Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Negligence Per Se

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Negligence Per SeQuestion 1 of 20

A state law, intended to protect farmworkers from pesticide exposure, requires that crop-dusters not fly their planes within 100 feet of people working in the fields. A crop-duster pilot flew his plane 50 feet away from a group of farmworkers. The plane's engine suddenly and unexpectedly backfired, creating a loud noise that startled a nearby tourist who was observing the farmworkers from the edge of the field, 120 feet away. The tourist fell and broke her leg. The tourist sued the pilot's employer.

Is the tourist likely to succeed in establishing breach of duty through negligence per se? Select one.

Yes, because the pilot violated the statute, and the tourist's injury was a direct result of the plane's operation.

No, because the tourist was not a member of the class of persons the statute was designed to protect.

No, because a sudden engine backfire is an unforeseeable event that excuses the statutory violation.

Yes, because the purpose of the statute was to promote general safety around crop-dusting aircraft.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Negligence Per Se

Practice Negligence Per Se 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 Per Se, 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

Is the tourist likely to succeed in establishing breach of duty through negligence per se? Select one.

Yes, because the pilot violated the statute, and the tourist's injury was a direct result of the plane's operation.
No, because the tourist was not a member of the class of persons the statute was designed to protect. (correct answer)
No, because a sudden engine backfire is an unforeseeable event that excuses the statutory violation.
Yes, because the purpose of the statute was to promote general safety around crop-dusting aircraft.

Explanation: For negligence per se to apply, the plaintiff must be a member of the class of persons the statute was intended to protect. The facts state the law was intended to protect farmworkers from pesticide exposure. The injured plaintiff was a tourist, not a farmworker. Since she is outside the protected class, she cannot use the pilot's statutory violation to establish negligence per se.

Question 2

A state statute requires any excavation deeper than five feet to be surrounded by a barrier to prevent falls. A construction company dug a ten-foot-deep trench on a private lot but failed to erect a barrier. That night, an arsonist entered the lot to set fire to a neighboring building. While fleeing the scene in the dark, the arsonist did not see the trench and fell in, breaking his leg. The arsonist sued the construction company for his injuries.

Is the construction company likely to be found liable on a theory of negligence per se? Select one.

Yes, because the company's failure to erect the barrier was a but-for cause of the arsonist's injury.
No, because the arsonist's status as a trespasser engaged in a crime may place him outside the class of persons protected by the statute. (correct answer)
Yes, because the statute imposes an absolute duty to protect anyone from the danger of an open excavation.
No, because the company owed no duty of care to an unknown trespasser.

Explanation: Courts are often reluctant to allow a plaintiff engaged in a criminal act to benefit from the protection of a safety statute. Although the statute's language may be broad (e.g., protecting "any person"), a court could interpret the legislative intent as not extending protection to those on the property for an unlawful purpose, such as an arsonist. This plaintiff would likely be considered outside the class of persons the statute was designed to protect. While property owners owe some duties to trespassers, using negligence per se is a distinct issue that depends on the statute's purpose.

Question 3

A state statute requires that any physician practicing in the state must have a valid state-issued medical license. An individual who had let his medical license lapse performed a complex but routine surgical procedure on a patient. During the surgery, the individual failed to follow standard medical protocols, causing the patient to suffer a permanent injury. The patient has sued the individual for medical malpractice. The patient's attorney plans to argue that the lack of a license constitutes negligence per se.

What is the likely effect of the defendant's violation of the licensing statute on the issue of breach of duty? Select one.

It will conclusively establish a breach of duty because the statute is designed to protect patients from unqualified practitioners.
It will be irrelevant to the issue of whether the defendant breached the standard of care during the surgery. (correct answer)
It will create a rebuttable presumption that the defendant breached the standard of care during the surgery.
It will be admissible as some evidence that the defendant breached the standard of care during the surgery.

Explanation: Courts generally hold that the violation of a licensing statute does not establish negligence per se with respect to the manner in which an activity is performed. While the statute is designed to protect the public, its purpose is to ensure a minimum level of competence before one engages in the profession. The breach of duty in a malpractice case is determined by whether the practitioner met the standard of care of a reasonable professional in that field, not by their licensing status. The patient must still present evidence that the defendant's conduct during the surgery fell below that standard. The lack of a license itself does not prove the surgery was performed negligently.

Question 4

A federal regulation requires all trucks carrying hazardous materials to be equipped with a specific type of fire extinguisher. A trucking company sent a truck carrying gasoline on a delivery route without the required extinguisher. While on the highway, one of the truck's tires blew out, causing the driver to lose control. The truck overturned and slid into a motorist's car, crushing it and injuring the motorist. There was no fire. The motorist sued the trucking company for negligence.

Can the motorist use the company's violation of the federal regulation to establish a breach of duty? Select one.

Yes, because the regulation sets a general standard of safety for the operation of trucks carrying hazardous materials.
Yes, because the motorist is a member of the public the regulation was designed to protect from accidents involving such trucks.
No, because a federal regulation cannot be used to establish a standard of care in a state tort action.
No, because the harm that occurred was not the type of harm the regulation was designed to prevent. (correct answer)

Explanation: The doctrine of negligence per se requires that the harm suffered be the type of harm the statute or regulation was designed to prevent. The regulation required a fire extinguisher, indicating its purpose was to prevent or mitigate harm from fires. The motorist was injured in a collision and crushing incident, not a fire. Because the harm that occurred (impact damage) was different from the harm the regulation was designed to prevent (fire damage), the violation of the regulation cannot be used to establish negligence per se.

Question 5

A state statute requires all operators of motorboats to be at least 16 years old. A 15-year-old, who was an experienced and competent boat operator, took his family's motorboat out on a lake. While operating the boat in a careful and prudent manner, a sudden, powerful gust of wind—an event so unusual it was deemed unforeseeable by meteorologists—capsized the boat. A passenger on the boat drowned. The passenger's estate sued the 15-year-old.

Can the passenger's estate establish a breach of duty through negligence per se? Select one.

Yes, because the operator was under the statutory age limit, making his operation of the boat a breach of duty as a matter of law.
No, because the 15-year-old's statutory violation was not the actual or proximate cause of the passenger's death. (correct answer)
No, because a minor cannot be held negligent per se for violating a statute intended for adults.
Yes, because the statute is designed to protect passengers from the risks of inexperienced operators, and a passenger was harmed.

Explanation: Even if a statutory violation establishes negligence per se (breach of duty), the plaintiff must still prove that the violation was the actual and proximate cause of the harm. Here, the boat capsized due to an unforeseeable, powerful gust of wind, not due to the operator's age or any lack of skill on his part. The facts state he was operating the boat carefully. The harm would have occurred even if a 25-year-old had been driving. Since the statutory violation (being 15) was not the cause-in-fact or proximate cause of the drowning, the negligence claim will fail, even if a breach is established per se.

Question 6

A traffic law prohibits drivers from crossing a solid double yellow line. A driver was proceeding lawfully in his lane when a small child suddenly darted into the street in front of his car. To avoid hitting the child, the driver swerved, crossing the double yellow line. His car collided with a vehicle that was lawfully proceeding in the opposite direction, injuring its occupant. The injured occupant sued the driver who swerved.

In the lawsuit, is the driver's violation of the traffic law likely to be considered negligence per se? Select one.

Yes, because the statute creates an absolute duty not to cross the double yellow line.
Yes, because the injured occupant was a member of the class protected by the statute.
No, because the driver's violation of the statute was excused by the sudden emergency. (correct answer)
No, because the child's action was a superseding cause of the collision.

Explanation: A statutory violation may be excused and will not constitute negligence per se if compliance with the statute would have involved a greater danger than the violation. This is often framed as the sudden emergency doctrine. Here, the driver swerved across the line to avoid hitting a child who darted into the road. A reasonable person would likely find that hitting the child would have been a greater danger than crossing the line. Therefore, the driver's violation is likely to be excused, and negligence per se will not apply. The jury would then evaluate his conduct under the general reasonable person standard in an emergency.

Question 7

In the lawsuit, is the driver's violation of the traffic law likely to be considered negligence per se? Select one.

Yes, because the statute creates an absolute duty not to cross the double yellow line.
Yes, because the injured occupant was a member of the class protected by the statute.
No, because the driver's violation of the statute was excused by the sudden emergency. (correct answer)
No, because the child's action was a superseding cause of the collision.

Question 8

A state statute provides, "Any person who serves alcoholic beverages to a visibly intoxicated person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." A bartender served several drinks to a patron who was slurring his speech and stumbling. The patron then left the bar, got into his car, and drove away. A few miles from the bar, the patron ran a red light and collided with another car, injuring its driver. The injured driver sued the bar, invoking the statute.

What is the strongest argument that the bar breached a duty to the injured driver based on the statute? Select one.

The statute establishes a duty and its breach because the driver was a foreseeable victim of the patron's intoxicated driving. (correct answer)
The statute does not apply because it only specifies a criminal penalty and does not create a private cause of action.
The bar's actions cannot be the proximate cause of the driver's injuries because the patron's act of running a red light was a superseding cause.
The bar did not breach a duty to the driver because the statute was designed to protect the intoxicated person from harm, not third parties.

Explanation: This is a classic application of negligence per se via a "dram shop act." The statute is designed to protect the public, including other drivers, from the foreseeable dangers posed by intoxicated individuals. The injured driver is a member of the class of persons the statute was designed to protect (the general public on the roads), and the harm (injury from a drunk driving accident) is precisely the type of harm the statute was intended to prevent. Therefore, the bar's violation of the statute establishes its duty and breach.

Question 9

Is the construction company likely to be found liable on a theory of negligence per se? Select one.

Yes, because the company's failure to erect the barrier was a but-for cause of the arsonist's injury.
No, because the arsonist's status as a trespasser engaged in a crime may place him outside the class of persons protected by the statute. (correct answer)
Yes, because the statute imposes an absolute duty to protect anyone from the danger of an open excavation.
No, because the company owed no duty of care to an unknown trespasser.

Question 10

An old city ordinance, passed in 1920 to protect horses, requires that all troughs on public streets be filled with clean water. A modern-day street vendor operates a hot dog stand on a corner where an old, empty stone trough is still present as a historical landmark. A bicyclist, distracted by his phone, rode his bike directly into the corner of the heavy stone trough and was injured. He sued the city for failing to comply with the ordinance by not filling the trough with water, arguing that if it had been full, he would have seen the glint of the water and avoided the collision.

Is the bicyclist likely to prevail on a negligence per se theory? Select one.

Yes, because the city's failure to fill the trough was a but-for cause of the bicyclist's failure to see it.
No, because the bicyclist is not a member of the class the ordinance was intended to protect. (correct answer)
Yes, because the ordinance creates a public safety duty, and the city's non-compliance led to an injury.
No, because the ordinance is obsolete and compliance would not have prevented the harm in a foreseeable manner.

Explanation: The doctrine of negligence per se is rooted in legislative intent. The ordinance was passed to protect horses by providing them with water. A modern-day bicyclist is not a horse and is therefore not a member of the class of persons (or animals) the ordinance was designed to protect. Furthermore, the harm the ordinance was designed to prevent was dehydration in horses, not physical injury to bicyclists from collisions. Because neither prong of the negligence per se test is met, the theory will fail.

Question 11

Is the tourist likely to succeed in establishing breach of duty through negligence per se? Select one.

Yes, because the pilot violated the statute, and the tourist's injury was a direct result of the plane's operation.
No, because the tourist was not a member of the class of persons the statute was designed to protect. (correct answer)
No, because a sudden engine backfire is an unforeseeable event that excuses the statutory violation.
Yes, because the purpose of the statute was to promote general safety around crop-dusting aircraft.

Question 12

A statute prohibits leaving a vehicle unattended with the keys in the ignition. A delivery driver for a company left his truck running with the keys in the ignition while he ran into a building to make a delivery in a high-crime neighborhood. A thief stole the truck and, driving recklessly at high speed, collided with a cyclist ten blocks away, severely injuring her. The cyclist sued the delivery company.

In her negligence action, what is the cyclist's best argument that the company is liable? Select one.

The driver's statutory violation constitutes negligence per se, and the thief's actions were a foreseeable intervening force. (correct answer)
The company is strictly liable for all harm caused by its employee's operation of the company truck.
The driver's statutory violation constitutes negligence per se, making the company liable regardless of the thief's conduct.
The thief's criminal act was a superseding cause that cuts off the company's liability, even if the driver was negligent.

Explanation: The "keys-in-ignition" statute is designed to prevent theft and the ensuing danger to the public from a thief driving recklessly. The cyclist is a member of the public, and the harm is the type the statute aims to prevent. Thus, the driver's violation is negligence per se, establishing breach. The key remaining issue is proximate cause. A thief's reckless driving is a foreseeable consequence of leaving a truck running in a high-crime area. Because the intervening criminal act was foreseeable, it is not a superseding cause and will not cut off the defendant's liability. Therefore, the best argument combines negligence per se for breach with foreseeability for proximate cause.

Question 13

A city ordinance, enacted to prevent children from drowning, requires residential swimming pools to be enclosed by a fence at least five feet high with a self-latching gate. A homeowner's pool fence was only four feet high and the gate did not latch. A neighbor's six-year-old child entered the pool area through the unlatched gate. The child did not go in the water, but instead climbed onto a decorative statue next to the pool, from which he fell and suffered a concussion. The child's parents sued the homeowner for the child's injuries.

Will the parents likely succeed in using the homeowner's violation of the ordinance to establish negligence per se? Select one.

Yes, because the child was within the class of persons the ordinance was designed to protect.
Yes, because but for the homeowner's failure to secure the gate, the child would not have been injured.
No, because the harm suffered by the child was not the type of harm the ordinance was designed to prevent. (correct answer)
No, because the child was a trespasser to whom the homeowner owed only a duty to avoid willful and wanton misconduct.

Explanation: For negligence per se to apply, the plaintiff's harm must be the type of harm the statute was intended to prevent. Here, the ordinance was explicitly enacted to prevent children from drowning. The child suffered a concussion from falling off a statue, which is not the harm of drowning. While the child is in the protected class (children), the type-of-harm requirement is not met. Therefore, the statutory violation cannot be used to establish negligence per se.

Question 14

Can the motorist use the company's violation of the federal regulation to establish a breach of duty? Select one.

Yes, because the regulation sets a general standard of safety for the operation of trucks carrying hazardous materials.
Yes, because the motorist is a member of the public the regulation was designed to protect from accidents involving such trucks.
No, because a federal regulation cannot be used to establish a standard of care in a state tort action.
No, because the harm that occurred was not the type of harm the regulation was designed to prevent. (correct answer)

Question 15

A municipal ordinance requires that all businesses shovel the public sidewalk in front of their entrances within four hours of the end of a snowfall. A local bookstore owner failed to shovel the sidewalk eight hours after a major snowstorm. A pedestrian, walking carefully, slipped on the accumulated ice and broke his hip. The pedestrian sued the bookstore owner. At trial, the pedestrian's attorney introduces evidence of the ordinance and the owner's failure to comply.

Assuming the pedestrian can prove the fall was caused by the ice, what is the effect of the owner's violation of the ordinance? Select one.

It establishes a breach of duty, as the ordinance's purpose is to prevent this type of harm to pedestrians. (correct answer)
It is irrelevant because under the common law, property owners have no duty to clear public sidewalks.
It is evidence of negligence, but the owner can still argue that it was not reasonable to have shoveled yet due to the storm's severity.
It establishes a breach of duty only if the pedestrian was a customer of the bookstore.

Explanation: Many jurisdictions have abandoned the common law rule and allow ordinances to create a duty for property owners to clear public sidewalks. Assuming this is such a jurisdiction, the ordinance creates a specific safety standard. The purpose is to protect pedestrians (the class of person) from slipping and falling on ice (the type of harm). The bookstore owner's unexcused violation of this ordinance constitutes negligence per se, establishing both duty and breach. The pedestrian still must prove causation and damages.

Question 16

A state's vehicle code requires that bicycles operated at night be equipped with a white front light and a red rear reflector. A cyclist was riding her bicycle at night on a well-lit city street. Her bicycle had the required rear reflector but not the front light. A driver, who was texting and not looking at the road, drifted into the bicycle lane and struck the cyclist, injuring her. The cyclist sued the driver.

In the lawsuit, how will the cyclist's statutory violation likely affect her claim? Select one.

It will be irrelevant because the driver's texting was an intentional tort.
It will bar her recovery under the doctrine of contributory negligence per se.
It will have no effect on her claim because the driver would not have seen her even if she had a front light. (correct answer)
It will reduce her recovery in a comparative negligence jurisdiction, regardless of whether the light would have been seen.

Explanation: Even when a party's statutory violation establishes a breach of duty (here, contributory negligence per se), that breach must be a cause-in-fact of the harm. The purpose of a front light is to make the bicycle visible to oncoming traffic. Here, the driver was texting and not looking at the road at all. The evidence suggests that even if the cyclist had a front light, the inattentive driver would not have seen it. Therefore, the cyclist's statutory violation was not a cause-in-fact of the collision, and it will not affect her claim against the driver.

Question 17

A city health code requires that food in a restaurant's buffet line be maintained at a temperature above 140°F to inhibit bacterial growth. A restaurant's steam table malfunctioned, and the temperature of a tray of chicken dropped to 120°F for several hours. A patron ate the chicken and subsequently developed severe food poisoning. The patron has sued the restaurant for negligence.

You are representing the patron. What is your strongest argument for establishing the restaurant's breach of duty? Select one.

Argue that the sale of tainted food is a matter of strict liability.
Argue res ipsa loquitur because food poisoning does not ordinarily occur without negligence.
Argue that the restaurant's violation of the health code constitutes negligence per se. (correct answer)
Argue that the restaurant's failure to inspect the steam table was a breach of its general duty of care to its customers.

Explanation: This is a direct application of negligence per se. The health code sets a specific safety standard. The patron is in the class of persons the code is meant to protect (restaurant customers), and the harm (food poisoning) is precisely the type of harm the temperature requirement is designed to prevent. The restaurant's violation of the code provides a direct path to establishing duty and breach, which is typically stronger and more straightforward than relying on res ipsa loquitur or proving a breach of the general duty of care. While a strict liability argument might be possible for a product, negligence per se is the most direct argument based on the facts provided.

Question 18

A state law requires that all new buildings be constructed in compliance with the state fire code. An electrician, working as an independent contractor for a builder, used wiring that was not compliant with the fire code in a new house. One year after a family purchased the house, the faulty wiring short-circuited and started a fire. The family escaped unharmed, but the house was destroyed. The family sued the electrician for negligence.

In the family's suit against the electrician, what is the legal significance of the electrician's violation of the fire code? Select one.

It is conclusive proof of the electrician's breach of duty. (correct answer)
It is irrelevant because the electrician was an independent contractor, and only the builder is liable.
It is some evidence of negligence, but not conclusive.
It creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence.

Explanation: Building and fire codes are safety statutes designed to protect the occupants and owners of buildings from fire and structural collapse. The family, as subsequent purchasers and occupants, are within the class of persons the code is intended to protect. The harm, a fire caused by faulty wiring, is exactly the type of harm the code is designed to prevent. Therefore, the electrician's unexcused violation of the fire code constitutes negligence per se, which is conclusive proof of duty and breach. The electrician remains liable for his own torts, even as an independent contractor.

Question 19

A state statute requires that all exterior stairways for apartment buildings have handrails on both sides. An apartment building owner failed to install a handrail on one side of a main exterior stairway. One evening, a tenant was climbing the stairs while carrying a large box with both hands. A sudden gust of wind caused the tenant to lose his balance. Unable to grab a handrail on the side he was leaning toward, the tenant fell and broke his arm. The tenant sued the building owner for negligence.

In the tenant's lawsuit, what is the most likely legal effect of the owner's statutory violation? Select one.

It will create a rebuttable presumption of negligence that the owner may counter by showing a reasonable effort to comply.
It will be inadmissible because the tenant's own conduct of carrying a large box was the primary cause of the fall.
It will conclusively establish the owner's duty and breach of duty, leaving the tenant to prove causation and damages. (correct answer)
It will be considered some evidence of negligence, but the tenant must still prove the owner acted unreasonably under the circumstances.

Explanation: The doctrine of negligence per se applies when a defendant violates a statute, the plaintiff is in the class of persons the statute is designed to protect, and the harm is the type the statute is designed to prevent. Here, the statute is designed to protect tenants (class of person) from falling on stairs (type of harm). The tenant's fall is exactly the kind of harm the statute aimed to prevent. In most jurisdictions, an unexcused violation of such a statute conclusively establishes the first two elements of a negligence claim: duty and breach. The plaintiff must still establish that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the injuries and prove damages.

Question 20

You are representing the patron. What is your strongest argument for establishing the restaurant's breach of duty? Select one.

Argue that the sale of tainted food is a matter of strict liability.
Argue res ipsa loquitur because food poisoning does not ordinarily occur without negligence.
Argue that the restaurant's violation of the health code constitutes negligence per se. (correct answer)
Argue that the restaurant's failure to inspect the steam table was a breach of its general duty of care to its customers.