Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Proximate Cause

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Proximate CauseQuestion 1 of 20

A construction worker for a large company was working on the 30th floor of a new skyscraper. He negligently dropped a heavy wrench, which fell towards the street below. The wrench struck a large metal beam that was staged on the ground floor, creating an extremely loud clang. The sound startled a delivery driver who was waiting at a red light a full city block away. The driver panicked and accelerated into the intersection, striking a classic car. The owner of the classic car sued the construction company for the damage.

In the car owner's negligence suit against the construction company, what is the likely outcome? Select one.

The car owner will prevail, because the worker's negligence was a but-for cause of the accident.

The car owner will prevail, because property damage is a foreseeable risk of dropping tools from a height in a city.

The car owner will not prevail, because the delivery driver's panic acceleration was a superseding cause.

The car owner will not prevail, because he was not a foreseeable plaintiff within the zone of danger created by the falling wrench.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Proximate Cause

Practice Proximate Cause 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 Proximate Cause, 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 the car owner's negligence suit against the construction company, what is the likely outcome? Select one.

The car owner will prevail, because the worker's negligence was a but-for cause of the accident.
The car owner will prevail, because property damage is a foreseeable risk of dropping tools from a height in a city.
The car owner will not prevail, because the delivery driver's panic acceleration was a superseding cause.
The car owner will not prevail, because he was not a foreseeable plaintiff within the zone of danger created by the falling wrench. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. This fact pattern mirrors the famous Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. case. Proximate cause requires that the harm result from the risks that made the defendant's conduct negligent. The duty of care is owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs within the zone of danger. Here, the risk created by the falling wrench was injury to people or property directly below. A driver a block away, who was harmed only by the sound, is generally considered an unforeseeable plaintiff. A is incorrect because but-for causation (actual cause) is necessary but not sufficient for liability; proximate cause must also be established. B is incorrect because it states the risk too broadly; while property damage is foreseeable, the specific plaintiff and the manner of harm were not. C is incorrect because the driver's reaction, while an intervening cause, is not the primary reason for denying liability; the unforeseeability of the plaintiff is the dispositive issue.

Question 2

A chemical company negligently allowed a toxic chemical to leak into a river. The chemical was known to be harmful to aquatic life but was not considered a direct threat to humans at that concentration. The chemical killed a large number of fish downstream. A restaurant owner who operated a popular riverside fish restaurant 10 miles downstream lost significant business because he could no longer source local fish, his main attraction. The restaurant owner sued the chemical company for his purely economic losses.

Will the restaurant owner likely recover for his lost profits? Select one.

Yes, because it was foreseeable that killing the fish in the river would harm businesses that rely on them.
Yes, because the chemical company is strictly liable for damage caused by the release of toxic chemicals.
No, because the restaurant was located too far downstream to be considered within the zone of danger.
No, because the economic loss rule generally bars recovery for purely economic losses in the absence of physical injury to person or property. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of the economic loss rule, a fundamental limitation in tort law that restricts recovery for purely financial harm. The economic loss rule generally prohibits plaintiffs from recovering purely economic damages in negligence cases unless they also suffered physical injury to their person or property. Here, the restaurant owner suffered only financial losses - he couldn't source local fish and lost profits, but his own property wasn't physically damaged. The chemical company's negligence directly harmed the fish (which weren't the restaurant owner's property), creating an indirect economic impact on his business. Under traditional tort principles, this purely economic harm without accompanying physical damage to the plaintiff's person or property is not recoverable. Answer choice (A) confuses foreseeability with legal duty. While it may have been foreseeable that businesses relying on local fish would be harmed, foreseeability alone doesn't overcome the economic loss rule's bar on recovery. Choice (B) incorrectly suggests strict liability applies. The facts indicate negligence, and even if strict liability applied, it wouldn't automatically allow recovery for purely economic losses. Choice (C) misapplies the "zone of danger" concept, which typically relates to emotional distress claims or physical injury cases, not economic loss situations. Study tip: When you see tort questions involving business losses without physical property damage, immediately consider the economic loss rule. This doctrine frequently appears on bar exams because it represents a key limitation on negligence liability that many students overlook.

Question 3

A defendant was driving a truck filled with industrial chemicals when he negligently ran a stop sign and collided with a car. There was no explosion or fire at the time of the crash. However, the collision damaged a valve on one of the chemical tanks. A firefighter responding to the scene was exposed to the leaking chemicals and developed a rare form of cancer two years later. Medical experts can establish that the specific chemical exposure caused the cancer. The firefighter sued the defendant driver.

Assuming the 'firefighter's rule' does not apply, is the driver liable for the firefighter's cancer? Select one.

No, because the development of cancer years later is too remote in time to establish proximate cause.
No, because the firefighter was a professional rescuer who is not considered a foreseeable plaintiff.
Yes, because rescuers are foreseeable plaintiffs, and the harm resulted directly from a risk created by the driver's negligence. (correct answer)
Yes, because the driver is strictly liable for any harm caused by the transportation of industrial chemicals.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Rescuers, including professional rescuers like firefighters, are generally considered foreseeable plaintiffs. The driver's negligence created the dangerous situation (a crash involving a damaged chemical truck) that invited the rescue. The harm (chemical exposure leading to cancer) was a direct result of the specific hazard created by the negligent act. Therefore, proximate cause is satisfied. The fact pattern explicitly asks to disregard the 'firefighter's rule,' which in some jurisdictions would bar recovery for risks inherent in the job. A is incorrect because the time lag does not defeat causation if the causal link is medically established. B is incorrect because rescuers are foreseeable plaintiffs. D is incorrect because the claim is based on negligence, not strict liability, as the simple transport of chemicals is not always deemed abnormally dangerous.

Question 4

A defendant negligently caused a multi-car pileup on a highway during a blizzard, completely blocking all lanes of traffic. An ambulance responding to an unrelated emergency on the other side of town was caught in the resulting traffic jam for over an hour. Because of the delay, the ambulance arrived too late to save a heart attack victim, who died. The victim's estate brought a wrongful death action against the defendant driver who caused the pileup.

Will the estate's claim against the defendant driver likely succeed? Select one.

Yes, because the defendant's negligence was a but-for cause of the ambulance's delay.
Yes, because it is foreseeable that blocking a major highway could impede emergency vehicles and lead to harm. (correct answer)
No, because the defendant owed no duty to an unknown, unidentified person suffering a medical emergency miles away.
No, because the victim's heart attack was an independent event that had no causal connection to the car accident.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. This question tests the outer limits of foreseeability. While the specific plaintiff was unknown to the defendant, the general type of plaintiff (a person relying on emergency services) and the type of harm (death or injury from delayed response) are foreseeable consequences of completely blocking a major highway. Courts have found liability in similar situations, holding that the scope of the risk created by obstructing a highway includes the risk to those who depend on that highway for emergency access. A is incorrect because it relies only on but-for causation. C frames the issue as duty to a specific person, but the better analysis is foreseeability of the type of harm to a class of persons. D is incorrect because while the heart attack was independent, the defendant's negligence caused the delay in treatment that led to the death, providing the causal link.

Question 5

A tavern served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron, in violation of a state dram shop act. The patron then drove his car. A few miles from the tavern, a child suddenly darted into the road chasing a ball. The patron, due to his intoxication, had a delayed reaction time and was unable to swerve or brake effectively, striking and killing the child. The child's parents brought a wrongful death action against the tavern.

Is the tavern likely to be held liable for the child's death? Select one.

No, because the child's own negligence in darting into the road was the primary and superseding cause of the accident.
No, because the tavern's liability is limited to harm caused solely by the patron's intoxication, not by other contributing factors.
Yes, because the tavern's negligence created the foreseeable risk that the patron would be unable to respond appropriately to common road hazards. (correct answer)
Yes, because violating the dram shop act is negligence per se, which automatically establishes liability for any subsequent harm.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The purpose of a dram shop act is to prevent accidents caused by intoxicated drivers. The risk created by over-serving a patron includes not just unprovoked swerving, but also an impaired ability to react to foreseeable road hazards, such as a pedestrian entering the street. The child's action, while perhaps a contributing factor, is the type of hazard an unimpaired driver might have avoided. It is a foreseeable intervening event, not a superseding cause that would absolve the tavern. A is incorrect because the child's action (or negligence, depending on age) is a foreseeable event that does not break the causal chain. B is incorrect as it misstates the scope of liability. D is incorrect because while violating the statute may be negligence per se, the plaintiff must still prove that the violation was the actual and proximate cause of the injury.

Question 6

In the car owner's negligence suit against the construction company, what is the likely outcome? Select one.

The car owner will prevail, because the worker's negligence was a but-for cause of the accident.
The car owner will prevail, because property damage is a foreseeable risk of dropping tools from a height in a city.
The car owner will not prevail, because the delivery driver's panic acceleration was a superseding cause.
The car owner will not prevail, because he was not a foreseeable plaintiff within the zone of danger created by the falling wrench. (correct answer)

Question 7

A gas station attendant negligently overfilled a customer's fuel tank, causing several gallons of gasoline to spill onto the pavement. The customer drove away, and the attendant began cleaning the spill. Five minutes later, before the attendant had finished, a completely unrelated person carelessly tossed a lit cigarette out of a passing car. The cigarette landed in the gasoline, which ignited and created a large fireball that severely burned a pedestrian on the sidewalk. The pedestrian sued the gas station.

Will the gas station likely be held liable for the pedestrian's burns? Select one.

Yes, because the risk of ignition from a careless source is precisely what makes spilling gasoline a negligent act. (correct answer)
No, because the person who tossed the cigarette was the direct cause of the fire, breaking the chain of causation.
No, because the act of tossing the cigarette was a criminal act of littering and thus a superseding cause.
Yes, because storing and dispensing gasoline is an abnormally dangerous activity for which the station is strictly liable.

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of proximate cause and foreseeability in negligence law. When analyzing whether a defendant's negligent act caused a plaintiff's harm, you must consider whether the type of harm that occurred was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence. Answer A correctly identifies that the gas station will likely be liable because the risk of ignition from careless sources is exactly what makes spilling gasoline negligent in the first place. The attendant's negligence created a dangerous condition (spilled gasoline), and fire/explosion from ignition sources is the precise type of harm that makes such spills unreasonably risky. The fact that the ignition came from a third party's cigarette doesn't break the causal chain because this type of careless behavior is foreseeable. Answer B incorrectly suggests the cigarette tosser's act breaks causation. While the cigarette was the direct cause, this doesn't automatically make it a superseding cause that relieves the gas station of liability. Intervening acts only break causation if they're unforeseeable. Answer C wrongly focuses on the littering aspect being criminal. Criminal acts don't automatically constitute superseding causes—the key is foreseeability, not the legal characterization of the intervening act. Answer D incorrectly applies strict liability theory. While gasoline is dangerous, routine dispensing at gas stations is generally not considered an "abnormally dangerous activity" under strict liability doctrine, as it's a common, regulated commercial activity. Remember: In negligence cases involving dangerous substances, focus on whether the harm that occurred was the type of risk that made the defendant's conduct negligent—not just whether an intervening cause was present.

Question 8

A city parks department employee negligently failed to secure a heavy metal lid on a utility access point in a public park. The next day, a group of teenagers, as a prank, lifted the unsecured lid and left the deep hole exposed. An hour later, a jogger running through the park did not see the open hole and fell in, sustaining serious injuries. The jogger sued the city.

Is the city likely to be held liable for the jogger's injuries? Select one.

Yes, because the city's negligence created the opportunity for the teenagers' misconduct, which was a foreseeable intervening act. (correct answer)
No, because the jogger has a direct cause of action against the teenagers who actually opened the hole.
No, because the intentional, criminal act of the teenagers was a superseding cause that cut off the city's liability.
Yes, because as a landowner, the city is strictly liable for maintaining its property in a safe condition for public use.

Explanation: This question tests proximate causation and intervening acts in negligence law. When analyzing liability chains with multiple actors, you need to determine whether an intervening act breaks the causal connection between the original negligent act and the ultimate harm. The city employee's negligence in failing to secure the utility lid created a dangerous condition that made the teenagers' misconduct both possible and reasonably foreseeable. Courts generally hold that if an intervening act is a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence, it doesn't cut off liability. Here, teenagers engaging in pranks or mischief in a public park is exactly the type of foreseeable intervening conduct that property owners must anticipate. Looking at the wrong answers: Choice B is incorrect because having a cause of action against one party doesn't eliminate liability for another party whose negligence contributed to the harm - multiple parties can be liable. Choice C misapplies superseding cause doctrine. While intentional criminal acts can sometimes break the causal chain, they only do so when they're unforeseeable. Teenage pranks in a public park are reasonably foreseeable, especially when the original negligence creates the very opportunity for such misconduct. Choice D incorrectly states that landowners face strict liability - municipalities typically face ordinary negligence standards, not strict liability, for maintaining public property. The correct answer is A because the city's negligence created the dangerous condition that foreseeably led to the teenagers' intervention and the jogger's injury. Study tip: In intervening cause questions, focus on foreseeability. If the intervening act is a foreseeable result of the defendant's negligence, liability typically continues down the chain.

Question 9

A defendant's negligent driving caused a plaintiff to suffer a broken leg. The plaintiff's doctor properly set the leg in a cast. A week later, following all medical advice, the plaintiff developed a deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a type of blood clot, in the injured leg. The DVT dislodged, traveled to his lung, and caused a life-threatening pulmonary embolism. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the injuries related to the embolism.

Is the defendant liable for the pulmonary embolism? Select one.

Yes, because the embolism is a well-known and foreseeable risk associated with the type of immobility caused by the original injury. (correct answer)
No, because the development of a blood clot is an unforeseeable biological event that breaks the chain of causation.
No, because the embolism was a complication of the medical treatment, not a direct result of the accident.
Yes, under the eggshell plaintiff rule, because the plaintiff had an unforeseeable predisposition to blood clots.

Explanation: When you encounter tort questions involving chains of medical complications, focus on the concept of proximate causation and foreseeability. The key issue is whether subsequent injuries are a natural and probable consequence of the defendant's negligent act. The defendant is liable for the pulmonary embolism because it represents a foreseeable medical complication flowing directly from the original injury. Deep vein thrombosis is a well-documented risk associated with leg fractures and the resulting immobility, even when medical care is properly provided. Courts consistently hold that defendants take their victims as they find them and remain liable for medical complications that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the initial injury. The chain of causation runs clearly from the negligent driving to the broken leg to the immobility to the DVT to the embolism. Answer B incorrectly suggests that biological complications automatically break causation. However, foreseeability, not the biological nature of the harm, determines liability. Answer C wrongly attempts to distinguish between accident-related and treatment-related complications, but properly administered medical care doesn't insulate defendants from liability for foreseeable complications of the injuries they caused. Answer D misapplies the eggshell plaintiff rule, which deals with unforeseeable severity of harm in vulnerable plaintiffs, not the foreseeability of the type of harm itself. Remember this principle: defendants remain liable for the natural and probable consequences of their negligent acts, including medical complications that commonly flow from the type of injury initially caused, regardless of intervening proper medical care.

Question 10

Will the estate's claim against the defendant driver likely succeed? Select one.

Yes, because the defendant's negligence was a but-for cause of the ambulance's delay.
Yes, because it is foreseeable that blocking a major highway could impede emergency vehicles and lead to harm. (correct answer)
No, because the defendant owed no duty to an unknown, unidentified person suffering a medical emergency miles away.
No, because the victim's heart attack was an independent event that had no causal connection to the car accident.

Question 11

Will the gas station likely be held liable for the pedestrian's burns? Select one.

Yes, because the risk of ignition from a careless source is precisely what makes spilling gasoline a negligent act. (correct answer)
No, because the person who tossed the cigarette was the direct cause of the fire, breaking the chain of causation.
No, because the act of tossing the cigarette was a criminal act of littering and thus a superseding cause.
Yes, because storing and dispensing gasoline is an abnormally dangerous activity for which the station is strictly liable.

Question 12

Assuming the 'firefighter's rule' does not apply, is the driver liable for the firefighter's cancer? Select one.

No, because the development of cancer years later is too remote in time to establish proximate cause.
No, because the firefighter was a professional rescuer who is not considered a foreseeable plaintiff.
Yes, because rescuers are foreseeable plaintiffs, and the harm resulted directly from a risk created by the driver's negligence. (correct answer)
Yes, because the driver is strictly liable for any harm caused by the transportation of industrial chemicals.

Question 13

A driver negligently lost control of his car and crashed into a ditch on the side of a rural highway, causing him to be trapped inside the vehicle. A passing motorist saw the crash, pulled over, and ran to help. As the motorist attempted to pry open the driver's door, he strained a muscle in his back, resulting in a permanent injury. The motorist sued the driver whose negligence caused the original crash.

Is the driver who crashed liable for the motorist's back injury? Select one.

No, because the motorist voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by attempting a rescue.
No, because the motorist's injury was caused by his own actions, not by the driver's crash.
Yes, because the 'danger invites rescue' doctrine makes the creator of the peril liable for injuries sustained by a rescuer. (correct answer)
Yes, because all motorists have an affirmative duty to render aid at the scene of an accident.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The 'danger invites rescue' doctrine holds that a person who negligently creates a dangerous situation is liable for the injuries of those who attempt to rescue the person in peril. The rescuer is considered a foreseeable plaintiff. A is incorrect because assumption of the risk is generally not a defense against a rescuer unless the rescuer's conduct was reckless or wanton. B is incorrect because the driver's negligence is the proximate cause of the injury, as it created the necessity for the rescue. D is incorrect because it misstates the law; while some jurisdictions have statutes encouraging or requiring aid, the basis for civil liability here is the common law doctrine that a negligent party is responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions, which includes injuries to rescuers.

Question 14

A homeowner, in a rush to leave for vacation, negligently left a garden hose running, causing a large, deep puddle to form on the public sidewalk in front of his house. A pedestrian, to avoid the puddle, stepped into the street. At that moment, a small private airplane suffered a catastrophic engine failure and fell from the sky, crashing into the street and injuring the pedestrian with flying debris. The pedestrian has sued the homeowner for negligence.

Will the pedestrian likely succeed in his claim against the homeowner? Select one.

Yes, because the homeowner's negligence was a but-for cause of the pedestrian being in the exact spot where the crash occurred.
Yes, because it is foreseeable that forcing a pedestrian into the street exposes them to a greater risk of harm.
No, because the risk that made the homeowner's conduct negligent was a slip-and-fall, not injury from a plane crash. (correct answer)
No, because the pilot's negligence in maintaining the plane was a superseding cause of the pedestrian's injuries.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This question tests the 'type of harm' or 'scope of risk' aspect of proximate cause. The foreseeable risks associated with leaving a puddle on a sidewalk are that someone might slip and fall in the puddle or be struck by a car when forced to walk in the street. An airplane falling from the sky is a completely different type of risk and is not foreseeable. Therefore, the harm suffered is outside the scope of the risk created by the defendant's negligence. A is incorrect because it conflates actual cause with proximate cause. B is too general; while the risk of harm from traffic is foreseeable, the risk from a plane crash is not. D is incorrect because while the plane crash is the immediate cause, the most precise legal reason for the homeowner's non-liability is that the harm was not the type of harm that was foreseeable from his specific negligent act.

Question 15

A landlord of an apartment building in a high-crime neighborhood was repeatedly notified by tenants that the lock on the building's front door was broken. The landlord failed to repair the lock for over a month. One evening, an assailant, who was not a resident, entered the building through the unlocked door and assaulted a tenant in the hallway. The tenant sued the landlord for negligence.

Will the tenant's claim against the landlord likely succeed? Select one.

No, because the criminal assault was an intentional tort by a third party, which is always a superseding cause.
No, because a landlord has no general duty to protect tenants from the criminal acts of third parties.
Yes, because landlords are strictly liable for any injuries that occur in the common areas of their buildings.
Yes, because the landlord's failure to repair the lock created a foreseeable risk of criminal intrusion and harm. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests landlord-tenant law and the duty of care landlords owe to tenants regarding criminal acts by third parties. When analyzing landlord liability for criminal acts, focus on whether the landlord's conduct created or enhanced a foreseeable risk of harm. Here, the landlord had actual notice of the broken lock from multiple tenant complaints but failed to repair it for over a month. This created a foreseeable risk that criminals could easily enter the building and harm tenants. Courts recognize that landlords have a duty to maintain reasonable security measures in common areas, especially when they know of specific security vulnerabilities. The landlord's negligence directly facilitated the assault by allowing the assailant easy access to the building. Answer A is wrong because criminal acts by third parties are not always superseding causes. If the defendant's negligence makes the criminal act foreseeable (as here), the criminal act doesn't break the chain of causation. Answer B incorrectly states the general rule too broadly. While landlords don't have a duty to protect against all criminal acts, they do have a duty when their own negligence creates or enhances the risk. Answer C is incorrect because landlords are not strictly liable for injuries in common areas—they're only liable when they breach their duty of reasonable care. The correct answer is D because the landlord's prolonged failure to repair a known security defect created a foreseeable risk of criminal intrusion and resulting harm. Remember: On negligence questions involving criminal acts, look for whether the defendant's conduct made the criminal act more likely or foreseeable, rather than applying blanket immunity rules.

Question 16

A factory negligently released a plume of noxious but non-toxic gas that had a foul odor. The gas drifted over a nearby highway, but it was thin and did not obscure visibility. A truck driver on the highway, disgusted by the smell, began to gag violently. The gagging reflex was so severe that he momentarily lost consciousness, and his truck swerved across the median, colliding with a car and injuring its driver. The injured car driver sued the factory.

Is the factory liable for the car driver's injuries? Select one.

No, because the gas was non-toxic and did not obscure visibility, so the factory did not breach a duty of care.
No, because the truck driver's extreme physiological reaction was a bizarre and unforeseeable event that broke the chain of causation.
Yes, because it is foreseeable that a foul-smelling gas could distract a driver or cause some physical reaction leading to an accident. (correct answer)
Yes, because releasing industrial gas that drifts over a public highway is an ultrahazardous activity subject to strict liability.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The central issue is the foreseeability of the mechanism of harm. While the specific mechanism (gagging leading to unconsciousness) might be unusual, it is foreseeable that a noxious odor could cause some form of physical distress or distraction to a driver, leading to an accident. The result—a car crash—is a foreseeable consequence of releasing a distracting substance over a highway. Therefore, the unusual mechanism does not break the chain of proximate cause. A is incorrect because the gas created an unreasonable risk of harm (distraction/illness leading to accidents) even if it wasn't toxic or sight-obscuring. B is incorrect because while the reaction was extreme, it is not so bizarre as to be legally unforeseeable when the general type of harm (an accident caused by driver impairment) is foreseeable. D is incorrect because emitting fumes is not typically classified as an abnormally dangerous activity unless the fumes are highly toxic or explosive.

Question 17

Will the restaurant owner likely recover for his lost profits? Select one.

Yes, because it was foreseeable that killing the fish in the river would harm businesses that rely on them.
Yes, because the chemical company is strictly liable for damage caused by the release of toxic chemicals.
No, because the restaurant was located too far downstream to be considered within the zone of danger.
No, because the economic loss rule generally bars recovery for purely economic losses in the absence of physical injury to person or property. (correct answer)

Question 18

A farmer negligently allowed his bull to escape its enclosure. The bull wandered onto a neighboring property where a circus was temporarily set up. The bull entered the main tent during a performance, causing panic. In the ensuing stampede of the audience toward the exits, a woman was trampled and seriously injured. The woman sued the farmer.

Is the farmer liable for the woman's injuries? Select one.

No, because the reaction of the circus audience was an unforeseeable intervening event that superseded the farmer's negligence.
No, because the farmer's duty was to prevent the bull from causing direct harm, not from indirectly causing a stampede.
Yes, because owners of livestock are strictly liable for any and all harm their animals cause.
Yes, because it is foreseeable that an escaped bull could frighten people and cause them to injure themselves in an attempt to flee. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests negligence law, specifically the concepts of proximate causation and foreseeability. When analyzing negligence claims, you must determine whether the defendant's breach of duty was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's harm, which requires that the harm be a foreseeable consequence of the negligent act. The farmer breached his duty of care by negligently allowing his bull to escape. The key question is whether the woman's injuries were a foreseeable result of this breach. Courts apply an objective standard: would a reasonable person anticipate that the type of harm that occurred could result from the negligent conduct? Here, it's entirely foreseeable that a loose bull entering a crowded circus tent would frighten people and cause them to flee in panic, potentially injuring themselves or others in the process. The specific manner of harm (trampling during stampede) falls within the general risk created by the farmer's negligence. Answer A incorrectly suggests the audience reaction was unforeseeable when it was actually a predictable response to a dangerous animal. Answer B mischaracterizes the scope of the farmer's duty - liability extends to foreseeable indirect consequences, not just direct physical contact by the animal. Answer C overstates the law by claiming absolute strict liability for "any and all harm," when livestock owners are typically subject to more limited forms of strict liability for specific types of harm. Remember that foreseeability doesn't require predicting the exact sequence of events - just that the general type of harm could reasonably be anticipated from the negligent act.

Question 19

A power company negligently failed to maintain a utility pole, which fell during a mild windstorm, causing a blackout in a residential neighborhood. Due to the blackout, the traffic signals at a busy intersection failed. Two drivers, both approaching the intersection from different directions, failed to treat it as a four-way stop. They collided, and one of the drivers was injured. The injured driver sued the power company.

Will the injured driver's suit against the power company likely succeed? Select one.

No, because the negligence of the two drivers in the intersection constituted a superseding cause.
No, because the power company's duty is to provide electricity, not to regulate traffic.
Yes, because it is foreseeable that a power failure will cause traffic signals to malfunction and that driver negligence may lead to an accident. (correct answer)
Yes, because the power company is a public utility and is strictly liable for any harm resulting from an interruption of its service.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The power company's negligence created the dangerous condition—an intersection without functioning traffic lights. It is foreseeable that in such a situation, drivers may become confused or act negligently, resulting in a collision. The drivers' negligence is therefore a foreseeable intervening cause that combines with the power company's negligence to cause the harm; it is not a superseding cause. A is incorrect for this reason. B defines the scope of duty too narrowly; the duty to maintain equipment includes preventing foreseeable harms from its failure, such as traffic accidents. D is incorrect because the standard for power companies is negligence, not strict liability.

Question 20

A defendant's negligence caused a plaintiff to suffer disfiguring facial scars. The plaintiff became severely depressed and withdrawn as a result of the disfigurement. One year after the accident, the plaintiff committed suicide. The plaintiff's estate brought a wrongful death action against the defendant, arguing that the suicide was a result of the depression caused by the defendant's negligence.

What is the most likely outcome of the estate's claim? Select one.

The claim will succeed, because the defendant's negligence was a but-for cause of the psychological state that led to the suicide.
The claim will succeed, but only if the estate can prove the disfigurement created an irresistible impulse to commit suicide. (correct answer)
The claim will fail, because suicide is considered a voluntary, intentional act that always constitutes a superseding cause.
The claim will fail, because damages for negligence are limited to physical injuries and do not include emotional distress or its consequences.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The general rule is that suicide is a superseding cause that breaks the chain of causation. However, there is a significant exception: if the defendant's tortious act causes a mental illness or condition (like severe depression) that results in an 'irresistible impulse' to commit suicide, the act is not considered truly voluntary and does not break the chain of causation. The plaintiff would have to show that the depression was so severe that it destroyed the deceased's ability to resist the suicidal impulse. A is incorrect because but-for causation is not sufficient. C states the general rule but ignores the critical exception. D is incorrect because damages for emotional distress are recoverable, especially when they stem from a physical injury, and the question is whether the ultimate consequence of that distress is attributable to the defendant.