Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Liability Apportionment

A plaintiff was injured in a three-vehicle collision and sustained $100,000 in damages. At trial, the jury found the plaintiff 10% at fault, Driver A 60% at fault, and Driver B 30% at fault. Driver A is insolvent and has no insurance. The jurisdiction applies pure comparative negligence and has adopted joint and several liability.

What is the maximum amount the plaintiff can recover from Driver B? Select one.

A plaintiff obtained a $90,000 judgment against three defendants: A, B, and C. The jurisdiction applies joint and several liability and uses the common law rule of pro-rata (equal share) contribution among joint tortfeasors. The plaintiff collected the entire $90,000 from Defendant A. Defendant A then sought contribution from B and C, but discovered that C is insolvent.

What is the maximum amount Defendant A can recover in contribution from Defendant B? Select one.

A plaintiff sued two defendants for negligence in an auto accident. The jury awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in damages and apportioned fault as follows: Plaintiff - 50%; Defendant 1 - 30%; Defendant 2 - 20%. The jurisdiction adheres to a modified comparative negligence system where a plaintiff's recovery is completely barred if their negligence is "as great as" the combined negligence of the defendants against whom recovery is sought.

How much will the plaintiff recover? Select one.

A pedestrian was struck by a car while jaywalking. The pedestrian sued the driver for negligence. The jury determined the pedestrian's total damages were $200,000. The jury also found the pedestrian to be 50% at fault and the driver to be 50% at fault. The jurisdiction follows a modified comparative negligence system where a plaintiff's recovery is barred if the plaintiff's fault is not less than the aggregate fault of the defendants.

How much is the pedestrian entitled to recover from the driver? Select one.

A plaintiff was injured in a three-vehicle collision and sustained $100,000 in damages. At trial, the jury found the plaintiff 10% at fault, Driver A 60% at fault, and Driver B 30% at fault. Driver A is insolvent and has no insurance. The jurisdiction applies pure comparative negligence and has adopted joint and several liability.

What is the maximum amount the plaintiff can recover from Driver B? Select one.

A driver swerved to avoid an unidentified car that ran a red light and then fled the scene. The driver's swerve caused him to collide with a legally parked car, causing $20,000 in damage. The owner of the parked car sued the driver. The jurisdiction applies pure several liability and permits a jury to consider the fault of non-parties (a "phantom" tortfeasor) in apportioning liability. At trial, the jury found the defendant driver 25% at fault and the unidentified phantom driver 75% at fault.

How much is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant driver? Select one.

Driver A and Driver B were in a car accident and both sued each other for negligence. The case went to trial. The jury found that Driver A suffered $100,000 in damages and was 40% at fault. The jury also found that Driver B suffered $50,000 in damages and was 60% at fault. The jurisdiction follows pure comparative negligence and does not permit the setoff of judgments between liable parties.

What is the outcome of the litigation? Select one.

A patient suffered an injury during surgery and sued the surgeon and the anesthesiologist. Total damages were determined to be $400,000. The jury found the surgeon 60% at fault, the anesthesiologist 20% at fault, and the patient 20% at fault for failing to disclose a pre-existing condition. The jurisdiction applies pure comparative negligence and joint and several liability. The patient settled with the anesthesiologist before trial for $100,000.

If the jurisdiction reduces a judgment by the dollar amount of any settlement, what is the maximum amount the patient can recover from the surgeon after trial? Select one.

A homeowner sued a general contractor and a plumbing subcontractor after faulty plumbing caused a major flood, resulting in $500,000 of damage. A jury determined that the contractor was 30% at fault for negligent supervision and the plumber was 70% at fault for negligent installation. The plumber has since declared bankruptcy and has no assets. The jurisdiction has statutorily abolished joint and several liability and applies a system of pure several liability.

What is the maximum amount the homeowner can recover from the general contractor? Select one.

A motorcyclist was struck by a car and thrown onto the road, breaking his leg. Seconds later, a second car ran over the motorcyclist's arm, breaking it. The motorcyclist sued the drivers of both cars. At trial, medical experts were unable to determine which impact caused which specific injury or to apportion the pain and suffering between the two impacts. The jury found the motorcyclist's total damages to be $100,000 and that the first driver was 70% at fault and the second driver was 30% at fault. The jurisdiction applies joint and several liability for indivisible injuries.

If the motorcyclist chooses to collect only from the first driver, what is the maximum amount he can recover from that driver? Select one.

A bicyclist was injured after being struck by two different cars and sustained damages of $200,000. The bicyclist was found to be 0% at fault. Before trial, the bicyclist settled her claim against Driver A for $50,000. The case proceeded to trial against Driver B. The jury found Driver A was 40% at fault and Driver B was 60% at fault. The jurisdiction applies joint and several liability and has a statute that reduces a non-settling tortfeasor's liability by the dollar amount of any settlement.

What is the maximum amount the bicyclist can recover from Driver B following the verdict? Select one.

A plaintiff won a judgment of $300,000 in a negligence action against two defendants. The jury found Defendant 1 to be 25% at fault and Defendant 2 to be 75% at fault. The plaintiff was found to have no fault. The jurisdiction has joint and several liability and allows for contribution based on each tortfeasor's relative degree of fault. The plaintiff collected the entire $300,000 judgment from Defendant 2.

What is the maximum amount Defendant 2 can recover in a contribution action against Defendant 1? Select one.

Driver A and Driver B were in a car accident and both sued each other for negligence. The case went to trial. The jury found that Driver A suffered $100,000 in damages and was 40% at fault. The jury also found that Driver B suffered $50,000 in damages and was 60% at fault. The jurisdiction follows pure comparative negligence and does not permit the setoff of judgments between liable parties.

What is the outcome of the litigation? Select one.

A customer was injured at a supermarket when an improperly secured shelf, installed by an independent contractor, collapsed. The customer sued both the supermarket and the contractor. The jury found the contractor was actively negligent in its installation and the supermarket was liable solely under a theory of a non-delegable duty to keep its premises safe for invitees. The customer obtained a $50,000 judgment and collected the entire amount from the supermarket because the contractor was under-insured.

Which claim provides the supermarket its best chance of recovering money from the contractor? Select one.

A pedestrian was injured by a company's delivery truck. The pedestrian negotiated a settlement directly with the truck driver, who was an employee of the company acting within the scope of his employment. The written agreement stated, "In exchange for $5,000, I hereby fully and finally release the driver from any and all claims arising from the accident." The pedestrian then filed a lawsuit against the company based solely on a theory of respondeat superior. The jurisdiction follows the common law rule that the release of an agent also releases the principal from vicarious liability.

What is the most likely effect of the settlement agreement on the pedestrian's lawsuit against the company? Select one.

A patient suffered an injury during surgery and sued the surgeon and the anesthesiologist. Total damages were determined to be $400,000. The jury found the surgeon 60% at fault, the anesthesiologist 20% at fault, and the patient 20% at fault for failing to disclose a pre-existing condition. The jurisdiction applies pure comparative negligence and joint and several liability. The patient settled with the anesthesiologist before trial for $100,000.

If the jurisdiction reduces a judgment by the dollar amount of any settlement, what is the maximum amount the patient can recover from the surgeon after trial? Select one.

A bar continued to serve a visibly intoxicated patron. After leaving the bar, the patron assaulted a bystander, causing $90,000 in damages. The bystander sued the patron for battery and the bar for negligence under a dram shop act. The jury found the patron 80% at fault and the bar 20% at fault. The patron is insolvent. The jurisdiction's law provides that a negligent defendant is jointly and severally liable for all damages, even if a co-defendant committed an intentional tort.

What is the maximum amount the bystander can recover from the bar? Select one.

A homeowner sued a general contractor and a plumbing subcontractor after faulty plumbing caused a major flood, resulting in $500,000 of damage. A jury determined that the contractor was 30% at fault for negligent supervision and the plumber was 70% at fault for negligent installation. The plumber has since declared bankruptcy and has no assets. The jurisdiction has statutorily abolished joint and several liability and applies a system of pure several liability.

What is the maximum amount the homeowner can recover from the general contractor? Select one.

A motorcyclist was struck by a car and thrown onto the road, breaking his leg. Seconds later, a second car ran over the motorcyclist's arm, breaking it. The motorcyclist sued the drivers of both cars. At trial, medical experts were unable to determine which impact caused which specific injury or to apportion the pain and suffering between the two impacts. The jury found the motorcyclist's total damages to be $100,000 and that the first driver was 70% at fault and the second driver was 30% at fault. The jurisdiction applies joint and several liability for indivisible injuries.

If the motorcyclist chooses to collect only from the first driver, what is the maximum amount he can recover from that driver? Select one.

A customer was injured at a supermarket when an improperly secured shelf, installed by an independent contractor, collapsed. The customer sued both the supermarket and the contractor. The jury found the contractor was actively negligent in its installation and the supermarket was liable solely under a theory of a non-delegable duty to keep its premises safe for invitees. The customer obtained a $50,000 judgment and collected the entire amount from the supermarket because the contractor was under-insured.

Which claim provides the supermarket its best chance of recovering money from the contractor? Select one.