Defenses, Strict Liability, and Damages
Ava injures Ezra in an automobile collision that was completely Ava's fault. Ezra suffers serious back injuries, the result of which left Ezra able to move but unable to work. Doctors testify that unless Ezra has back surgery, he will never be able to work again. The back surgery is very risky, however, and if Ezra has the surgery, there is a 30 percent chance he would be left completely paralyzed. In Ezra's suit for negligence against Ava, which statement is most correct about the damages to which Ezra will be entitled? (A) Ezra will be able to get the value of his past lost wages, as well as future lost wages, discounted to present value. (B) Ezra will be able to get the value of his past lost wages, as well as his future lost wages, discounted to present value, but only up to the point at which he could have had the back surgery. (C) Ezra will be able to get the value of his past lost wages only. (D) Ezra will not be able to get any lost wages, because he breached his duty to mitigate.
(A) Ezra will be able to get the value of his past lost wages, as well as future lost wages, discounted to present value. Rationale: There is no question that Ezra is entitled to past lost wages, as well as future lost wages, discounted to present value. The only question is whether those future lost wages stop because of Ezra's failure to mitigate by having surgery. For this reason, we can eliminate Choices C and D. Choice A allows future lost wages, discounted to present value, while Choice B treats Ezra as if he took the step in mitigation for back surgery. Choice A is the better choice. While one must take reasonable steps in mitigation, one need not take all steps, including dangerous steps, in mitigation. This is a risky surgery, and Ezra need not go through with it.
Callie and Sam are neighbors in a rural area. One day Sam is using reasonable care, shepherding his sheep to graze, when the sheep are spooked by a wolf in the area. They run in many directions, and some knock over Callie's fence, causing $1,500 in damage. Will Sam be strictly liable for damages caused by his sheep? (A) Yes, because Sam's sheep caused the damage. (B) Yes, because sheep are docile animals. (C) No, because Sam used reasonable care. (D) No, because livestock owners are never strictly liable for intruding livestock.
(A) Yes, because Sam's sheep caused the damage. Rationale: The owner of livestock is strictly liable to other property owners for physical harm caused by intruding cattle. For this reason, Choice A is correct and Choice D incorrect. Choice B is wrong because whether animals are docile (as opposed to domesticated) is irrelevant to the strict liability question. Choice C is incorrect because strict liability applies even when a defendant uses reasonable care.
The Acme Blasting Company has the worst safety record in the blasting business. It takes no steps to clear the blasting area, in direct violation of state laws and industry practice. As a result, Brennan, who is walking down the street near an Acme blast site, is seriously injured. The jurisdiction in which the accident took place imposes strict liability for personal injuries occurring through blasting. Assume Brennan succeeds in proving his prima facie case against Acme for injuries as the result of blasting. May Brennan also obtain punitive damages? (A) Yes, but only if Acme intended to harm Brennan (B) Yes, even though blasting is a strict liability tort (C) No, unless Acme intended to harm Brennan (D) No, because one need not prove fault to recover damages for blasting in the jurisdiction
(B) Yes, even though blasting is a strict liability tort Rationale: The question about whether conduct is bad enough to merit punitive damages differs from the question about what conduct is necessary to prove the tort. For this reason, punitive damages may be available even if it is a strict liability tort, making Choice D incorrect. Generally, a plaintiff must prove bad conduct which is worse than negligence, but there is no need to prove intent to harm. For this reason, Choice B is correct and Choices A and C are incorrect.
Owner raised a pet squirrel from infancy. The animal was perfectly tame and always stayed on Owner's unfenced backyard, where Owner provided food and water. On one occasion the animal left unexpectedly for a week. It was next seen by Pedestrian who was walking along a public sidewalk in Owner's neighborhood. Pedestrian recognized the animal as belonging to Owner. He tried to pet the animal, and was bitten. The animal turned out to have rabies, and Pedestrian had to take a long series of painful shots in order to avoid getting the disease. Prior to petting the animal, Pedestrian had seen a small amount of foam at the edges of the animal's mouth, but he failed to associate the foam as a symptom of rabies. The animal had exhibited no signs of having rabies prior to leaving Owner's property. However, because of the time span involved, he must have already contracted the disease. In an action by Pedestrian against Owner for damages caused by the bite, Pedestrian's best theory of recovery is: (A) Negligence (B) Strict liability for keeping domesticated animals (C) Strict liability for keeping wild animals (D) Strict liability for permitting a dangerous animal to escape from Owner's land
(C) Strict liability for keeping wild animals Rationale: A claim for strict liability for keeping wild animals would only require Plaintiff to show that Owner was the keeper of a wild animal (the squirrel). Thus, Choice D is the best option. Negligence would require Pedestrian to show that Owner acted unreasonably. And the squirrel did not show any sign of having rabies. Therefore, Choice A is not the best answer. Squirrels are not domesticated animals like cats or dogs, nor is there evidence that Owner knew the squirrel was abnormally dangerous, so choice B is not the best answer. Choice D is not the best answer as the squirrel was not an abnormally dangerous domestic animal or livestock that had escaped Owner's property.
At the end of a defamation trial in which Alex accused Gina of lying about Alex taking steroids while working as a professional baseball player, the jury finds for Gina, accepting the defense that the statement is true. Alex walks over to Gina and spits in her eye. Gina sues Alex for battery. The jury awards Gina $500 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. Alex earned $8 million last year as a baseball player. Alex challenges the amount of punitive damages in the case as unconstitutional. What is the strongest argument to support the constitutionality of the amount of the punitive award? (A) Alex is rich. (B) Alex's conduct may have been similar to other bad acts he has engaged in. (C) The amount of the compensatory damages was very low. (D) The ratio complies with a single-digit multiplier.
(C) The amount of the compensatory damages was very low. Rationale: Ordinarily speaking, the Supreme Court has held that punitive damages must be within a single-digit multiplier, meaning that with an award of $500, the punitive damages must be below $5,000. For this reason, we can eliminate Choice D as simply constitutionally incorrect. The Supreme Court has said, however, that it may be possible to exceed the ratio in cases of very low actual damages for reprehensible conduct. This case may fit into that category, making Choice C correct. Choice A is incorrect because the Supreme Court has said that the wealth of the defendant is not a reason to justify an otherwise unconstitutional award. Choice B is incorrect because the Supreme Court has said that other conduct may be considered for reprehensibility purposes but not for direct punishment; even if there were other similar conduct, the Court has not said this would be a reason to exceed the single-digit multiplier.
Blastco has the best safety record in the state of Pacifica. Blastco has been asked to take down the old bridge going across the river that runs through town in order to build a new one. Unfortunately, despite Blastco's use of all reasonable care, one of the blasts causes debris to fly and causes an eye injury to Charles. The state follows the approach of the Restatement (Third) of Torts to classify which activities count as "abnormally dangerous" activities subject to a strict liability rule. Charles sues Blastco. In determining whether or not Blastco's activities should be subject to strict liability, which factor should the court not consider? (A) The inability of Blastco to eliminate risk by exercising reasonable care (B) The extent to which blasting is a matter of common usage (C) The social utility of the blasting to the community (D) The high likelihood of serious injury if there is an accident
(C) The social utility of the blasting to the community Rationale: This question is quite straightforward for anyone familiar with the two-part test of the Third Restatement's approach to abnormally dangerous activities. Choices A, B, and D each list factors that are part of the Restatement's test (inability to eliminate the danger through the exercise of reasonable care, common usage, and significant risk of harm). Only Choice C, the social utility of the blasting to the community, is not a factor listed in the Third Restatement (making the Third Restatement's approach to this issue different from the approach of the Second Restatement). Choice C is correct.
Celebrate Inc. is running a fireworks show at the annual Fourth of July picnic. Billy, an 11-year-old boy, sneaks past security guards to get a close look at the operation. He gets too close, and suffers hearing damage because he is not wearing protective earplugs. The jurisdiction treats the lighting of fireworks as an abnormally dangerous activity and applies the Third Restatement's approach to strict liability for abnormally dangerous products. What is the relevance, if any, of Billy's conduct in evaluating who bears responsibility for Billy's injury? (A) Billy's conduct is irrelevant, because this is a case governed by strict liability principles. (B) Billy's assumption of risk is relevant, but not any negligence on his part. (C) Any negligence by Billy is relevant, but not his assumption of risk. (D) Both Billy's negligence and assumption of risk are relevant for the allocation of responsibility for the injury.
(D) Both Billy's negligence and assumption of risk are relevant for the allocation of responsibility for the injury. Rationale: This question concerns affirmative defenses under the Third Restatement. The approach is to consider both a plaintiff's negligence and the plaintiff's assumption of risk (consent) in determining the plaintiff's share of responsibility. For this reason, Choice D is correct and Choices B and C are incorrect as incomplete. Choice A is incorrect because even in some strict liability cases, such as those governed by the Third Restatement, the plaintiff's conduct is relevant for the allocation of responsibility.
Liam was injured in a terrible automobile accident, which left him with limited ability to feel pleasure and pain. He has had and will continue to have extensive medical expenses and will never be able to work again. Alexa, who caused the accident, argues that she need not pay any damages because the plaintiff has limited ability to feel pain. How should a court respond to the Alexa's argument? (A) The court should accept it, ruling that Liam can recover no damages for his injuries. (B) The court should accept it in part, ruling that Liam can recover no noneconomic damages. (C) The court should accept it in part, ruling that Liam can recover no economic damages. (D) The court should reject it.
(D) The court should reject it. Rationale: To answer this question, you first must know the difference between economic and noneconomic damages. In this case, economic damages would include the medical expenses to take care of Liam as well as lost wages. In this case, the noneconomic damages would be any pain and suffering. Generally speaking, courts bar noneconomic damages when a plaintiff is incapable of experiencing pain or emotional distress, but allow damages when, as here, the plaintiff has at least some ability to experience pleasure and pain. Given all of this, Liam should be able to recover for both economic and noneconomic damages. Choice D correctly gives this option, and it follows that Choices A, B, and C are incorrect.