty to update their operations and equipment to keep up with safety advancements. Failure to do so can lead to negligence.

A legal test used to determine if a defendant's actions were a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries. It focuses on the significance of the defendant's actions in the overall chain of events leading to the harm. This test is used when multiple factors contribute to the harm, unlike the 'But-For' test, which considers only one specific factor.

A legal test used to determine if a defendant's actions directly caused the plaintiff's injuries. This test asks if the injuries would not have occurred 'But For' the defendant's actions. The harm must be directly linked to the defendant's actions, and if the harm would have occurred regardless, then the 'But-For' test cannot be used.

A legal concept that holds a defendant liable for harm caused if their actions played a significant role in causing the harm, regardless of whether their actions were the sole cause. This concept allows for multiple factors to be considered in determining liability.

A legal concept that allows a plaintiff to recover damages from multiple defendants who are jointly liable for the harm caused, even if it's difficult to determine the precise contribution of each defendant.

A principle in tort law that permits a plaintiff to establish causation for a single injury, regardless of the difficulty in determining the specific contribution of each event that led to the injury. This principle addresses situations where multiple events occur closely together, making it challenging to isolate the exact cause of the injury.

A legal principle that holds all manufacturers of a product identical to the one that harmed the plaintiff liable in shares proportional to their market share at the time of the injury. This applies when it's impossible to identify the specific manufacturer responsible.