Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Breach Analysis

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Breach AnalysisQuestion 1 of 20

A driver for a package delivery company was in a minor accident that damaged the front bumper of her van but left it drivable. She immediately called her supervisor, who instructed her to complete her deliveries before returning to the depot, as she was behind schedule. The supervisor did not ask about the extent of the damage. A few hours later, the damaged bumper suddenly detached from the van on the highway, flew into the air, and struck a motorcyclist, causing serious injury. The motorcyclist sued the delivery company.

On the issue of the company's breach of duty, which of the following provides the strongest basis for the motorcyclist's claim? Select one.

The company is vicariously liable for the driver's negligence in continuing to operate an unsafe vehicle.

The company was directly negligent when its supervisor instructed the driver to continue her route without first assessing the vehicle's safety.

The company is strictly liable for any harm caused by its commercial vehicles.

The accident is best analyzed under res ipsa loquitur, as bumpers do not normally fall off vehicles.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Breach Analysis

Practice Breach Analysis in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Breach Analysis, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

On the issue of the company's breach of duty, which of the following provides the strongest basis for the motorcyclist's claim? Select one.

The company is vicariously liable for the driver's negligence in continuing to operate an unsafe vehicle.
The company was directly negligent when its supervisor instructed the driver to continue her route without first assessing the vehicle's safety. (correct answer)
The company is strictly liable for any harm caused by its commercial vehicles.
The accident is best analyzed under res ipsa loquitur, as bumpers do not normally fall off vehicles.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. This question asks for the strongest basis for the company's breach. While vicarious liability (A) is a valid claim, the supervisor's direct action provides a stronger and more direct claim of negligence against the company itself. A reasonably prudent supervisor, upon learning of an accident, would have a duty to ensure the vehicle was safe to continue operating. Instructing the driver to continue without any inquiry into the vehicle's condition is a clear breach of that duty. C is incorrect because commercial driving is not a strict liability activity. D is a plausible but weaker argument than the direct evidence of the supervisor's negligent instruction.

Question 2

A driver with a perfect driving record and no known health issues was driving down a residential street. Without any warning, he suffered a sudden and massive cerebral hemorrhage, which caused him to lose consciousness immediately. His car then swerved onto a sidewalk and struck a pedestrian. Medical evidence later confirmed that the hemorrhage was entirely unforeseeable and was the driver's first such medical event.

In a negligence action by the pedestrian against the driver, is the driver likely to be found to have breached the duty of reasonable care? Select one.

Yes, because all drivers are held strictly liable for injuries they cause while operating a motor vehicle.
Yes, because his physical incapacity caused the accident, and he will be held to the standard of a reasonable person without that incapacity.
No, because the driver was confronted with a sudden emergency that was not of his own making.
No, because the driver did not breach the duty of care as his loss of consciousness was sudden, unforeseeable, and not self-induced. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. A defendant's conduct is judged against that of a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. A sudden, unforeseeable physical incapacitation (like a heart attack or stroke) is considered part of the circumstances. If the person had no reason to anticipate the event, the loss of control is not considered a breach of duty. A is incorrect because driving is not a strict liability activity. B is incorrect because while the standard is objective, an unforeseeable physical incapacity is an exception and is considered in the analysis. C is incorrect as it misstates the applicable doctrine; while related, the 'sudden emergency' doctrine typically applies when a person consciously responds to a hazard, whereas this situation involves a complete loss of consciousness. The 'sudden incapacity' defense is more precise.

Question 3

In a negligence action by the pedestrian against the driver, is the driver likely to be found to have breached the duty of reasonable care? Select one.

Yes, because all drivers are held strictly liable for injuries they cause while operating a motor vehicle.
Yes, because his physical incapacity caused the accident, and he will be held to the standard of a reasonable person without that incapacity.
No, because the driver was confronted with a sudden emergency that was not of his own making.
No, because the driver did not breach the duty of care as his loss of consciousness was sudden, unforeseeable, and not self-induced. (correct answer)

Question 4

A federal workplace safety regulation required that all industrial grinding machines be equipped with a specific type of shield to protect the machine's operator from flying debris. A factory owner removed the shield from a machine to allow for faster processing of materials. A prospective client was touring the factory, guided by a manager. While observing the machine from a designated walkway ten feet away, a metal fragment was ejected from the machine at an unusual angle, striking the client and causing a severe eye injury. The shield, had it been in place, would have blocked the fragment.

The client sued the factory owner for negligence. Will the client likely succeed in establishing breach through negligence per se? Select one.

Yes, because the owner's violation of a safety regulation was the but-for cause of the client's injury.
Yes, because the regulation sets a clear standard of care that the owner knowingly violated.
No, because a non-employee client is not within the class of persons the workplace safety regulation was designed to protect. (correct answer)
No, because the client assumed the risk of injury by agreeing to tour an active industrial factory.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. To establish negligence per se, the plaintiff must show they are part of the class of persons the statute was designed to protect and that the harm is the type the statute was designed to prevent. A federal workplace safety regulation requiring a shield for an operator is primarily, if not exclusively, designed to protect employees working with the machine. A visiting client is likely outside that protected class, making negligence per se inapplicable. While the owner may still be found negligent under a general reasonable person standard, the specific doctrine of negligence per se will fail. A addresses causation, not the specific requirements of negligence per se. B is true but incomplete; it ignores the class-of-person and type-of-harm requirements. D addresses a defense, not the initial question of breach.

Question 5

You are representing a client who was injured while dining at an outdoor cafe on the ground floor of a 20-story apartment building. Your client was struck by a falling terracotta pot. The pot fell from a balcony, but it is impossible to determine from which apartment's balcony it originated. All balconies in the building are under the control of the individual tenants of each apartment. The building owner is responsible for the building's exterior structure but not for items placed on balconies by tenants. You are considering suing the building owner for negligence.

What is the greatest obstacle to proving breach against the building owner using the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur? Select one.

The accident is a type that can occur without anyone's negligence.
The client may have contributed to the accident by choosing to sit outside.
The building owner did not have exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused the harm. (correct answer)
The building owner did not owe a duty of care to patrons of the ground-floor cafe.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. A key element for applying res ipsa loquitur is that the instrumentality causing the injury must have been under the defendant's exclusive control. Here, the instrumentality was the terracotta pot. The facts state that the balconies and any items on them are under the control of the individual tenants, not the building owner. Because the owner did not have exclusive control over the pot, a claim based on res ipsa loquitur against the owner will likely fail. A is incorrect because a pot falling from a high-rise balcony is typically the type of event that does not happen without negligence. B is incorrect because a customer's choice to sit at an outdoor cafe is not contributory negligence. D is incorrect because a building owner generally owes a duty of reasonable care to people on or near the property.

Question 6

A customer in a large supermarket slipped and fell on a puddle of clear liquid in one of the aisles. The supermarket's policy, which was followed on the day of the incident, required employees to patrol the aisles and inspect for hazards every 30 minutes. Store records showed that an employee had inspected the aisle where the customer fell 25 minutes prior to the accident and had found no hazards. The source of the liquid could not be determined.

In a negligence claim against the supermarket, what is the plaintiff's strongest argument that the supermarket breached its duty of care? Select one.

That the mere existence of the hazardous condition on the floor constitutes a breach of duty.
That the supermarket is strictly liable for all injuries to its customers that occur on its premises.
That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies because customers do not ordinarily slip in the absence of negligence.
That a 30-minute inspection interval was not a reasonably sufficient safety precaution under the circumstances. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The supermarket, as a business owner, owes its customers (invitees) a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises safe. This includes making reasonable inspections to discover and remedy dangerous conditions. The central issue for breach is the reasonableness of the supermarket's actions. While the store followed its policy, the plaintiff's strongest argument is that the policy itself was inadequate. A jury could find that in a busy supermarket, a 30-minute inspection interval is not frequent enough to be considered reasonable care. A is incorrect because the plaintiff must show the store had actual or constructive notice of the hazard and failed to act reasonably. B is incorrect because landowners are not strictly liable. C is incorrect because res ipsa loquitur is generally not applied in slip-and-fall cases, as spills can be created by other customers, meaning the store does not have exclusive control.

Question 7

A patron at a restaurant was injured when the wooden chair she was sitting on suddenly collapsed. The restaurant purchased all of its chairs from a reputable commercial furniture supplier five years earlier. The restaurant's manager testified that employees visually inspect the chairs for cracks or instability at the beginning of each day, and no defects had been noticed on the chair in question. An expert later determined that the collapse was caused by a hidden defect in the wood (internal rot) that would not have been visible during an ordinary external inspection.

In the patron's negligence action against the restaurant, is the restaurant likely to be found to have breached its duty of care? Select one.

Yes, because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies, as chairs do not normally collapse without negligence.
Yes, because as a business invitor, the restaurant is strictly liable for defects in its equipment.
No, because the restaurant's daily visual inspection procedure was a reasonable effort to keep the premises safe from discoverable defects. (correct answer)
No, because the furniture supplier is solely liable for the manufacturing defect in the chair.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. A business owner owes a duty to invitees to exercise reasonable care to discover and remedy dangerous conditions. The key question for breach is whether the defendant's conduct was reasonable. Here, the restaurant had a daily inspection procedure. Because the defect was hidden and not discoverable by a reasonable visual inspection, the restaurant likely met its standard of care. It is not required to take extraordinary measures, like x-raying its chairs, to find hidden defects. A is a weak argument because the defect could have been a manufacturing flaw that existed without the restaurant's negligence, undermining the inference of res ipsa loquitur. B is incorrect because business owners are not strictly liable. D addresses the liability of another party but doesn't resolve the question of the restaurant's own breach.

Question 8

An adult homeowner suffered from a severe, diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia. During a psychotic episode, he became convinced that his neighbor's prize-winning rose bushes were transmitting harmful signals to his brain. Believing he was acting in self-defense, he took a pair of shears and destroyed all of the bushes. The neighbor sued the homeowner for the value of the destroyed property.

In assessing whether the homeowner breached his duty of care to his neighbor's property, what standard of care will the court apply? Select one.

The standard of a reasonable person of ordinary prudence without regard to the homeowner's mental illness. (correct answer)
A subjective standard based on whether the homeowner genuinely believed his actions were necessary.
The standard of a reasonable person with the same mental illness.
No duty of care is owed by a person who is legally declared mentally incompetent.

Explanation: This question tests tort law's treatment of mental illness in determining the standard of care for negligence claims. When you encounter scenarios involving defendants with mental disabilities, remember that tort law generally prioritizes protecting victims and maintaining consistent standards over accommodating the defendant's condition. The correct answer is A because tort law applies an objective standard that disregards mental illness when determining breach of duty. Courts hold mentally ill defendants to the same standard as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence. This rule serves several policy purposes: it ensures compensation for innocent victims, avoids the difficulty of measuring degrees of mental illness, and prevents people from escaping liability by claiming mental incapacity. The homeowner's paranoid schizophrenia, while genuine, doesn't lower the standard of care he owes to his neighbor's property. Answer B is wrong because tort law uses an objective standard, not a subjective one based on the defendant's personal beliefs or mental state. The homeowner's genuine belief doesn't excuse the tortious conduct. Answer C is incorrect because courts don't adjust the reasonable person standard to account for mental illness. Unlike physical disabilities (where accommodations are sometimes made), mental illness doesn't modify the standard of care. Answer D is wrong because mental incompetence doesn't eliminate the duty of care entirely. Even legally incompetent individuals can be held liable in tort for damages they cause. Remember this key distinction: while mental illness may be relevant for criminal law defenses, tort law maintains an objective standard to ensure victim compensation and prevent fraudulent claims of mental incapacity.

Question 9

A 17-year-old was hired by a pizza parlor as a delivery driver. On his first day, while using his own car for a delivery, he took his eyes off the road to check a map on his phone. In doing so, he ran a red light and struck a pedestrian in the crosswalk. A state statute prohibits the use of handheld electronic devices while driving. The injured pedestrian sued the 17-year-old driver.

Which legal principle provides the strongest basis for finding that the driver breached a duty of care to the pedestrian? Select one.

The driver's violation of the statute prohibiting handheld device use constitutes negligence per se. (correct answer)
The driver should be judged by the heightened standard of a professional delivery driver.
The driver, as a minor, should be judged by the standard of a reasonable 17-year-old with similar driving experience.
The driver's employer is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee.

Explanation: When analyzing negligence claims involving statutory violations, you need to consider whether the violation itself establishes the breach of duty element through the doctrine of negligence per se. Negligence per se applies when a defendant violates a statute that was designed to protect the class of people the plaintiff belongs to (here, pedestrians) from the type of harm that occurred (traffic accidents). The 17-year-old's violation of the handheld device statute while driving directly caused the accident that injured the pedestrian. This statutory violation establishes breach of duty automatically, without requiring proof that a reasonable person wouldn't have used their phone while driving. Looking at the wrong answers: B is incorrect because being a delivery driver doesn't create a heightened professional standard—delivery drivers are still held to the ordinary reasonable driver standard, not a specialized professional one like doctors or lawyers. C misses the point entirely; while minors are sometimes judged by age-appropriate standards, this question asks for the strongest basis for finding breach of duty, and negligence per se provides a much more direct path than analyzing reasonable conduct. D addresses the wrong legal issue—vicarious liability determines who can be held responsible for damages, but doesn't establish whether the driver himself breached a duty of care. Study tip: When you see statutory violations in negligence questions, immediately ask whether negligence per se applies. If the statute was designed to prevent the type of harm that occurred to the type of person who was injured, negligence per se often provides the strongest and most straightforward argument for breach of duty.

Question 10

A state statute requires that all commercial loading docks be equipped with a specific type of safety gate to prevent workers from accidentally falling off the edge. A warehouse owner failed to install these required gates. One day, a truck driver was backing his truck up to the loading dock. Due to a mechanical failure in the truck's steering, the truck veered sharply and crashed through the warehouse's roll-up door, injuring a worker inside the warehouse. The injured worker sued the warehouse owner, arguing that the failure to install the safety gates constituted negligence per se.

Is the court likely to find that the warehouse owner's statutory violation constitutes negligence per se? Select one.

Yes, because the owner violated a safety statute and an injury occurred on the premises.
Yes, because the injured worker was within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect.
No, because the harm that occurred was not the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent. (correct answer)
No, because the truck driver's mechanical failure was a superseding cause of the injury.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. For the doctrine of negligence per se to apply, two conditions must be met: (1) the plaintiff must be in the class of persons the statute was intended to protect, and (2) the harm suffered must be the type of harm the statute was intended to prevent. Here, the statute was designed to prevent workers from falling off the loading dock. The harm that actually occurred—being hit by a truck crashing into the warehouse—is not the type of harm the safety gate statute was designed to prevent. Therefore, negligence per se is inapplicable. A is incorrect because a causal link between the violation and the specific type of harm is required. B is true (the worker is in the protected class), but it is only one of the two required elements. D addresses causation, not the breach element; the primary reason negligence per se fails here is the mismatch of harm types.

Question 11

In assessing whether the homeowner breached his duty of care to his neighbor's property, what standard of care will the court apply? Select one.

The standard of a reasonable person of ordinary prudence without regard to the homeowner's mental illness. (correct answer)
A subjective standard based on whether the homeowner genuinely believed his actions were necessary.
The standard of a reasonable person with the same mental illness.
No duty of care is owed by a person who is legally declared mentally incompetent.

Question 12

A jurisdiction's vehicle code provides that violation of a state traffic law is 'evidence of negligence' but is not conclusive. A driver was traveling 50 mph in a 45 mph zone on a dry, straight road with good visibility. A child suddenly darted into the road from behind a parked car 100 feet ahead of the driver. The driver immediately applied the brakes but was unable to stop before striking the child. An accident reconstruction expert testified that, given the driver's reaction time, even if he had been traveling at the legal speed limit of 45 mph, he would not have been able to stop in time to avoid hitting the child.

In a negligence action on behalf of the child, is the driver's speeding likely to be found a breach of duty that caused the injury? Select one.

No, because the expert testimony shows the driver's speeding was not the actual cause of the injury. (correct answer)
Yes, because the driver's excess speed reduced the time available to react to the hazard.
Yes, because the driver violated the speed limit statute, which constitutes a breach of duty.
No, because the child's action in darting into the road was a superseding cause of the accident.

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of actual causation (cause-in-fact) in negligence law, specifically the "but for" test. When a defendant violates a statute, you must still prove that the violation actually caused the plaintiff's harm. The correct answer is A because the expert testimony establishes that even at the legal speed limit, the driver could not have avoided hitting the child. This breaks the causal chain between the speeding and the injury. Under the "but for" test, we ask: "But for the defendant's breach of duty, would the harm have occurred?" Here, the answer is yes—the harm would have occurred anyway, making the speeding not an actual cause of the injury. Choice B is wrong because while excess speed theoretically reduces reaction time, the expert testimony specifically negates this concern by showing that even with proper speed, the accident was unavoidable. Choice C incorrectly focuses only on duty without considering causation—violating a statute can establish breach of duty, but you still need to prove that breach caused the harm. The jurisdiction's rule that traffic violations are "evidence of negligence" supports this analysis. Choice D misapplies superseding cause doctrine—the child's actions don't break the causal chain since they were the very harm the speed limit was designed to protect against. Remember: In statutory violation cases, always analyze all four negligence elements. Even when duty and breach seem clear from the statute violation, causation and damages must still be independently proven. Actual causation requires showing the violation made a difference in the outcome.

Question 13

In a negligence action on behalf of the child, is the driver's speeding likely to be found a breach of duty that caused the injury? Select one.

No, because the expert testimony shows the driver's speeding was not the actual cause of the injury. (correct answer)
Yes, because the driver's excess speed reduced the time available to react to the hazard.
Yes, because the driver violated the speed limit statute, which constitutes a breach of duty.
No, because the child's action in darting into the road was a superseding cause of the accident.

Question 14

Is the court likely to find that the warehouse owner's statutory violation constitutes negligence per se? Select one.

Yes, because the owner violated a safety statute and an injury occurred on the premises.
Yes, because the injured worker was within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect.
No, because the harm that occurred was not the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent. (correct answer)
No, because the truck driver's mechanical failure was a superseding cause of the injury.

Question 15

In a negligence claim against the supermarket, what is the plaintiff's strongest argument that the supermarket breached its duty of care? Select one.

That the mere existence of the hazardous condition on the floor constitutes a breach of duty.
That the supermarket is strictly liable for all injuries to its customers that occur on its premises.
That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies because customers do not ordinarily slip in the absence of negligence.
That a 30-minute inspection interval was not a reasonably sufficient safety precaution under the circumstances. (correct answer)

Question 16

What is the greatest obstacle to proving breach against the building owner using the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur? Select one.

The accident is a type that can occur without anyone's negligence.
The client may have contributed to the accident by choosing to sit outside.
The building owner did not have exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused the harm. (correct answer)
The building owner did not owe a duty of care to patrons of the ground-floor cafe.

Question 17

A homeowner purchased a new gas grill that required assembly. The homeowner, an accountant with no mechanical experience, carefully read the instructions and spent several hours assembling the grill. He attached the propane tank hose to the grill, but failed to sufficiently tighten a key fitting, creating a slow gas leak. The instructions included a bold-printed warning to check all fittings for leaks with soapy water before use, a step the homeowner skipped. The next day, he lit the grill. Leaked gas that had accumulated under the grill ignited, causing an explosion that injured a guest standing nearby.

In a lawsuit by the injured guest, what is the strongest argument that the homeowner breached his duty of reasonable care? Select one.

The homeowner is strictly liable for injuries caused by the use of dangerous instrumentalities like propane grills.
The homeowner's lack of mechanical experience is not a defense, and he failed to follow a specific safety instruction. (correct answer)
The homeowner's assembly of the grill created a hidden danger for which he failed to provide an adequate warning to his guest.
The homeowner will only be found to have breached his duty if the guest can prove he had actual knowledge of the gas leak.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The standard of care is that of a reasonably prudent person. This standard is objective; a defendant's personal lack of experience or skill is not an excuse. A reasonably prudent person assembling a gas grill would follow the explicit safety warnings in the instructions. The homeowner's failure to perform the recommended leak test, a simple and critical safety step, is strong evidence of a breach of duty. A is incorrect because operating a gas grill is not an abnormally dangerous activity that invokes strict liability. C describes a duty to warn, which is relevant, but the primary breach here is the negligent assembly. D is incorrect because the homeowner can be negligent for failing to discover a danger that a reasonable person would have discovered, even without actual knowledge.

Question 18

A patient suffering from a rare heart condition consulted a surgeon. There were two widely recognized surgical procedures to treat the condition. Procedure A had a 90% success rate but carried a 10% risk of a specific, serious nerve complication. Procedure B had an 85% success rate but only a 1% risk of the same nerve complication. Both procedures were accepted as valid treatments within the surgical community. After fully disclosing the risks of both procedures, the surgeon, with the patient's consent, performed Procedure A. The surgery was performed flawlessly, but the patient unfortunately developed the nerve complication.

In a medical malpractice suit against the surgeon, will the patient likely succeed in proving that the surgeon breached the standard of care by choosing Procedure A? Select one.

Yes, because the surgeon chose a procedure with a significantly higher risk of the specific complication that occurred.
Yes, because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when a patient is injured during surgery.
No, because a doctor does not breach the standard of care by choosing one of several medically accepted procedures after proper disclosure. (correct answer)
No, because the patient gave informed consent to the procedure, which acts as a complete bar to any claim of negligence.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. A physician is held to the standard of care of a reasonably prudent physician in the same or similar community. When there are multiple accepted methods of treatment for a condition, a doctor does not breach the standard of care by selecting one of these accepted methods, even if it is not the most conservative option, provided the patient is properly informed. Since both procedures were widely recognized, the surgeon's choice of one over the other was not a breach. A is incorrect because choosing a riskier procedure is not a breach if the procedure is medically accepted. B is incorrect because res ipsa loquitur is not appropriate here; the injury (a known complication) can occur without negligence. D is incorrect because while informed consent is relevant, it does not bar a claim if the treatment itself was negligently performed or chosen; here, the choice was not negligent.

Question 19

A 16-year-old with several years of experience operating small boats took his family's powerful speedboat onto a crowded lake. A local ordinance required boats to maintain a distance of at least 100 feet from swimmers. While operating the boat at a high but legal speed, the teenager became distracted by a friend on another boat and passed within 50 feet of a designated swimming area. His boat's wake created a large wave that struck a swimmer, causing the swimmer to inhale water and suffer an injury.

In a lawsuit by the swimmer, which standard of care is the court most likely to apply to the teenager's conduct? Select one.

The standard of a reasonable 16-year-old with similar experience in operating boats.
The standard of a reasonably prudent adult boat operator. (correct answer)
A standard of strict liability because operating a powerful speedboat is an ultrahazardous activity.
The standard of care established by the local ordinance, making his violation conclusive evidence of breach.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. While children are typically held to the standard of a child of like age, intelligence, and experience, there is a major exception for engaging in adult activities. Operating a powerful motor vehicle, such as a speedboat, is considered an adult activity. Therefore, the 16-year-old will be held to the same standard of care as a reasonably prudent adult. A is incorrect because it applies the general child standard of care, which is inappropriate for this adult activity. C is incorrect because operating a speedboat is not typically classified as an ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activity that would trigger strict liability. D describes negligence per se, which is relevant to determining breach, but the question asks for the overall standard of care the court will apply to his conduct, which is the adult standard.

Question 20

A manufacturing company operated a factory that used a specific chemical process. For 30 years, the entire industry, including this company, had used a particular type of containment valve that was considered the industry standard. However, several recent engineering studies, widely published in trade journals, concluded that this standard valve was prone to failure and that a newer, more expensive valve design offered a significantly higher degree of safety. The company did not upgrade its valves. A standard valve failed, releasing toxic fumes and injuring several workers.

In a negligence action by the injured workers, is the company's compliance with the industry custom likely to be a complete defense to the claim of breach? Select one.

Yes, because following the accepted custom of an industry establishes a conclusive presumption of reasonable care.
Yes, unless the workers can prove the company had actual knowledge of the engineering studies.
No, because industry custom is only evidence of the standard of care and is not dispositive if the custom itself is unreasonable. (correct answer)
No, because the release of toxic fumes from a factory is an abnormally dangerous activity that subjects the company to strict liability.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. While evidence of industry custom is relevant and admissible to help determine the standard of reasonable care, it is not conclusive. An entire industry may lag in adopting safer practices, and courts can find the entire industry's custom to be negligent. Given the widely published studies on the valve's deficiencies, a jury could find that a reasonably prudent company would have upgraded its equipment, despite the prevailing industry custom. A is incorrect because custom is not a conclusive presumption. B is incorrect because the company could be charged with constructive knowledge of widely published studies in its field. D may be a plausible alternative claim, but the question asks about the negligence claim and the effect of custom, and not all chemical usage is deemed abnormally dangerous.