- Which of the following best describes the duty owed by the hotel to the guest? Select one.
Answer: The hotel has a duty of reasonable care to keep the premises in a safe condition, which includes a duty to inspect for hidden dangers.
The correct answer is B. An innkeeper, like a hotel, owes a special duty to its guests. Guests are considered invitees, and the innkeeper owes them a duty of reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe. This duty includes the affirmative obligation to make reasonable inspections to discover and remedy non-obvious dangerous conditions. Failing to inspect the picture wire for three years could be found to be a breach of this duty. (A) is incorrect; while the duty is high, it is based on negligence, not strict liability. (C) is incorrect because it describes the lower duty owed to a licensee; an innkeeper's duty to a guest (invitee) includes the duty to inspect. (D) is incorrect because an innkeeper's duty extends both to protecting guests from foreseeable criminal acts and to maintaining the physical safety of the premises.
- What is the landlord's best defense against the tenant's claim? Select one.
Answer: The landlord exercised reasonable care by hiring a professional company to maintain the common areas.
The correct answer is D. A landlord has a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep common areas in a safe condition for tenants. This duty is non-delegable, meaning the landlord cannot escape liability simply by hiring an independent contractor. However, the landlord's duty is one of reasonable care, not strict liability. If the landlord acted reasonably in selecting and hiring a competent snow removal company, a jury could find that the landlord did not breach their duty of care, even if the contractor was negligent. This is the landlord's strongest argument. (A) is incorrect because the duty to maintain common areas is non-delegable. (B) is incorrect because while some jurisdictions have different rules for natural accumulation, the modern trend is that landlords have a duty to remove foreseeable dangers like ice from common walkways. (C) is incorrect because assumption of the risk generally requires knowledge of a specific risk, not just general awareness of wintry conditions, and it is less likely to absolve the landlord of their affirmative duty.
- What is the store's strongest defense to the shopper's negligence claim? Select one.
Answer: The shopper exceeded the scope of her invitation by entering a restricted area, thereby becoming a trespasser.
The correct answer is B. A person's legal status on property can change. The shopper was an invitee in the public areas of the store. However, when she intentionally entered an area clearly marked as 'Employees Only,' she exceeded the scope of her invitation and her legal status changed to that of a trespasser. The duty owed to an unknown trespasser is only to refrain from willful or wanton misconduct. Since the store's negligence was, at most, a failure to exercise reasonable care (by leaving a pallet in a poorly lit room), it did not breach the lower duty owed to a trespasser. (A) is a weak argument because the issue is the duty owed in the specific location of the injury. (C) is a possible defense, but the facts state the room was 'poorly lit,' which undermines the claim that the danger was open and obvious. (D) is incorrect because notice is relevant to the duty owed to invitees, but a different, lower standard of care applies to trespassers.
- What is the legal status of the friend and the effect of the sign on the homeowner's potential liability? Select one.
Answer: The friend was an invitee, and the sign was insufficient to satisfy the heightened duty to make the premises safe.
The correct answer is B. A person invited onto property to confer a potential economic or business benefit on the owner is an invitee. Helping with a home repair, even if unpaid, is typically considered for the owner's benefit, elevating the guest's status from a mere licensee (social guest) to an invitee. The duty owed to an invitee is to exercise reasonable care to protect them from dangers the owner knows or should know about. This includes a duty to inspect the premises and to make them safe, not just to warn of dangers. A small, vague sign is likely insufficient to discharge this heightened duty to make the condition safe (e.g., by repairing the step or blocking it off). (A) and (C) incorrectly classify the friend as a licensee. (D) correctly identifies the friend as an invitee but incorrectly states the duty, which is to make safe, not merely to warn.
- What is the basis for the school's duty to the student in this situation? Select one.
Answer: A school that takes custody and control of a student has an affirmative duty to provide reasonable care and assistance.
The correct answer is B. A school has a special relationship with its students, which is heightened when the school takes them into its custody and control, such as on an overnight trip. This relationship imposes an affirmative duty to act for the students' protection and to render reasonable aid if they are sick or injured. By failing to seek professional medical help for a student with serious symptoms, the supervising teachers likely breached this duty. (A) is an overstatement; while a school's duty is similar to a parent's (in loco parentis), it is based on custody and control, not on all aspects of parenting. (C) is incorrect; the school's liability is for its own negligence (through its employees, the teachers), not vicarious liability for student actions. (D) is incorrect; the standard is negligence (failure to exercise reasonable care), not strict liability.
- Will the customer likely prevail in her lawsuit? Select one.
Answer: No, because the supermarket did not have actual or constructive notice of the grape on the floor in the short time before the fall.
The correct answer is D. The customer is a business invitee. The supermarket owes invitees a duty of reasonable care to keep the premises safe. This includes a duty to discover and remedy dangerous conditions. To be liable for a condition created by a third party, the owner must have had actual or constructive notice of the danger. Constructive notice requires that the danger existed for a sufficient length of time that the owner should have discovered it through reasonable inspection. Ten minutes is generally considered too short a period to establish constructive notice. (A) is incorrect because landowners are not strictly liable; liability is based on negligence. (B) is incorrect because notice is not presumed; it must be proven by the plaintiff. (C) is incorrect because while the policy is evidence of reasonable care, the key issue is whether the supermarket had notice of this specific hazard, not just whether its general policies were reasonable.
- What is the likely outcome of the friend's lawsuit against the homeowner? Select one.
Answer: The homeowner will not be liable, because the friend was a social guest to whom the homeowner only owed a duty to warn of known, concealed dangers.
The correct answer is C. The friend was a social guest, which makes her a licensee. A landowner owes a licensee a duty to warn of or make safe any known, concealed, artificial or natural conditions that create an unreasonable risk of harm. The duty does not extend to inspecting the property for unknown dangers. Because the facts state the homeowner was unaware of the rotted board, he did not breach his duty to the licensee. (A) is incorrect because the duty to inspect for hidden dangers is owed to invitees, not licensees. (B) is incorrect because liability for a licensee requires actual knowledge of the danger by the landowner, not just that he 'should have known.' (D) is incorrect because the facts state the rot was hidden underneath the deck, making it a concealed, not an open and obvious, danger.
- Is the teenager likely to recover from the factory owner? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because the owner owed a duty to warn of a known, artificial, and non-obvious dangerous condition.
The correct answer is A. The teenager is a known or anticipated trespasser. While a landowner generally owes no duty to undiscovered trespassers, a duty arises with respect to known trespassers. The landowner owes a duty to warn or make safe known, artificial, non-obvious, dangerous conditions. Here, the owner knew teenagers used the path, the trench was a new artificial condition, it was dangerous, and it was not obvious at night. Therefore, the owner breached his duty. (B) is incorrect because while digging a trench could be seen as willful and wanton, the more precise legal basis for liability is the specific duty owed to a known trespasser. (C) is incorrect because it states the general rule for undiscovered trespassers, which does not apply here because the owner knew of their presence. (D) is incorrect because while the teenager assumed some risks by trespassing, he did not assume the risk of an unknown, man-made hazard like the newly dug trench.
- What is the most viable theory of liability against the father? Select one.
Answer: Negligent entrustment, because the father gave a dangerous instrumentality to a person he knew was likely to use it negligently.
The correct answer is B. Negligent entrustment occurs when one party (the entrustor) provides a chattel (the car) to another party (the entrustee), whom the entrustor knows or should know is likely to use the chattel in a manner involving unreasonable risk of harm to others. Here, the father knew of his son's history of reckless driving, making the son a foreseeably dangerous driver. Entrusting him with a high-performance car was arguably a breach of the father's duty to others on the road. (A) is incorrect; parents are generally not vicariously liable for their children's torts, though some statutes impose limited liability for willful acts, which is not the theory here. (C) is incorrect; driving, even a sports car, is not considered an abnormally dangerous activity for the purposes of strict liability. (D) is a minority rule that imposes vicarious liability on the owner of a family car for the torts of any family member driving it with permission; negligent entrustment is a more widely recognized and direct theory of negligence based on the father's own actions.
- What is your client's strongest argument for avoiding liability? Select one.
Answer: As a landlord, the client is not liable for injuries occurring within the premises exclusively controlled by the tenant.
The correct answer is A. Generally, a landlord is not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions that arise within the demised premises after the tenant takes possession. The duty of care is owed by the person in control of the property, which in this case is the tenant law firm. Exceptions exist for common areas, latent defects known to the landlord, and situations where the landlord contractually agrees to make repairs, but none of those apply here as the injury occurred in a hallway exclusively controlled by the tenant. (B) is a good argument, but it presupposes the landlord had a duty in the first place, which is the threshold issue. (C) is a defense of comparative negligence or assumption of risk, but it doesn't defeat the landlord's liability if a duty was owed. (D) is a plausible interpretation, but A states the more fundamental common law rule regarding landlord liability for the leased premises.
- What is the strongest legal theory to support the parents' claim against the motel? Select one.
Answer: Negligence per se, because the motel's violation of the fence statute caused the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent.
The correct answer is B. Negligence per se is a doctrine where a defendant's violation of a statute can establish the duty and breach elements of a negligence claim. For the doctrine to apply, the plaintiff must be in the class of persons the statute was designed to protect, and the harm must be the type the statute was designed to prevent. Here, the fence statute was clearly intended to protect children from drowning, and the victim was a child who drowned. The motel's violation of the statute is therefore strong evidence of negligence, and in some jurisdictions, it conclusively establishes breach. (A) is incorrect; operating a pool is not an abnormally dangerous activity. (C) is a weaker argument because the cause of the accident (the unlatched gate) is known, making res ipsa loquitur (which applies when the cause is unknown) less applicable. (D) is a plausible theory, but negligence per se is more direct and powerful here because of the clear statutory violation.
- Will the physician be held liable for the child's injuries? Select one.
Answer: No, because the physician had no pre-existing relationship with the child that would create an affirmative duty to act.
The correct answer is C. The general rule in tort law is that there is no affirmative duty to rescue a person in peril, unless a special relationship exists between the parties or the defendant created the peril. Here, the physician had no pre-existing relationship with the child (e.g., doctor-patient, parent, etc.). Therefore, he had no legal duty to undertake a rescue. (A) is incorrect because a person's status as a physician, by itself, does not create a duty to rescue strangers outside of a professional context. (B) describes a moral duty, but not a legal one. The law does not impose a general duty to be a 'Good Samaritan.' (D) is incorrect because the presence of others is irrelevant to the legal question of whether the defendant himself had a duty to act.
- Will the injured patron likely prevail against the nightclub? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because the nightclub had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect its patrons from foreseeable harm by others.
The correct answer is C. A business open to the public, like a nightclub, has an affirmative duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its patrons (invitees). This includes a duty to protect them from the foreseeable wrongful acts of third parties. Here, the confrontation was escalating and observed by an employee (the bouncer), making the eventual assault foreseeable. The bouncer's failure to intervene was a breach of the nightclub's duty to take reasonable protective measures. (A) is incorrect because the assault was not 'sudden' in the sense of being unforeseeable; the bouncer witnessed the lead-up. (B) is incorrect; the bouncer, as an employee, acts as the agent of the nightclub in fulfilling its duty to patrons. (D) is incorrect; the nightclub is not vicariously liable for the acts of a patron, but for its own negligence in failing to protect another patron.
- Is the man liable for the victim's death? Select one.
Answer: No, because a rescuer may abandon the attempt without liability so long as he does not leave the victim in a worse position than before.
The correct answer is C. While there is no general duty to rescue, a person who voluntarily assumes a duty to act (e.g., by starting a rescue) is then obligated to act with reasonable care. This includes a duty not to abandon the rescue if doing so would leave the victim in a worse position than if the rescue had never been attempted. Here, there is no indication that the man's aborted attempt worsened the victim's situation, for example, by preventing other rescuers from acting. Therefore, he was privileged to abandon the rescue to save himself and is not liable. (A) is incorrect; there is no duty to complete a rescue, only a duty to act reasonably. (B) is a possibility, but the facts do not state that other rescuers were present or dissuaded; without such evidence, leaving the victim in a worse position cannot be established. (D) is incorrect; Good Samaritan statutes typically protect rescuers from liability for ordinary negligence during a rescue, not for a decision to abandon it.
- Is the restaurant likely liable for the woman's enhanced injuries? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because the special relationship between a business and its patrons imposes a duty to provide reasonable assistance in an emergency.
This question tests the law of premises liability and the duty of care that businesses owe to their customers. When analyzing liability for failure to act, you need to distinguish between general "no duty to rescue" principles and situations where special relationships create affirmative duties.
The correct answer is D because businesses have a special relationship with their patrons that creates a duty to provide reasonable assistance during emergencies. This duty arises from the commercial relationship and the business's control over the premises. The restaurant didn't need to perform the Heimlich maneuver perfectly, but it had a duty to take reasonable steps like calling 911 promptly. The manager's delay in calling emergency services while "figuring out what to do" likely breached this duty and contributed to the woman's enhanced injuries.
Answer A is wrong because it applies the general "no duty to rescue" rule too broadly. While this rule applies to strangers, special relationships like business-patron create exceptions. Answer B misapplies Good Samaritan laws, which protect people who voluntarily render aid from liability for their mistakes—they don't protect someone who chooses not to help at all. Answer C incorrectly states that restaurants are strictly liable for all injuries on their premises. Strict liability typically applies only to abnormally dangerous activities, not routine business operations.
Remember this key distinction: while strangers generally have no duty to rescue, special relationships (business-patron, doctor-patient, school-student) create affirmative duties to provide reasonable assistance. Look for these relationship-based exceptions when analyzing duty questions on the bar exam.
- What is the most likely basis for the supervisor's claim against the psychiatrist? Select one.
Answer: The psychiatrist had a duty to warn the readily identifiable potential victim of the patient's credible threat.
The correct answer is C. This scenario implicates the principle from Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of California. When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger. This duty may require the therapist to warn the intended victim or notify the police. The duty arises because of the special relationship between the therapist and the patient. (A) is incorrect; the duty to warn is a recognized exception to the duty of confidentiality. (B) is too broad; a therapist has a duty to warn or protect, not a general duty to control the patient's conduct. (D) is incorrect; vicarious liability does not apply to the relationship between a therapist and patient.
- Which fact would be most critical for determining the homeowner's liability? Select one.
Answer: Whether the six-year-old child was able to understand the specific danger of falling off the trampoline.
The correct answer is B. This case involves the attractive nuisance doctrine. For the doctrine to apply, five elements must be met: (1) the owner knows or should know children are likely to trespass; (2) the owner knows or should know the condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious injury to children; (3) the children, because of their youth, do not discover the condition or realize the risk; (4) the utility of the condition and burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared to the risk; and (5) the owner fails to exercise reasonable care. Choice (B) directly addresses the third element: the child's ability to appreciate the risk. If the child was old enough or mature enough to understand the danger, the homeowner is less likely to be liable. (A) is not dispositive because children too young to read are not deterred by signs. (C) is relevant to the first element (likelihood of trespass) but the child's appreciation of the risk is a more central and often disputed element. (D) relates to the fourth element, the burden of eliminating the danger, but the child's inability to appreciate the risk is a more fundamental prerequisite for the doctrine's application.
- What is the tenant's strongest argument for holding the landlord liable? Select one.
Answer: The landlord breached his duty to warn the tenant of a known, non-obvious dangerous condition (the faulty furnace).
This question tests landlord-tenant law, specifically the landlord's duties regarding property conditions. When analyzing landlord liability, you need to identify which specific legal duty applies and whether the landlord breached it.
The correct answer is D because landlords have a well-established duty to disclose known, non-obvious dangerous conditions to tenants before they take possession. Here, the landlord knew the furnace was "old and prone to overheating" but failed to warn the tenant. This creates a strong negligence claim because: (1) the landlord had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition, (2) the condition wasn't obvious to a reasonable tenant, (3) the landlord breached his duty by not disclosing it, and (4) this breach directly contributed to the tenant's injury when the overheating furnace activated the toxic pesticide.
Option A is wrong because strict liability for hazardous substances typically applies to abnormally dangerous activities, not routine pest control. The pesticide itself wasn't inherently hazardous—it only became dangerous when heated.
Option B fails because landlords generally aren't vicariously liable for independent contractors' negligence unless the work involves inherently dangerous activities. Routine extermination doesn't qualify.
Option C is incorrect because landlords don't have a general duty to maintain premises during the lease term—that's typically the tenant's responsibility. The landlord's main duties involve pre-existing conditions and compliance with housing codes.
Study tip: In landlord-tenant questions, focus on timing and knowledge. Landlords are most vulnerable when they knew about dangerous conditions before the lease began but failed to disclose them. This creates the strongest negligence claim.
- On what basis is the driver most likely to be found liable for the enhanced injuries? Select one.
Answer: The driver, having created the peril, had an affirmative duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent further harm.
The correct answer is C. Even if a person is not at fault for the initial accident, one who creates a situation of peril for another has an affirmative duty to render reasonable assistance to prevent further harm. The driver, by striking the child, created the peril. This act gave rise to a special duty to render aid, such as calling 911. His failure to do so was a breach of that duty, making him liable for the worsened injuries that resulted from the delay in care. (A) is plausible, as most jurisdictions have statutes requiring drivers to stop and render aid. A violation could be negligence per se. However, C states the underlying common law duty, which is the more fundamental basis for liability regardless of a specific statute. (B) is too broad; while drivers owe a general duty of care, the specific duty to render aid arises from creating the peril. (D) is factually incorrect; the driver did not assume a duty because he never began to render aid.
- Is the passenger likely to prevail against the city transit authority? Select one.
Answer: Yes, because as a common carrier, the transit authority owed its passengers the highest duty of care, including a duty to protect them from foreseeable harm from other passengers.
The correct answer is A. A common carrier, such as a bus service, owes its passengers a very high duty of care, consistent with the practical operation of its business. This duty includes protecting passengers from foreseeable harm, including assault by fellow passengers. Here, the other passenger was visibly agitated and shouting, which made the risk of him harming someone foreseeable. The bus driver, an employee of the transit authority, observed this behavior and did nothing, breaching the high duty of care. (B) is incorrect because vicarious liability applies to employees, not third parties like other passengers. (C) is incorrect because the agitated passenger's conduct made the attack arguably foreseeable, not sudden and unforeseeable. (D) is incorrect because while governmental immunity can be a defense, it is often waived for proprietary functions like operating a public transit system, and in any event, the special duty of a common carrier is the more direct issue.
