Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Duty Of Care

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Duty Of CareQuestion 1 of 20

A pregnant woman was prescribed a new medication by her physician. The physician failed to research the drug adequately and did not know that it carried a significant risk of causing birth defects. As a direct result of the mother taking the drug during pregnancy, her child was born with a severe physical disability. Years later, a lawsuit for negligence was filed against the physician on behalf of the child.

In this 'wrongful life' action brought by the child, what is the primary legal obstacle to establishing a duty of care owed by the physician to the child for being born with a disability? Select one.

The child was not yet born when the negligent act occurred, so the physician owed no duty to a non-existent person.

The physician's duty of care was owed exclusively to the mother, who was the patient, not to the fetus.

The mother's own negligence in not researching the medication herself constituted a superseding cause.

The difficulty in measuring damages, as it requires comparing the value of an impaired life to no life at all.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Duty Of Care

Practice Duty Of Care 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 Duty Of Care, 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

In this 'wrongful life' action brought by the child, what is the primary legal obstacle to establishing a duty of care owed by the physician to the child for being born with a disability? Select one.

The child was not yet born when the negligent act occurred, so the physician owed no duty to a non-existent person.
The physician's duty of care was owed exclusively to the mother, who was the patient, not to the fetus.
The mother's own negligence in not researching the medication herself constituted a superseding cause.
The difficulty in measuring damages, as it requires comparing the value of an impaired life to no life at all. (correct answer)

Explanation: Wrongful life actions present unique challenges in tort law because they involve a fundamental philosophical and legal question: can being born with disabilities be considered a legal injury when the alternative would have been no birth at all? The primary obstacle in wrongful life cases isn't about establishing that the physician was negligent or that a duty existed, but rather the impossibility of calculating meaningful damages. Courts struggle with comparing an impaired life to non-existence because life, even with severe disabilities, is generally not considered legally worse than no life at all. How do you quantify the "harm" of existence itself? This creates an insurmountable barrier to recovery, making option D correct. Let's examine why the other options miss the mark: Option A is incorrect because courts have consistently recognized that physicians can owe duties to unborn children, particularly regarding prenatal care and avoiding harm during pregnancy. Option B fails because the physician-patient relationship, while primarily with the mother, extends to encompass foreseeable harm to the fetus. The physician's duty of care isn't exclusively limited to the mother when their actions directly affect the developing child. Option C incorrectly focuses on the mother's conduct, but patients aren't expected to independently research prescription medications—they reasonably rely on their physician's expertise and recommendations. When you encounter wrongful life questions, remember that the core issue isn't about duty or breach, but about the conceptual impossibility of proving that existence with disabilities constitutes legally compensable harm compared to non-existence.

Question 2

An avid hiker was trekking through a remote, privately owned forest that was commonly used by the public for recreation, a fact known to the landowner. The landowner did not charge a fee for access. A state recreational use statute immunizes landowners from liability for negligence toward non-paying recreational users, but does not immunize them for 'willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition.' The landowner knew that poachers had set up several concealed bear traps on the property, but he did nothing to remove them or post warnings. The hiker stepped in one of the traps and was severely injured. The hiker sued the landowner.

In this case, did the landowner owe a duty of care to the hiker? Select one.

No, because the state's recreational use statute completely immunizes the landowner from liability for negligence.
No, because the hiker was a licensee, and the landowner's only duty was to warn of known dangers, which was abrogated by the statute.
Yes, because the landowner's failure to warn about the known, highly dangerous traps could be found to be willful or malicious. (correct answer)
Yes, because the landowner had a general duty of reasonable care to all entrants on his land, regardless of the statute.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Recreational use statutes modify the common law duties of landowners. They typically provide immunity from ordinary negligence to encourage landowners to keep their land open for public recreation. However, these statutes almost always contain an exception for more culpable conduct, such as willful, wanton, or malicious failure to warn or guard against known dangers. Here, the landowner knew about the concealed, highly dangerous bear traps and did nothing. A fact-finder could determine this inaction constitutes a 'willful or malicious failure to guard or warn,' thus piercing the statutory immunity and establishing a duty. A is incorrect because it ignores the exception in the statute. B incorrectly analyzes the common law status without considering that the statute modifies it, and it wrongly concludes the statute abrogates all duties. D is incorrect because the recreational use statute specifically displaces the general common law duty of care.

Question 3

A university owned a large, unfenced tract of undeveloped land adjacent to its campus. The university was aware that students frequently used a well-worn path across the land as a shortcut between the campus and a nearby apartment complex. One weekend, a university maintenance crew dug a deep trench across the path to install a new water line but failed to put up any warning signs or barriers. That night, a student who regularly used the shortcut was walking along the path, fell into the trench, and was seriously injured. The student sued the university.

What is the strongest basis for finding that the university owed a duty of care to the student? Select one.

The student was an invitee because she was a student of the university, and the university owed her a duty to make its premises reasonably safe.
The university owed a duty of care under the attractive nuisance doctrine because the trench could be appealing to students.
The university owed the student a duty to warn of a known, artificial, and non-obvious dangerous condition because she was a known or anticipated trespasser. (correct answer)
The university owed no duty of care to the student because she was a mere trespasser on undeveloped land.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The student's legal status on the undeveloped land is that of a trespasser, as she was not invited to use that specific area as a shortcut. However, because the university was aware that students frequently used the path, she is considered a known or anticipated trespasser. For known trespassers, a landowner owes a duty to warn or make safe known, artificial, non-obvious, dangerous conditions. The trench was an artificial condition, it was dangerous, it was not obvious at night, and the university knew about it. A is incorrect because the student's status as an invitee on the main campus does not extend to areas she is not invited to, like this undeveloped land being used as a shortcut. B is incorrect because the attractive nuisance doctrine applies specifically to protect children from artificial conditions, not university students. D is incorrect because a heightened duty is owed to known or anticipated trespassers compared to unknown trespassers.

Question 4

A social host held a graduation party for her adult son. She served alcoholic beverages to all guests, including one guest who she knew had a history of drunk driving. The host watched this guest become visibly and severely intoxicated over several hours. Despite this, when the guest was leaving, the host said nothing to stop him from driving. The intoxicated guest then caused a car accident, injuring a pedestrian. The pedestrian sued the social host for negligence.

In a jurisdiction that has not enacted a dram shop act and follows the common law rule, did the social host owe a duty of care to the pedestrian? Select one.

Yes, because the host's affirmative act of serving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person created a foreseeable risk of harm.
Yes, because the host had a special relationship with her guests, giving her a duty to control their conduct.
No, because at common law, a social host has no duty to third parties for injuries caused by an intoxicated adult guest. (correct answer)
No, because the guest's act of driving drunk was an independent, superseding cause of the pedestrian's injury.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The traditional common law rule is that a social host who serves alcohol to an adult guest is not liable for injuries caused by that guest's intoxication. The rationale is that the consumption of the alcohol, not the furnishing of it, is the proximate cause of the injury. While many states have modified this rule by statute (dram shop acts, which typically apply to commercial vendors) or by judicial decision, the question specifies that the jurisdiction follows the common law rule. Therefore, the social host owed no duty to the pedestrian. A represents the reasoning used by courts that have rejected the common law rule, but it is not the common law rule itself. B is incorrect because the host-guest relationship is not typically considered a 'special relationship' that imposes a duty to control. D discusses causation, which is a separate element from duty; the lack of a duty is the dispositive issue here.

Question 5

A homeowner hosted a large backyard party. He knew that a wooden board on his deck was rotten but did nothing to repair it or warn his guests. One guest, a business client the homeowner was trying to impress, stepped on the rotten board, which gave way. The client fell and broke his leg. Another guest, who had crashed the party without an invitation, also stepped on the same rotten board later in the evening and sustained a similar injury. Both the client and the party crasher sued the homeowner for negligence.

In a jurisdiction that follows the traditional common law categories for landowner liability, what duty of care did the homeowner likely owe to the business client and the party crasher, respectively? Select one.

A duty of reasonable care to both the client and the party crasher.
A duty to warn of known dangers to the client, and no duty to the party crasher other than to avoid willful or wanton misconduct. (correct answer)
A duty to inspect for and repair all dangers for the client, and no duty to the party crasher regarding the rotten board.
A duty to warn of or make safe known dangers for the client, and a duty to warn of known dangers to the party crasher.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Under the traditional common law categories, the business client is an invitee because he is on the premises for the potential economic benefit of the landowner. The homeowner owes an invitee a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect them from both known dangers and those that would be revealed by a reasonable inspection. Warning of a known danger fulfills this duty. The party crasher is a trespasser, specifically an undiscovered trespasser at the time of injury. The only duty owed to an undiscovered trespasser is to refrain from willful, wanton, or intentional misconduct. There is no duty to warn of or make safe dangerous conditions. Therefore, B correctly identifies the duty owed to the invitee (warn of known dangers) and the lack of duty owed to the undiscovered trespasser regarding the condition of the land.

Question 6

A therapist was treating a patient for severe anger management issues. During a session, the patient stated, "I'm going to get my boss for firing me. Next Monday, I'm going to be waiting for him in the parking lot and I'm going to hurt him badly." The patient named his former boss and the company where he worked. The therapist, concerned about patient confidentiality, took no action. The following Monday, the patient went to his former workplace and seriously assaulted his former boss in the parking lot. The boss sued the therapist for negligence.

Is the therapist likely to be found to have owed a duty of care to the boss? Select one.

No, because a therapist's primary duty of confidentiality to a patient overrides any duty to a third party.
No, because there is generally no duty to control the conduct of a third person to prevent them from causing harm to another.
Yes, because the therapist had a duty to protect a foreseeable victim from the patient's threatened violence. (correct answer)
Yes, because the therapist-patient relationship is a special relationship that requires the therapist to control the patient's actions.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. While the general rule is no duty to control the conduct of a third party, a major exception exists for therapists. When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of the profession should determine, that a patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, the therapist incurs a duty to use reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim. This may involve warning the potential victim or notifying law enforcement. Here, the patient made a specific threat against an identifiable victim (the boss). This specific threat creates a duty to the boss. A is incorrect because the duty to protect third parties from specific threats of serious harm is a recognized exception to the duty of confidentiality. B states the general rule but ignores the widely adopted exception applicable here. D is slightly inaccurate; the duty is not to control the patient, but to protect the foreseeable victim, which is a more nuanced obligation.

Question 7

A company operated a chemical plant. As part of its normal, permitted operations, it stored hazardous chemicals in secure underground tanks. Unbeknownst to the company, one of the tanks developed a microscopic, slow leak due to a manufacturing defect. Over the course of several years, chemicals leached into the groundwater, contaminating the wells of a nearby farm. The farm was forced to cease operations, resulting in purely economic losses. The farmer sued the company for negligence, arguing the company had a duty to prevent such contamination.

Which legal principle best supports the existence of a duty of care owed by the company to the farmer in this situation? Select one.

The general duty of reasonable care owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs. (correct answer)
The duty of a landowner to prevent harm to adjacent properties from artificial conditions on the land.
The heightened duty of care associated with engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity.
The duty of a commercial enterprise to avoid causing economic loss to neighboring businesses.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. This scenario describes a classic negligence claim. Under the majority Cardozo view from Palsgraf, a duty of care is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs within the zone of risk created by the defendant's conduct. It is foreseeable that mishandling or failing to properly maintain tanks of hazardous chemicals could lead to contamination of neighboring properties, causing harm. The farmer, as a nearby property owner, is a foreseeable plaintiff. B is plausible but less precise; the duty is not just about artificial conditions but about the negligent handling of activities on the land. C is incorrect because the claim is for negligence, not strict liability. While storing hazardous chemicals can be an abnormally dangerous activity leading to strict liability, the question asks about the duty of care for a negligence claim. D is incorrect because there is no general duty to avoid causing purely economic loss; the duty here arises because the economic loss is derivative of the physical property damage (the contaminated wells and groundwater).

Question 8

A construction company was demolishing a building in a dense urban area. The company failed to erect a protective canopy over the adjacent public sidewalk, a violation of a municipal safety ordinance designed to protect pedestrians from falling debris. A pedestrian was walking on the sidewalk when a piece of concrete fell from the building, striking and injuring her. The pedestrian sued the construction company.

What is the most direct legal principle for establishing that the construction company owed a duty of care to the pedestrian and breached that duty? Select one.

Res ipsa loquitur.
Negligence per se. (correct answer)
The general duty of reasonable care.
Strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Negligence per se is a doctrine where a criminal or regulatory statute's standard of conduct can be adopted as the standard of care in a negligence case. 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 safety ordinance was designed to protect pedestrians (the plaintiff's class) from falling debris (the type of harm). The company's unexcused violation of the ordinance can establish both duty and breach. A is incorrect because res ipsa loquitur applies when the mechanism of injury is unknown, which is not the case here. C is a correct but less specific answer; negligence per se is a more direct and powerful way to establish duty and breach in this specific context. D is incorrect because demolition is not typically considered an ultrahazardous activity subject to strict liability unless blasting is involved.

Question 9

A man suffered a fatal allergic reaction after being stung by a bee at an outdoor cafe. The man's estate brought a wrongful death action against the cafe owner, alleging negligence. The complaint stated that the cafe owner had a duty to protect patrons from bees because the owner had placed several flowering plants near the seating area, which foreseeably attracted bees, and had failed to take any measures to control the insects or warn patrons of their presence.

What is the cafe owner's strongest argument for the nonexistence of a duty of care in this case? Select one.

That the man's severe allergy was an unforeseeable condition, breaking the chain of causation.
That the presence of bees outdoors is a naturally occurring condition for which landowners are generally not liable. (correct answer)
That the man assumed the risk of being stung by a bee by choosing to dine at an outdoor establishment.
That the cafe owner had no special relationship with the man that would give rise to a duty to protect him from insects.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. A landowner's duty of care generally extends to managing risks from artificial conditions or activities on the property. The duty to protect invitees from naturally occurring conditions is much more limited, especially for conditions that are obvious or that exist outside of the premises (like wild animals or insects). The cafe owner's best argument is that bees are a natural part of the outdoor environment and that he has no duty to guarantee a patron's safety from them, even if his plants made the area more attractive to them. A addresses the scope of liability (foreseeability of harm), not the existence of the initial duty. C raises an affirmative defense (assumption of risk), not an argument about the nonexistence of a duty. D is incorrect because the cafe owner-patron relationship is a special relationship that creates a duty of care, but that duty does not typically extend to protecting patrons from common, naturally occurring insects.

Question 10

A police officer observed a car driving erratically and initiated a traffic stop. As the officer approached the vehicle, the driver suddenly sped away, initiating a high-speed chase through a residential neighborhood. The officer pursued the driver. During the chase, the fleeing driver ran a stop sign and collided with a pedestrian in a crosswalk. The pedestrian, who was seriously injured, sued the police department, alleging that the officer was negligent in deciding to continue the pursuit.

Which principle will be most critical in determining whether the police officer owed a duty of care to the pedestrian that was breached by continuing the chase? Select one.

The public duty doctrine, which holds that an officer's duty is owed to the public as a whole, not to a specific individual.
Sovereign immunity, which bars all lawsuits against government entities for the actions of their employees.
The rule that a third party's criminal act, like fleeing from the police, is always a superseding cause that cuts off the officer's liability.
The balancing of the risk of harm to the public from the pursuit against the law enforcement interest in apprehending the suspect. (correct answer)

Explanation: When analyzing police liability for injuries during pursuits, courts must determine whether officers owed a duty of care to specific individuals and whether that duty was breached. This requires balancing competing interests rather than applying blanket immunity rules. The correct approach involves weighing the risks and benefits of continuing the pursuit (D). Courts examine factors like the severity of the original crime, public safety risks from the chase itself, traffic conditions, and the likelihood of apprehending the suspect. If the risks to public safety outweigh the law enforcement benefit, continuing the pursuit could breach the duty of care owed to foreseeable victims like pedestrians. Option A misapplies the public duty doctrine. While this doctrine can limit police liability, it doesn't automatically bar all claims. Modern courts often recognize exceptions when police conduct creates or increases specific risks to identifiable individuals. Option B incorrectly states that sovereign immunity provides complete protection. Most jurisdictions have waived sovereign immunity for government tort liability, and even where it exists, it typically includes exceptions for negligent conduct by employees. Option C wrongly suggests that criminal acts of third parties always constitute superseding causes. While the fleeing driver's conduct is relevant, it doesn't automatically cut off police liability if the officer's decision to pursue was unreasonable and a foreseeable cause of harm. Remember that police liability questions often turn on reasonableness standards rather than absolute immunity. Look for fact patterns requiring courts to balance public safety against law enforcement objectives.

Question 11

In this 'wrongful life' action brought by the child, what is the primary legal obstacle to establishing a duty of care owed by the physician to the child for being born with a disability? Select one.

The child was not yet born when the negligent act occurred, so the physician owed no duty to a non-existent person.
The physician's duty of care was owed exclusively to the mother, who was the patient, not to the fetus.
The mother's own negligence in not researching the medication herself constituted a superseding cause.
The difficulty in measuring damages, as it requires comparing the value of an impaired life to no life at all. (correct answer)

Question 12

Which principle will be most critical in determining whether the police officer owed a duty of care to the pedestrian that was breached by continuing the chase? Select one.

The public duty doctrine, which holds that an officer's duty is owed to the public as a whole, not to a specific individual.
Sovereign immunity, which bars all lawsuits against government entities for the actions of their employees.
The rule that a third party's criminal act, like fleeing from the police, is always a superseding cause that cuts off the officer's liability.
The balancing of the risk of harm to the public from the pursuit against the law enforcement interest in apprehending the suspect. (correct answer)

Question 13

What is the strongest basis for finding that the university owed a duty of care to the student? Select one.

The student was an invitee because she was a student of the university, and the university owed her a duty to make its premises reasonably safe.
The university owed a duty of care under the attractive nuisance doctrine because the trench could be appealing to students.
The university owed the student a duty to warn of a known, artificial, and non-obvious dangerous condition because she was a known or anticipated trespasser. (correct answer)
The university owed no duty of care to the student because she was a mere trespasser on undeveloped land.

Question 14

A mother was driving with her ten-year-old son in the passenger seat. She stopped at a red light. The driver of the car directly behind her was texting and failed to stop, rear-ending the mother's car at a low speed. The impact was minor, and neither the mother nor her son suffered any physical injury. However, the son, who had a severe preexisting anxiety disorder, suffered a major panic attack and subsequently developed an intense fear of riding in cars. The mother sued the texting driver on her son's behalf for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED).

Is the son likely to be able to establish that the texting driver owed him a duty of care for his emotional distress? Select one.

Yes, because he was in the zone of danger created by the defendant's negligent conduct. (correct answer)
No, because he did not suffer any physical impact or physical injury from the collision.
No, because his emotional reaction was unforeseeable due to his preexisting anxiety disorder.
Yes, because he was a foreseeable bystander who witnessed an injury to a close relative.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. To recover for NIED, a plaintiff generally must show they were within the 'zone of danger' of the defendant's negligence—that is, they were at risk of immediate physical harm—and that the distress manifested in physical symptoms. Here, the son was a passenger in the car that was struck, placing him squarely within the zone of danger. The fact that he was not physically injured does not preclude recovery, as the risk of harm is what matters. The subsequent panic attacks and intense fear can constitute the required physical manifestations of his distress. B is incorrect because most jurisdictions no longer require a physical impact for NIED if the plaintiff was in the zone of danger. C is incorrect because under the 'thin-skull' or 'eggshell plaintiff' rule, a defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them; the unforeseeability of the extent of the harm is not a defense to liability if the duty and breach are established. D is incorrect because bystander recovery is a separate theory for plaintiffs who are outside the zone of danger but witness injury to a close relative; here, the son was a direct victim within the zone of danger.

Question 15

A woman was walking her dog in a residential neighborhood when she saw her neighbor collapse on his front lawn, apparently from a heart attack. The woman did not know her neighbor well. Fearing she might do something wrong, she did not render aid or call 911. Instead, she continued her walk. A few minutes later, another passerby saw the collapsed man and called for an ambulance, but the man had already died. The man's estate sued the woman for negligence.

The woman's attorney is preparing a motion to dismiss. What is the strongest legal argument that the woman owed no duty of care to her neighbor? Select one.

That the neighbor's sudden heart attack was a superseding cause of his death.
That the woman, as a layperson, did not possess the requisite skill to render medical assistance.
That there is no general duty to undertake an affirmative act to aid a person in peril, absent a special relationship. (correct answer)
That the availability of other potential rescuers, like the subsequent passerby, negated any duty she might have had.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This is a classic nonfeasance scenario. The common law does not impose a general duty to act or rescue another person. Exceptions exist for special relationships, creation of the peril, or voluntary assumption of duty, none of which apply here. The relationship of being neighbors is not considered a 'special relationship' that gives rise to a duty to rescue. This is the core legal principle that absolves the woman of a duty to act. A discusses causation, not duty. B discusses the standard of care or potential breach, not the initial existence of a duty; lack of skill would be relevant if she had chosen to act, but it doesn't negate the existence of a duty if one existed. D is incorrect because the presence of others does not eliminate a duty to act if one is independently owed.

Question 16

What is the cafe owner's strongest argument for the nonexistence of a duty of care in this case? Select one.

That the man's severe allergy was an unforeseeable condition, breaking the chain of causation.
That the presence of bees outdoors is a naturally occurring condition for which landowners are generally not liable. (correct answer)
That the man assumed the risk of being stung by a bee by choosing to dine at an outdoor establishment.
That the cafe owner had no special relationship with the man that would give rise to a duty to protect him from insects.

Question 17

A city fire department responded to a report of a fire at a warehouse. Due to a series of negligent mistakes by the fire crew—including connecting to a faulty hydrant and mismanaging their water supply—the fire, which should have been easily contained, spread to an adjacent office building, completely destroying it. The owner of the office building sued the city for negligence.

In a jurisdiction where sovereign immunity for government functions is waived for ministerial acts but not for discretionary acts, what is the city's strongest argument that it owed no duty of care to the building owner? Select one.

That the city owes a duty only to the public at large, not to individual property owners, under the public duty doctrine. (correct answer)
That the decisions made in fighting a fire are discretionary functions, and thus the city is immune from liability.
That the warehouse owner's negligence in starting the fire was a superseding cause that cuts off the city's liability.
That the building owner assumed the risk of fire damage by locating its business next to a warehouse.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The public duty doctrine provides that when a government entity performs a governmental function (like firefighting or policing), its duty is owed to the public at large, not to any specific individual. Therefore, an individual cannot sue for a breach of that duty unless a special relationship exists between the government entity and the individual, creating a specific duty. Here, the fire department was performing its public function, and no facts suggest a special relationship with the adjacent building owner. This is the city's strongest argument against the existence of a duty. B is a weaker argument because while high-level policy decisions about resource allocation are discretionary, the operational acts of fighting a fire (like connecting to a hydrant) are often considered ministerial, and thus not immune. C relates to causation, not the existence of a duty. D is not a valid legal argument; assumption of risk requires knowing and voluntary acceptance of a specific risk, which is not present here.

Question 18

Which legal principle best supports the existence of a duty of care owed by the company to the farmer in this situation? Select one.

The general duty of reasonable care owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs. (correct answer)
The duty of a landowner to prevent harm to adjacent properties from artificial conditions on the land.
The heightened duty of care associated with engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity.
The duty of a commercial enterprise to avoid causing economic loss to neighboring businesses.

Question 19

You are representing a client who owns a small grocery store. A customer slipped and fell on a puddle of clear liquid in one of the aisles and was injured. The customer has filed a negligence lawsuit. The customer's complaint alleges that your client failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. During discovery, it is established that no employee knew the puddle was there, and it is unclear how long it had been on the floor before the customer fell.

To establish that your client owed a duty regarding the puddle and breached it, what will the customer most likely have to prove? Select one.

That the store is strictly liable for any dangerous conditions on its premises that cause injury to customers.
That an employee of the store created the dangerous condition by spilling the liquid.
That the store had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and failed to take reasonable steps to remedy it. (correct answer)
That the store failed to follow its own internal policies regarding floor inspections and cleanups.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The customer is an invitee, to whom the store owner owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect against known dangers and dangers that would be discovered through a reasonable inspection. To prove a breach of this duty for a transitory condition like a spill, the plaintiff must typically show that the business had actual knowledge (an employee knew about it) or constructive knowledge of the condition. Constructive knowledge can be established by showing the condition existed for a sufficient length of time that the business, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered it. A is incorrect; store owners are not held to a strict liability standard. B is one way to prove liability, but not the only way; liability can also attach if the store had notice of a spill it didn't create. D is relevant to breach but not the fundamental test; failing to follow policy is evidence of negligence, but the core issue is notice.

Question 20

A father was standing on the sidewalk watching his seven-year-old daughter use a crosswalk to cross the street. A driver, who was distracted by his phone, failed to stop and struck the daughter, causing her serious injury. The father witnessed the entire event from a few feet away and, although physically unharmed, suffered severe emotional distress and recurring nightmares. The father sued the driver for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

In a jurisdiction following the modern bystander recovery rule, is the father likely to establish that the driver owed him a duty of care? Select one.

No, because the father was not in the zone of danger and was not at risk of physical harm himself.
No, because emotional distress without physical symptoms is generally not compensable in a negligence action.
Yes, because he is a close relative of the victim, was present at the scene, and contemporaneously observed the accident. (correct answer)
Yes, because it is always foreseeable that the parent of a young child will suffer emotional distress if the child is injured.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Most jurisdictions now permit bystander recovery for NIED under the rule established in Dillon v. Legg and its progeny. This rule typically requires the plaintiff to (1) be a close relative of the person injured, (2) be present at the scene of the injury-producing event and be aware that it is causing injury to the victim, and (3) as a result, suffer serious emotional distress. Here, the father meets all three elements: he is the victim's father (a close relative), he was present and witnessed the accident as it happened, and he suffered severe distress. A is incorrect because the entire point of the bystander recovery rule is to create an exception for plaintiffs who are not within the zone of danger. B is incorrect because severe emotional distress, often accompanied by physical manifestations like nightmares or shock to the nervous system, can be sufficient. D is too broad; while foreseeable, foreseeability alone is not enough—the specific elements of the bystander rule must be met.