Torts Answers - Southern Slip-Ups

1. E

2. D

3. B

4. C

5. D

6. A

7. C

8. E

9. C

10. E

11. B

12. C

13. B

Selected Explanations

Question 5: The answer is D because Garth can’t be liable to Jill under negligence because he never breached his duty of care. Indeed, he warned about the hazard of the quicksand pit, which fulfilled Garth’s duty as a land owner/occupier to his Jill, his licensee. No other theory of liability (intentional torts, strict liability, or otherwise) arguably applies. And Garth can’t be liable to Wolfgang because, as an unanticipated trespasser, Wolfgang is owed no duty in negligence by Garth. And even if Wolfgang were an anticipated trespasser—although there is nothing to indicate that—Garth would still owe him no duty with regard to naturally occurring hazards, of which the quicksand pit is one. No other theory of liability arguably applies. Answer A is wrong because, as explained, Garth isn’t liable to Jill. Answer B is wrong because, as explained, Garth isn’t liable to Wolfgang. Answer C is wrong for the reasons Answer A is wrong plus the reasons Answer B is wrong. Answer E is wrong because, as discussed, the issue of Garth’s negligence liability is clear: There is none. Additionally, Answer E is wrong because there’s no such thing as a tort of implied consent. (There is, however, an implied consent defense to intentional torts and a informed consent tort in the medical malpractice realm.)

Question 6: The answer is A because Jill is liable in negligence for Rafaella’s injuries. Here’s why: Jill had a duty of care because Rafaella, as someone Jill was calling out to, was a foreseeable plaintiff. Jill breached her duty of care because the reasonable person would not entice someone toward a quicksand pit in the dark without warning of the danger of possibly falling in. Jill’s breach was an actual cause of Rafaella’s injury because without her actions and the actions of the person she was acting in concert with (Wolfgang), Rafaella would not have been injured. Jill’s breach was a proximate cause of Rafaella’s injury because it was foreseeable someone would receive injuries from cold and exposure from being enticed without warning into the quicksand pit. The injury requirement is met by the stipulated severe injuries from cold and exposure. Answers B and C are wrong because one defendant’s liability is not relieved by another defendant’s liability. Answer D doesn’t make any sense: Rafaella isn’t liable to anyone—she’s the plaintiff. Note also that contributory negligence wouldn’t apply here because Rafaella didn’t do anything objectively unreasonable, breaching any duty of care to herself. Answer E is wrong because, although Rafaella indeed had no affirmative duty to help at the outset, that’s irrelevant since the question is about Rafaella’s claim against Jill, not the other way around.

Question 7: The answer is C because the rule under Summers v. Tice applies. Answer A is wrong because the instrumentality of the injury was not a condition of land. Answer B is wrong because proximate causation and actual causation are both independent requirements for a successful claim—one is not a replacement for the other. Answer D is wrong because proximate causation is easily shown—whether through the foreseeability test or the harm-within-the-risk test. Answer E is wrong because although it cannot be established that it is more likely than not that any particular defendant’s actions were a but-for cause of Tim’s death, the rule in Summers v. Tice applies.

Question 8: The answer is E because the engineers are licensees, which means at a minimum they are owed a duty to warn of or render safe any known, concealed dangerous condition of the land, whether natural or artificial. Randall knows about the carbon-dioxide seep, so he had a duty to warn them about it. Many people answer C, perhaps thinking that this falls under the doctrine of attractive nuisance. But that only seems to make sense insofar as you might conceive of the doctrine by the common meaning of the words “attractive nuisance.” Remember: Attractive nuisance is a term of art. And in that regard, note that the children are injured or killed by a natural phenomenon (flash flood), not by an artificial condition. Attractive nuisance is about dangerous artificial conditions. Answer A is wrong because no duty is owed to unanticipated trespassers. Answer B is wrong because the hazard is unknown to Randall and, because Lord Marbury is a licensee, there’s no duty to inspect. Answer D is wrong because the hazard is unknown to Randall and not reasonably knowable. That is to say for the honeymooners, being invitees, there’s a duty to inspect and warn of reasonably discoverable hazards, but Randall fulfilled that duty by hiring the engineering group and getting an all-clear.

ericejohnson.com