Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Negligence Framework

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Negligence FrameworkQuestion 1 of 20

Two campers in a national forest, miles apart from each other, both negligently failed to extinguish their campfires. The fires spread, and due to a shift in the wind, the two fires merged into a single, massive wildfire. The wildfire then destroyed a hiker's cabin. The hiker sued only one of the campers for the full value of the cabin. It is impossible to determine which fire would have reached the cabin first or whether either fire alone would have been sufficient to destroy it.

Can the hiker recover the full value of the cabin from the camper she sued? Select one.

Yes, because the camper's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the destruction of the cabin.

Yes, because co-tortfeasors are always jointly and severally liable for a plaintiff's indivisible harm.

No, because the hiker cannot prove that the camper's fire, by itself, was the 'but-for' cause of the cabin's destruction.

No, because the hiker can only recover 50% of her damages from the camper she sued.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Negligence Framework

Practice Negligence Framework 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 Negligence Framework, 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

Can the hiker recover the full value of the cabin from the camper she sued? Select one.

Yes, because the camper's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the destruction of the cabin. (correct answer)
Yes, because co-tortfeasors are always jointly and severally liable for a plaintiff's indivisible harm.
No, because the hiker cannot prove that the camper's fire, by itself, was the 'but-for' cause of the cabin's destruction.
No, because the hiker can only recover 50% of her damages from the camper she sued.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. This scenario involves multiple sufficient causes, where the 'but-for' test for actual causation is difficult to apply. In such cases, courts use the 'substantial factor' test. If a defendant's negligent conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm, the defendant is liable. Here, the camper's negligently started fire was clearly a substantial factor in the merged wildfire that destroyed the cabin. C is incorrect because the substantial factor test is used precisely when the but-for test is problematic. B is too broad; joint and several liability applies when tortfeasors are found liable, but it doesn't establish liability itself. A correctly states the legal test for causation in this context. D is incorrect because under joint and several liability (which applies once both tortfeasors are found to be a cause), the plaintiff can recover the full amount from any single tortfeasor, leaving that tortfeasor to seek contribution from the other.

Question 2

While walking past a public swimming pool, a man saw a child drowning in the deep end. The man was a certified lifeguard and an expert swimmer. There were no other people around. The man, not wanting to get his expensive suit wet, considered the situation for a moment and then continued walking. The child drowned. The child's parents sued the man for negligence for failing to attempt a rescue.

Is the man likely to be held liable? Select one.

Yes, because as a certified lifeguard, he had a professional duty to rescue anyone in peril.
Yes, because a reasonable person in his position would have attempted a rescue.
No, because the man did not create the peril and had no special relationship with the child. (correct answer)
No, because the 'Good Samaritan' law in the jurisdiction protects rescuers from liability.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The general rule in tort law is that there is no affirmative duty to act or rescue. Liability for nonfeasance (failure to act) arises only when there is a special relationship between the parties (e.g., parent-child, carrier-passenger) or when the defendant created the peril. Here, the man was a mere bystander. He did not cause the child to be in danger and had no pre-existing relationship with the child. Therefore, he had no legal duty to rescue. A is incorrect because his status as a lifeguard does not create a duty when he is off-duty and acting as a private citizen. B is incorrect because the 'reasonable person' standard applies to how one performs an action (breach), not whether one has a duty to act in the first place. D is incorrect because Good Samaritan laws protect those who choose to rescue from liability for ordinary negligence during the rescue; they do not create a duty to rescue.

Question 3

A patient went to a hospital emergency room complaining of severe chest pains. The emergency room doctor, misinterpreting the EKG, diagnosed the patient with indigestion and sent him home. The patient actually had a serious cardiac condition that, even with prompt and proper treatment, carried only a 40% chance of survival. Because of the delayed diagnosis, the patient's condition worsened, and his chance of survival dropped to 10%. The patient ultimately died. His estate sued the doctor for malpractice.

What is the estate's best theory for recovery against the doctor? Select one.

Wrongful death, because the doctor's negligence was the but-for cause of the patient's death.
Loss of chance, because the doctor's negligence deprived the patient of a 30% chance of survival. (correct answer)
Battery, because the doctor's misdiagnosis constituted a harmful and offensive touching.
Res ipsa loquitur, because the patient's death would not have occurred without the doctor's negligence.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. This scenario presents a classic 'loss of chance' case. Under the traditional 'but-for' causation standard, the estate would likely lose because the patient probably would have died anyway (he only had a 40% chance of survival to begin with, which is less than 50.1%). The loss of chance doctrine, adopted by many jurisdictions, allows a plaintiff to recover for the value of the chance of survival that was lost due to the doctor's negligence. Here, the negligence reduced the chance from 40% to 10%, a loss of a 30% chance. A is incorrect because it's difficult to prove but-for causation when the patient's odds were already against them. C is incorrect as there was no battery. D is incorrect because people with serious cardiac conditions can die even with proper medical care, so res ipsa loquitur does not apply.

Question 4

A delivery company employed a driver to make package deliveries. The driver's assigned route was entirely within the city limits. One afternoon, after finishing his last delivery, the driver decided to visit a friend who lived 30 miles outside the city, far from his route and the company warehouse. While speeding on the highway to his friend's house, the driver negligently caused an accident, injuring another motorist. The motorist sued the delivery company for her injuries.

Is the delivery company likely to be vicariously liable for the motorist's injuries? Select one.

Yes, because the driver was operating a company vehicle at the time of the accident.
Yes, because the accident occurred during the driver's normal work hours.
No, because the driver was on a 'frolic' and not acting within the scope of his employment. (correct answer)
No, because the company is only liable if it was negligent in hiring or supervising the driver.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee within the 'scope of employment.' A minor deviation from the employer's business is a 'detour,' and the employer remains liable. A major deviation, undertaken for the employee's own purposes, is a 'frolic,' which takes the employee outside the scope of employment. Driving 30 miles out of town for a personal visit is a substantial deviation in time and geography, constituting a frolic. Therefore, the company is not vicariously liable. A and B are factors to consider but are not dispositive; the key is the purpose and extent of the deviation. D describes direct liability for negligent hiring, not vicarious liability, which is the issue here.

Question 5

A thrill-seeker went to a commercial bungee-jumping facility. Before the jump, he signed a detailed agreement that explicitly stated he was assuming all risks of injury, 'including those arising from the negligence of the facility or its employees,' and released the facility from all liability. The employee who strapped the thrill-seeker into his harness was new and had not been properly trained. The employee used the wrong type of cord for the thrill-seeker's weight. When the thrill-seeker jumped, the cord snapped, and he was seriously injured. He sued the facility for negligence.

What is the facility's best defense to the lawsuit? Select one.

The express assumption of risk in the signed agreement bars the claim. (correct answer)
The implied assumption of risk, because bungee jumping is an inherently dangerous activity.
The thrill-seeker was contributorily negligent in choosing to participate in a dangerous activity.
The facility is not liable because the employee's action was outside the scope of his employment.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. An express assumption of risk, through a contractual waiver or release, can be a complete bar to recovery for negligence, provided it is clear, unambiguous, and not against public policy. Here, the agreement specifically released the facility from liability for its own negligence. While courts scrutinize such waivers, they are often upheld in the context of voluntary recreational activities. This is the facility's strongest defense. B is incorrect because when there is an express agreement, it controls over any implied assumption of risk. C is not a defense; choosing to participate is the basis for assumption of risk, not contributory negligence. D is incorrect because the employee was clearly acting within the scope of his employment.

Question 6

A homeowner owned a large, wooded property. To deter trespassers from a frequently used shortcut, the homeowner dug a deep pit on the path, hidden by leaves and branches. The homeowner knew that children from a nearby neighborhood often used this path. One evening, a ten-year-old child, taking the shortcut home, fell into the pit and sustained serious injuries. The jurisdiction applies traditional common law rules for landowner liability.

If the child's parents sue the homeowner on the child's behalf, is the child likely to prevail? Select one.

Yes, because the homeowner breached the duty owed to a known trespasser by creating an artificial condition involving a risk of serious harm. (correct answer)
Yes, because the homeowner is strictly liable for injuries caused by abnormally dangerous activities on their land.
No, because landowners owe no duty to trespassers other than to refrain from intentionally harming them, and the homeowner did not intend to harm the child.
No, because the child was a trespasser and therefore assumed the risk of any dangers on the property.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Under traditional common law rules, a landowner generally owes no duty to an undiscovered trespasser. However, for known or anticipated trespassers, the landowner has a duty to warn or make safe known, artificial, non-obvious conditions that pose a risk of death or serious bodily harm. Here, the homeowner knew children trespassed, and the hidden pit was a man-made 'trap.' This constitutes a breach of the duty owed to a known trespasser. B is incorrect because maintaining a pit is not an abnormally dangerous activity. C is incorrect because while the general rule for undiscovered trespassers is limited, a higher duty is owed to known trespassers regarding artificial conditions. D is incorrect because a ten-year-old child may not be able to appreciate the specific risk of a hidden pit, and the concept of assumption of risk does not negate the landowner's duty in this situation.

Question 7

A driver negligently sped through an intersection and crashed his car into a utility pole, causing a power line to fall onto the street. A few minutes later, a pedestrian, seeing the live wire sparking on the wet pavement, decided to try to move it to prevent others from being hurt. Despite having no training or equipment, the pedestrian grabbed a wooden stick and attempted to push the wire aside. The wire discharged, severely injuring the pedestrian. The pedestrian sued the driver.

Is the driver likely to be liable for the pedestrian's injuries? Select one.

Yes, because the 'danger invites rescue' doctrine establishes that the driver owed a duty to the pedestrian as a rescuer. (correct answer)
No, because the pedestrian's attempt to move a live wire was a superseding cause of his own injuries.
No, because the pedestrian assumed the risk of injury by voluntarily confronting a known and obvious danger.
Yes, but the pedestrian's recovery will be barred because his rescue attempt was reckless.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The 'danger invites rescue' doctrine provides that a person who negligently creates a dangerous situation is liable for injuries sustained by a person who reasonably attempts to rescue someone or something from that danger. The original tortfeasor is said to owe a duty to the rescuer. The rescuer's injuries are considered a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence. C is incorrect because the assumption of risk defense is generally not applicable to rescuers, as the rescue is not considered truly 'voluntary.' B is incorrect because the rescue attempt is considered foreseeable, so it is not a superseding cause unless it is performed in a reckless or grossly negligent manner. D is incorrect because even if the rescuer was comparatively negligent, that would likely only reduce, not bar, recovery in most jurisdictions.

Question 8

A customer was shopping in a large supermarket. Another shopper had dropped a bottle of olive oil, which shattered on the floor in an aisle. The spill was not visible from the end of the aisle. The supermarket had a policy requiring employees to inspect the aisles every 30 minutes, but the responsible employee had not inspected that aisle for over an hour. The customer, who was looking at items on a high shelf, did not see the spill, slipped in the oil, and fell, breaking his hip. The customer sued the supermarket.

Is the customer likely to prevail? Select one.

Yes, because the supermarket had constructive notice of the dangerous condition and failed to remedy it. (correct answer)
Yes, because the supermarket is strictly liable for all injuries that occur on its premises.
No, because the customer was contributorily negligent by not watching where he was walking.
No, because the supermarket did not have actual notice of the specific olive oil spill.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. A business owes a duty to its invitees (customers) to keep the premises reasonably safe. This includes a duty to inspect for and remedy dangerous conditions. A business can be liable if it had actual or constructive notice of the hazard. Here, the supermarket did not have actual notice, but it can be charged with constructive notice. Because the employee failed to inspect for over an hour, and the policy was for 30-minute inspections, a court could find that a reasonable inspection would have discovered the spill. This failure to inspect establishes constructive notice and a breach of duty. B is incorrect; landowners are not strictly liable. C raises a potential defense, but even if the customer was partially negligent, under modern comparative negligence rules, he could still recover. A addresses the supermarket's primary liability. D is incorrect because constructive notice is sufficient to establish liability.

Question 9

Is the man likely to be held liable? Select one.

Yes, because as a certified lifeguard, he had a professional duty to rescue anyone in peril.
Yes, because a reasonable person in his position would have attempted a rescue.
No, because the man did not create the peril and had no special relationship with the child. (correct answer)
No, because the 'Good Samaritan' law in the jurisdiction protects rescuers from liability.

Question 10

A pedestrian was walking on a city sidewalk when a large sign, which had been negligently secured by a contractor, fell from a building. The sign struck the pedestrian, causing a severe leg fracture. While lying on the ground waiting for an ambulance, the pedestrian was struck by a meteorite, resulting in a fatal injury. The pedestrian's estate brought a wrongful death action against the contractor.

Is the contractor likely to be held liable for the pedestrian's death? Select one.

Yes, because the contractor's negligence was the but-for cause of the pedestrian being in the location where the meteorite struck.
Yes, under the 'eggshell plaintiff' rule, the contractor must take the victim as they find them.
No, because being struck by a meteorite is an unforeseeable, superseding cause that breaks the chain of causation. (correct answer)
No, because the contractor's duty was to prevent harm from the falling sign, not from other sources.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This question tests proximate cause and the concept of a superseding cause. While the contractor's negligence was the actual ('but-for') cause of the pedestrian being in that spot, the subsequent event—being struck by a meteorite—is a truly bizarre and unforeseeable event. Such an event is considered a superseding cause, as it is not within the scope of the risk created by the contractor's original negligence. It breaks the chain of proximate causation, relieving the contractor of liability for the death. A is incorrect because but-for causation alone is insufficient; proximate cause is also required. B is incorrect because the eggshell plaintiff rule applies to the unforeseeable extent of harm, not an unforeseeable type of harm from an independent source. D is a plausible restatement of the proximate cause issue but C is more precise by identifying the meteorite strike as a superseding cause.

Question 11

A client hires you to sue a manufacturer after your client was injured by a collapsing chair. In discovery, you learn that the chair was made with a weak type of plastic. The manufacturer's internal documents show that its engineers knew this plastic was prone to failure but used it to cut costs. The manufacturer has moved for summary judgment, arguing that your client has produced no direct evidence that the specific chair he used was defective, only that the design was generally unsafe.

What is your best argument in opposition to the manufacturer's motion for summary judgment? Select one.

Argue that summary judgment is improper because the manufacturer's credibility is a question for the jury.
Argue that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows an inference of negligence because chairs do not normally collapse without a defect.
Argue that the internal documents showing knowledge of the weak plastic create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the manufacturer's breach of duty. (correct answer)
Make a cross-motion for summary judgment because the manufacturer has admitted to using a weak plastic.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. The manufacturer's internal documents are strong circumstantial evidence that it knew it was producing a dangerously weak product. This evidence directly contradicts the manufacturer's claim of no defect and creates a triable issue for the jury regarding whether the manufacturer breached its duty of care. A is a weak argument; while credibility is a jury issue, you must first present evidence creating a factual dispute. B is a possible argument, but C is stronger because it points to specific, damning evidence beyond a general inference. D is premature; while the evidence is strong, the manufacturer has not admitted that the specific chair was defective, so a jury must still weigh the evidence.

Question 12

A city ordinance prohibits storing flammable materials within 50 feet of a residential property line. A homeowner, in violation of the ordinance, stored several cans of gasoline 20 feet from his neighbor's property line. One night, a thief broke into the neighbor's house and, unable to find any valuables, became enraged and set the house on fire. The fire spread to the homeowner's gasoline cans, causing a large explosion that injured a firefighter responding to the scene. The firefighter sued the homeowner for negligence.

Which of the following is the homeowner's strongest argument for why he is not liable? Select one.

The firefighter's rule bars recovery for injuries inherent in the firefighter's job.
The homeowner's violation of the ordinance was not the proximate cause of the firefighter's injury. (correct answer)
The homeowner owed no duty to the firefighter, who was a trespasser on the neighbor's property.
The homeowner's storage of gasoline was not the actual cause of the firefighter's injury.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. For a statutory violation to constitute negligence per se, the harm suffered must be the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent. The ordinance was likely intended to prevent accidental fires and the spread of fires originating from the homeowner's property, not to protect against injuries from an explosion caused by an independent arson on a neighboring property. The arson is an unforeseeable, intentional criminal act that likely acts as a superseding cause, breaking the chain of proximate causation between the homeowner's negligence (violating the ordinance) and the firefighter's injury. A is a plausible defense, but many jurisdictions have limited or abolished the firefighter's rule, and proximate cause is a more fundamental issue here. C is incorrect; firefighters are generally treated as licensees or invitees, not trespassers, and the duty extends to foreseeable rescuers. D is incorrect because 'but for' the gasoline's presence, the explosion would not have happened, so it was an actual cause.

Question 13

Can the hiker recover the full value of the cabin from the camper she sued? Select one.

Yes, because the camper's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the destruction of the cabin. (correct answer)
Yes, because co-tortfeasors are always jointly and severally liable for a plaintiff's indivisible harm.
No, because the hiker cannot prove that the camper's fire, by itself, was the 'but-for' cause of the cabin's destruction.
No, because the hiker can only recover 50% of her damages from the camper she sued.

Question 14

A plaintiff with a rare bone disease was a passenger in a taxi. The taxi driver negligently caused a minor fender-bender. The impact was slight, and a person of ordinary health would have suffered no injuries. However, due to the plaintiff's condition, the minor jolt caused several of his bones to shatter, resulting in permanent disability and enormous medical expenses. The plaintiff sued the taxi driver.

Is the plaintiff likely to recover damages for his extensive injuries? Select one.

Yes, because a defendant takes his plaintiff as he finds him. (correct answer)
No, because the extensive injuries were not a foreseeable result of a minor fender-bender.
No, because the plaintiff's pre-existing condition was the actual cause of the harm.
Yes, but only for the damages that a person of ordinary health would have suffered.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. This is a classic application of the 'eggshell plaintiff' or 'thin-skull' rule. This rule states that if the defendant's negligent act would have caused some harm to a normal person, the defendant is liable for all the harm that results, even if the extent of that harm is unforeseeably severe due to the plaintiff's pre-existing vulnerability. The defendant must take the plaintiff as they find them. B is incorrect because foreseeability applies to the type of harm, not the extent of harm. Here, a physical impact injury is foreseeable from a car accident; the extreme extent is not, but that doesn't defeat liability. C is incorrect; the driver's negligence was the trigger, the but-for cause of the jolt that caused the bones to shatter. D is incorrect as it misstates the eggshell plaintiff rule; the defendant is liable for the full extent of the harm.

Question 15

A mother and her son were crossing a street in a marked crosswalk. A car, speeding, ran the red light. The mother saw the car coming and managed to push her son out of the way just in time, but she herself was not struck and was never in any physical danger. The son was unharmed. However, the mother, having witnessed her son's near-death experience, suffered a severe and debilitating nervous breakdown requiring extensive psychiatric treatment. The jurisdiction follows the 'zone of danger' rule for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

If the mother sues the driver for her emotional distress, is she likely to recover? Select one.

Yes, because she was the direct victim of the driver's negligent conduct.
Yes, because she suffered severe emotional distress from witnessing a near-injury to a close relative.
No, because she did not suffer any physical impact from the driver's car.
No, because the facts state she was never in any physical danger. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The 'zone of danger' rule requires that the plaintiff was personally at risk of physical harm from the defendant's negligence, even if no impact occurred. The facts explicitly state that the mother 'was never in any physical danger.' Because she was not within the zone of danger, she cannot recover for NIED as a direct victim. While she witnessed a near-injury to a close relative, recovery as a bystander under the zone of danger rule still typically requires the plaintiff to have been in the zone of danger themselves. Some jurisdictions have adopted a more lenient bystander rule (the Dillon/Thing factors), but this question specifies the 'zone of danger' rule. A is incorrect for the same reason. C is incorrect because physical impact is not required under the zone of danger rule; being in the zone is sufficient.

Question 16

In a jurisdiction with a pure comparative negligence statute, a bicyclist was struck by a car at an intersection. The bicyclist suffered $100,000 in damages. At trial, the jury determined that the car's driver was negligent for failing to yield, but that the bicyclist was also negligent for riding without a helmet in violation of a local ordinance. The jury allocated fault as 10% to the driver and 90% to the bicyclist.

How much will the bicyclist recover from the driver? Select one.

$0, because the bicyclist's fault was greater than the driver's.
$10,000. (correct answer)
$90,000.
$100,000.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. In a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, a plaintiff can recover damages regardless of their percentage of fault, but their recovery is reduced by their proportion of fault. Here, the bicyclist's damages are $100,000, and their fault is 90%. Therefore, their recovery is reduced by 90%, or $90,000. The remaining amount is $100,000 - $90,000 = $10,000. A is incorrect; this would be the result in a modified comparative negligence jurisdiction where a plaintiff more than 50% at fault is barred from recovery. C incorrectly calculates the reduction. D is incorrect because the damages must be reduced by the plaintiff's fault.

Question 17

You are representing a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit in a jurisdiction that has adopted a modified comparative negligence system where a plaintiff's recovery is barred if their fault is 'as great as' the defendant's. Your client was injured in a two-car collision and suffered $200,000 in damages. After a trial, the jury returns a special verdict finding that both your client and the defendant were negligent. The jury apportions fault at exactly 50% to your client and 50% to the defendant.

What is the amount of the judgment that will be entered in favor of your client? Select one.

$200,000.
$100,000.
$1.
$0. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The jurisdiction's rule bars recovery if the plaintiff's fault is 'as great as' the defendant's. This is a '50% bar' or 'equal fault bar' rule. Since the jury found the plaintiff to be 50% at fault, their fault is 'as great as' the defendant's 50% fault. Therefore, the plaintiff is completely barred from recovery. B would be the correct answer in a 'pure' comparative negligence system or in a modified system where recovery is only barred if the plaintiff's fault is 'greater than' the defendant's (the '51% bar' rule). A and C are incorrect calculations.

Question 18

What is the estate's best theory for recovery against the doctor? Select one.

Wrongful death, because the doctor's negligence was the but-for cause of the patient's death.
Loss of chance, because the doctor's negligence deprived the patient of a 30% chance of survival. (correct answer)
Battery, because the doctor's misdiagnosis constituted a harmful and offensive touching.
Res ipsa loquitur, because the patient's death would not have occurred without the doctor's negligence.

Question 19

Is the delivery company likely to be vicariously liable for the motorist's injuries? Select one.

Yes, because the driver was operating a company vehicle at the time of the accident.
Yes, because the accident occurred during the driver's normal work hours.
No, because the driver was on a 'frolic' and not acting within the scope of his employment. (correct answer)
No, because the company is only liable if it was negligent in hiring or supervising the driver.

Question 20

A farm supply store sold a powerful pesticide to a farmer. The store's employee negligently failed to provide the farmer with the required safety and handling instructions. The farmer, unaware of the pesticide's high toxicity to aquatic life, sprayed his fields near a stream. A sudden, unusually heavy rainstorm, which weather services had described as a 'once-in-a-century' event, occurred that night. The storm washed a large quantity of the pesticide into the stream, killing all the fish at a downstream fish farm. The fish farm owner sued the supply store.

What is the supply store's best defense? Select one.

The store did not owe a duty of care to the downstream fish farm owner.
The farmer's act of spraying the pesticide near the stream was an intervening cause.
The unforeseeable, 'once-in-a-century' rainstorm was a superseding cause. (correct answer)
The economic loss rule bars recovery for the lost fish.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The central issue is proximate cause. While the store was negligent, liability is limited to foreseeable consequences. An intervening force that is unforeseeable may be deemed a superseding cause, cutting off the defendant's liability. A 'once-in-a-century' storm is a classic example of an unforeseeable 'act of God' that is not within the scope of the risk created by failing to provide instructions. This breaks the chain of proximate causation. A is incorrect; it is foreseeable that a pesticide seller's negligence could harm downstream property owners. B is incorrect because the farmer's use of the pesticide was a foreseeable consequence of the sale. D is incorrect because the loss of the fish constitutes damage to property, not purely economic loss.