TORTS

Question 1

NEGLIGENCE

Negligence is by far the most highly tested topic on Torts MEE questions. Be familiar with the general standard of care (to act as a reasonable person would) and when the general standard changes.

Answer 1

Start your essay as follows: “In any negligence action, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty, the defendant’s conduct was both the actual cause and the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and the plaintiff suffered damages.”

Question 2

CLAIMS AGAINST CHILDREN

Answer 2

A child owes the duty of care of a hypothetical child of similar age, intelligence, and experience, acting under similar circumstances.
* Exception—adult activity: if the child is engaged in adult activity—i.e., one which is “normally undertaken only by adults, and for which adult qualifications are required” (e.g., driving a car, tractor, motorcycle, motor scooter, snowmobile, etc.)—then the child will be held to the same standard of care as a reasonably prudent adult engaged in such activity.
* Exception—tender years: some states recognize the tender-years doctrine in which a child less than seven years of age cannot be found negligent.

Question 3

PREMISES LIABILTY

Answer 3

the standard of care owed depends on the legal status of the plaintiff.
1. Undiscovered trespasser
2. Discovered trespasser
* Attractive nuisance:
3. Licensee
4. Invitee

Question 4

UNDISCOVERED TRESPASSER

Answer 4

Definition: One who comes onto the land without permission or privilege who the premises possessor does not know about. Rule: undiscovered trespassers are not owed any duty of care.

Question 5

DISCOVERED TRESSPASSER

Answer 5

Definition: A trespasser that the premises possessor knows or should know of. Rule: the possessor must warn or make safe any unreasonably dangerous concealed artificial conditions that the landowner knows of.

• Attractive nuisance: The premises possessor is liable if (1) he knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, (2) the condition is one which he knows or should know involves an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm, (3) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved, (4) the burden of eliminating the danger is slight compared with the risk involved and the benefit to the possessor, and (5) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to protect the children. This doctrine applies only if the child is engaging in an activity appropriate for children (i.e., not an “adult activity”).

Question 6

LICENSEE

Answer 6

Definition:A social guest who has permission to enter the land but does not confer an economic benefit on the possessor of land.
* Rule: The landowner must warn or **make safe all concealed dangers **(artificial or not, unreasonably dangerous or not) that the landowner knows of.

* * Note: Most MEE answers state that a premises possessor owes a licensee the duty to “reveal hidden dangers of which the landowner knows or has reason to know and which the entrant is unlikely to discover.”

Question 7

INVITEE

Answer 7

Definition: Those that enter either to confer an economic benefit (e.g., customers or employees of a store) or enter land that is open to the public at large (e.g., church, museum, etc.).

• Rule: The premises possessor must warn or make safe all dangers that the landowner knows or should know of. The premises possessor has a **duty to inspect! **

Question 8

NEGLIGENCE PER SE

Answer 8

discuss this doctrine when you see a statute that sets the standard of care.

• A plaintiff can sue under a theory of negligence per se when the plaintiff can show three elements: (1) the defendant violated a statute without excuse, (2) the plaintiff was in the class of people that the statute was trying to protect, and (3) the plaintiff received the injury that the statute was trying to prevent. If a plaintiff can establish the above elements, he has offered conclusive proof of duty and breach. (He must still prove cause and harm.)

Question 9

RES IPSA LOQUITUR

Answer 9

The res ipsa loquitur doctrine allows the jury to infer negligence when the event is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, other responsible causes are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence, and the indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendant’s duty to the plaintiff.

Question 10

NEGLIGENT INFLICATION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Answer 10

This may be applicable when the defendant is negligent and the plaintiff has not sustained any actual physical trauma to his body. There generally must be a physical manifestation of emotional distress (e.g., heart attack). Some jurisdictions only allow recovery if the plaintiff was “within the zone of danger.” Others allow it when the plaintiff was closely related to the victim, was located near the scene of the accident, and suffered shock resulting from “the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident.” In almost all jurisdictions, mere receipt of news relating to an accident does not suffice.

Question 11

DAMAGES

Answer 11

• Comparative fault—majority law: The trier of fact (i.e., the judge or jury) apportions fault among the parties. The amount of damages apportioned to the plaintiff because of the plaintiff’s negligence is subtracted from the total damages awarded by the jury. This is known as pure comparative negligence. There are some jurisdictions in which apportionment is not available unless the jury concludes that the plaintiff is less than 50% at fault. In these “partial” or “modified” comparative negligence jurisdictions, if the jury concludes that the plaintiff was 50% or more at fault, he cannot recover. (MEE sample answers do not typically name the doctrines “pure” or “partial,” they simply describe them.)
• Compare with contributory negligence: This is a common law doctrine that states if the jury finds that the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to his injuries to any degree, the plaintiff cannot recover. Most states have abandoned this doctrine

Question 12

INTENTIONAL TORTS

The intentional torts that have been tested on the MEE are battery, false imprisonment, and trespass to land. Intentional torts are not heavily tested.

Answer 12

Battery: An act with intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension of that contact and a harmful or offensive contact directly or indirectly results.

* Note that the primary difference between an assault and a battery is the harm suffered (for an assault, the plaintiff suffers imminent apprehension).

• False imprisonment: an act with intent to confine or restrain a person to a bounded area, actual confinement occurs, and the plaintiff knows of the confinement or is hurt by the confinement.
• Trespass to land: the defendant physically invades the land of another and **intends **to be where he is. Physical invasion is not an intangible force (loud music, lights, a gas, etc.—that is a nuisance).
• Consent: Consent is a defense to an intentional tort. Consent can be express or implied.

Question 13

VICARIOUS LIABILTY

Vicarious liability is heavily tested. Understand when an employer is liable and when the employer is able to seek indemnification for damages paid to the plaintiff.

Answer 13

Employer/employee: Employers are vicariously liable for torts of their employees if the torts are committed within the scope of employment. (This is called respondeat superior.) Intentional torts are usually outside the scope of employment unless they were done for the purpose of serving the employer or if they were foreseeable.

• Direct liability: the employer can be directly liable for his own negligence if, for example, he fails to supervise employees or otherwise acts negligently in hiring, firing, or entrustment.
• Indemnification: Indemnification is full reimbursement for damages paid to the plaintiff. This is when one defendant can seek 100% of the damages from the other defendant. This usually occurs when the paying defendant was not at fault in causing plaintiff’s injuries, and the non-paying defendant was at fault. E.g., an employer who is liable based solely on the principle of respondeat superior may seek indemnification from the employee who was negligent.