Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Special Duties

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Special DutiesQuestion 1 of 20

You are representing a client who owns a multi-story office building. The client leases the entire second floor to a single tenant, a law firm. A partner at the law firm was walking down the interior hallway of the firm's office when she tripped on a tear in the carpet and was injured. The lease agreement is silent on the issue of repairs within the leased premises. Your client, the building owner, was unaware of the tear in the carpet prior to the accident. The partner has threatened to sue your client.

What is your client's strongest argument for avoiding liability? Select one.

As a landlord, the client is not liable for injuries occurring within the premises exclusively controlled by the tenant.

The client had no actual or constructive notice of the torn carpet and thus no opportunity to repair it.

The tear in the carpet was an open and obvious danger that the partner should have seen and avoided.

The lease agreement's silence on repairs implies that the tenant assumed all responsibility for interior maintenance.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Special Duties

Practice Special Duties 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 Special Duties, 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

What is your client's strongest argument for avoiding liability? Select one.

As a landlord, the client is not liable for injuries occurring within the premises exclusively controlled by the tenant. (correct answer)
The client had no actual or constructive notice of the torn carpet and thus no opportunity to repair it.
The tear in the carpet was an open and obvious danger that the partner should have seen and avoided.
The lease agreement's silence on repairs implies that the tenant assumed all responsibility for interior maintenance.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Generally, a landlord is not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions that arise within the demised premises after the tenant takes possession. The duty of care is owed by the person in control of the property, which in this case is the tenant law firm. Exceptions exist for common areas, latent defects known to the landlord, and situations where the landlord contractually agrees to make repairs, but none of those apply here as the injury occurred in a hallway exclusively controlled by the tenant. (B) is a good argument, but it presupposes the landlord had a duty in the first place, which is the threshold issue. (C) is a defense of comparative negligence or assumption of risk, but it doesn't defeat the landlord's liability if a duty was owed. (D) is a plausible interpretation, but A states the more fundamental common law rule regarding landlord liability for the leased premises.

Question 2

A homeowner hosted a small dinner party. One of the guests, a personal friend, went onto the back deck to admire the view. Unbeknownst to the homeowner, a floorboard on the deck had rotted from underneath due to a slow, hidden leak from a rain gutter. The homeowner had not inspected the underside of the deck in over five years. The friend stepped on the rotted board, which gave way, causing the friend to fall and break her leg. The friend later sued the homeowner for negligence.

What is the likely outcome of the friend's lawsuit against the homeowner? Select one.

The homeowner will be liable, because he owed the friend a duty to inspect the property for hidden dangers and make them safe.
The homeowner will be liable, because he owed the friend a duty to warn of known, non-obvious dangers, and he should have known about the rot.
The homeowner will not be liable, because the friend was a social guest to whom the homeowner only owed a duty to warn of known, concealed dangers. (correct answer)
The homeowner will not be liable, because the rotted floorboard was an open and obvious danger that the friend should have avoided.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The friend was a social guest, which makes her a licensee. A landowner owes a licensee a duty to warn of or make safe any known, concealed, artificial or natural conditions that create an unreasonable risk of harm. The duty does not extend to inspecting the property for unknown dangers. Because the facts state the homeowner was unaware of the rotted board, he did not breach his duty to the licensee. (A) is incorrect because the duty to inspect for hidden dangers is owed to invitees, not licensees. (B) is incorrect because liability for a licensee requires actual knowledge of the danger by the landowner, not just that he 'should have known.' (D) is incorrect because the facts state the rot was hidden underneath the deck, making it a concealed, not an open and obvious, danger.

Question 3

A suburban homeowner installed a large, unfenced trampoline in his backyard, which was adjacent to a public park. The homeowner knew that young children often played in the park. One afternoon, a six-year-old child from the park, attracted by the sight of the trampoline, wandered into the homeowner's yard, climbed onto the trampoline, and was injured when he fell off. The child's parents sued the homeowner on the child's behalf.

Which fact would be most critical for determining the homeowner's liability? Select one.

Whether the homeowner had posted a "No Trespassing" sign on his property line.
Whether the six-year-old child was able to understand the specific danger of falling off the trampoline. (correct answer)
Whether the trampoline was visible from the public park where children were known to play.
Whether the cost of fencing the yard would have been a significant financial burden for the homeowner.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. This case involves the attractive nuisance doctrine. For the doctrine to apply, five elements must be met: (1) the owner knows or should know children are likely to trespass; (2) the owner knows or should know the condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious injury to children; (3) the children, because of their youth, do not discover the condition or realize the risk; (4) the utility of the condition and burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared to the risk; and (5) the owner fails to exercise reasonable care. Choice (B) directly addresses the third element: the child's ability to appreciate the risk. If the child was old enough or mature enough to understand the danger, the homeowner is less likely to be liable. (A) is not dispositive because children too young to read are not deterred by signs. (C) is relevant to the first element (likelihood of trespass) but the child's appreciation of the risk is a more central and often disputed element. (D) relates to the fourth element, the burden of eliminating the danger, but the child's inability to appreciate the risk is a more fundamental prerequisite for the doctrine's application.

Question 4

A physician was walking by a lake when he saw a child fall out of a canoe and begin to struggle in the water. Several other people were nearby. The child's parent, who was on the shore, screamed for help. The physician, a competent swimmer, believed the child was in grave danger of drowning. However, fearing a potential lawsuit if a rescue attempt failed, the physician did nothing. The child was eventually rescued by another bystander but suffered significant brain damage from near-drowning. The child's parents sued the physician for negligence.

Will the physician be held liable for the child's injuries? Select one.

Yes, because his status as a physician created a special duty to render aid to a person in medical peril.
Yes, because a reasonable person would have attempted to rescue a drowning child when the risk to himself was minimal.
No, because the physician had no pre-existing relationship with the child that would create an affirmative duty to act. (correct answer)
No, because the presence of other bystanders, including the child's parent, relieved the physician of any duty he might have had.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The general rule in tort law is that there is no affirmative duty to rescue a person in peril, unless a special relationship exists between the parties or the defendant created the peril. Here, the physician had no pre-existing relationship with the child (e.g., doctor-patient, parent, etc.). Therefore, he had no legal duty to undertake a rescue. (A) is incorrect because a person's status as a physician, by itself, does not create a duty to rescue strangers outside of a professional context. (B) describes a moral duty, but not a legal one. The law does not impose a general duty to be a 'Good Samaritan.' (D) is incorrect because the presence of others is irrelevant to the legal question of whether the defendant himself had a duty to act.

Question 5

A tenant in a large apartment complex was injured when he fell on a patch of ice on the building's front walkway. The ice had formed overnight after a snowstorm. The landlord of the building had hired an independent snow removal company to clear all common areas, but the company's crew had missed the patch of ice. The tenant sued the landlord for his injuries.

What is the landlord's best defense against the tenant's claim? Select one.

The duty to maintain the common areas was delegated to the independent snow removal company, relieving the landlord of liability.
The formation of ice after a snowstorm is a natural accumulation for which the landlord is not responsible.
The tenant, being aware of the recent snowstorm, assumed the risk of walking on potentially icy surfaces.
The landlord exercised reasonable care by hiring a professional company to maintain the common areas. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. A landlord has a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep common areas in a safe condition for tenants. This duty is non-delegable, meaning the landlord cannot escape liability simply by hiring an independent contractor. However, the landlord's duty is one of reasonable care, not strict liability. If the landlord acted reasonably in selecting and hiring a competent snow removal company, a jury could find that the landlord did not breach their duty of care, even if the contractor was negligent. This is the landlord's strongest argument. (A) is incorrect because the duty to maintain common areas is non-delegable. (B) is incorrect because while some jurisdictions have different rules for natural accumulation, the modern trend is that landlords have a duty to remove foreseeable dangers like ice from common walkways. (C) is incorrect because assumption of the risk generally requires knowledge of a specific risk, not just general awareness of wintry conditions, and it is less likely to absolve the landlord of their affirmative duty.

Question 6

A private high school organized a mandatory weekend retreat for its students at a remote campsite. During the retreat, a student became seriously ill with a high fever and disorientation. The supervising teachers, believing the student just had a minor flu, gave him aspirin and told him to rest in his tent. They did not contact a doctor or the student's parents. The student's condition was actually a severe bacterial infection, which worsened significantly overnight due to the lack of proper medical care. The student sued the school for negligence.

What is the basis for the school's duty to the student in this situation? Select one.

A school has the same duty as a parent to prevent a child from engaging in risky behavior.
A school that takes custody and control of a student has an affirmative duty to provide reasonable care and assistance. (correct answer)
A school is vicariously liable for the negligence of its students during school-sponsored events.
A school is strictly liable for any illness or injury that occurs during a mandatory school activity.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. A school has a special relationship with its students, which is heightened when the school takes them into its custody and control, such as on an overnight trip. This relationship imposes an affirmative duty to act for the students' protection and to render reasonable aid if they are sick or injured. By failing to seek professional medical help for a student with serious symptoms, the supervising teachers likely breached this duty. (A) is an overstatement; while a school's duty is similar to a parent's (in loco parentis), it is based on custody and control, not on all aspects of parenting. (C) is incorrect; the school's liability is for its own negligence (through its employees, the teachers), not vicarious liability for student actions. (D) is incorrect; the standard is negligence (failure to exercise reasonable care), not strict liability.

Question 7

A woman leased a house. Before she moved in, the landlord hired a professional exterminator who sprayed for insects. Neither the landlord nor the exterminator was aware that the specific pesticide used could become toxic if exposed to high heat. The landlord also knew that the house's furnace was old and prone to overheating but did not disclose this to the tenant. A month after moving in, the tenant turned on the furnace for the first time. It overheated, causing the pesticide residue to release toxic fumes, which injured the tenant. The tenant sued the landlord.

What is the tenant's strongest argument for holding the landlord liable? Select one.

The landlord is strictly liable for injuries caused by the use of hazardous substances on the property.
The landlord is vicariously liable for the negligence of the independent contractor exterminator.
The landlord had a general duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition throughout the lease term.
The landlord breached his duty to warn the tenant of a known, non-obvious dangerous condition (the faulty furnace). (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests landlord-tenant law, specifically the landlord's duties regarding property conditions. When analyzing landlord liability, you need to identify which specific legal duty applies and whether the landlord breached it. The correct answer is D because landlords have a well-established duty to disclose known, non-obvious dangerous conditions to tenants before they take possession. Here, the landlord knew the furnace was "old and prone to overheating" but failed to warn the tenant. This creates a strong negligence claim because: (1) the landlord had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition, (2) the condition wasn't obvious to a reasonable tenant, (3) the landlord breached his duty by not disclosing it, and (4) this breach directly contributed to the tenant's injury when the overheating furnace activated the toxic pesticide. Option A is wrong because strict liability for hazardous substances typically applies to abnormally dangerous activities, not routine pest control. The pesticide itself wasn't inherently hazardous—it only became dangerous when heated. Option B fails because landlords generally aren't vicariously liable for independent contractors' negligence unless the work involves inherently dangerous activities. Routine extermination doesn't qualify. Option C is incorrect because landlords don't have a general duty to maintain premises during the lease term—that's typically the tenant's responsibility. The landlord's main duties involve pre-existing conditions and compliance with housing codes. Study tip: In landlord-tenant questions, focus on timing and knowledge. Landlords are most vulnerable when they knew about dangerous conditions before the lease began but failed to disclose them. This creates the strongest negligence claim.

Question 8

What is your client's strongest argument for avoiding liability? Select one.

As a landlord, the client is not liable for injuries occurring within the premises exclusively controlled by the tenant. (correct answer)
The client had no actual or constructive notice of the torn carpet and thus no opportunity to repair it.
The tear in the carpet was an open and obvious danger that the partner should have seen and avoided.
The lease agreement's silence on repairs implies that the tenant assumed all responsibility for interior maintenance.

Question 9

What is the basis for the school's duty to the student in this situation? Select one.

A school has the same duty as a parent to prevent a child from engaging in risky behavior.
A school that takes custody and control of a student has an affirmative duty to provide reasonable care and assistance. (correct answer)
A school is vicariously liable for the negligence of its students during school-sponsored events.
A school is strictly liable for any illness or injury that occurs during a mandatory school activity.

Question 10

A man invited a friend to his house to help him with a plumbing repair in the basement. As the friend descended the basement stairs, a step broke under his weight, causing him to fall. The homeowner had recently noticed the step was loose but had neither fixed it nor mentioned it to his friend. However, the homeowner had placed a small, handwritten sign that said "Watch Step" on the wall next to the top of the stairs.

What is the legal status of the friend and the effect of the sign on the homeowner's potential liability? Select one.

The friend was a licensee, and the sign was sufficient to satisfy the homeowner's duty to warn.
The friend was an invitee, and the sign was insufficient to satisfy the heightened duty to make the premises safe. (correct answer)
The friend was a licensee, but the sign was an inadequate warning for the specific danger of the broken step.
The friend was an invitee, but the homeowner only had a duty to warn of the danger, which the sign accomplished.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. A person invited onto property to confer a potential economic or business benefit on the owner is an invitee. Helping with a home repair, even if unpaid, is typically considered for the owner's benefit, elevating the guest's status from a mere licensee (social guest) to an invitee. The duty owed to an invitee is to exercise reasonable care to protect them from dangers the owner knows or should know about. This includes a duty to inspect the premises and to make them safe, not just to warn of dangers. A small, vague sign is likely insufficient to discharge this heightened duty to make the condition safe (e.g., by repairing the step or blocking it off). (A) and (C) incorrectly classify the friend as a licensee. (D) correctly identifies the friend as an invitee but incorrectly states the duty, which is to make safe, not merely to warn.

Question 11

A state law requires that all swimming pools accessible to the public be enclosed by a fence at least six feet high with a self-latching gate. A motel owned and operated a swimming pool on its property for its guests but failed to install a self-latching gate on its six-foot fence. One afternoon, a five-year-old child who was a guest at the motel pushed open the unlatched gate, entered the pool area unsupervised, and drowned. The child's parents sued the motel.

What is the strongest legal theory to support the parents' claim against the motel? Select one.

Strict liability, because operating a swimming pool is an abnormally dangerous activity.
Negligence per se, because the motel's violation of the fence statute caused the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent. (correct answer)
Res ipsa loquitur, because drownings do not ordinarily occur in motel pools in the absence of negligence.
Attractive nuisance, because the pool was a condition likely to attract young children who could not appreciate the danger.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Negligence per se is a doctrine where a defendant's violation of a statute can establish the duty and breach elements of a negligence claim. For the doctrine to apply, the plaintiff must be in the class of persons the statute was designed to protect, and the harm must be the type the statute was designed to prevent. Here, the fence statute was clearly intended to protect children from drowning, and the victim was a child who drowned. The motel's violation of the statute is therefore strong evidence of negligence, and in some jurisdictions, it conclusively establishes breach. (A) is incorrect; operating a pool is not an abnormally dangerous activity. (C) is a weaker argument because the cause of the accident (the unlatched gate) is known, making res ipsa loquitur (which applies when the cause is unknown) less applicable. (D) is a plausible theory, but negligence per se is more direct and powerful here because of the clear statutory violation.

Question 12

What is the tenant's strongest argument for holding the landlord liable? Select one.

The landlord is strictly liable for injuries caused by the use of hazardous substances on the property.
The landlord is vicariously liable for the negligence of the independent contractor exterminator.
The landlord had a general duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition throughout the lease term.
The landlord breached his duty to warn the tenant of a known, non-obvious dangerous condition (the faulty furnace). (correct answer)

Question 13

A factory owner knew that local teenagers frequently used a path across a remote corner of the factory's property as a shortcut to a nearby park. To deter this, the owner dug a deep, narrow trench across the path but did not post any warning signs. One evening, a teenager who had used the path many times before was walking along it and fell into the new trench, suffering serious injuries. The teenager sued the factory owner.

Is the teenager likely to recover from the factory owner? Select one.

Yes, because the owner owed a duty to warn of a known, artificial, and non-obvious dangerous condition. (correct answer)
Yes, because the owner engaged in willful and wanton conduct by creating a trap for trespassers.
No, because the teenager was a trespasser, and a landowner owes no duty of care to trespassers.
No, because the teenager assumed the risk of injury by knowingly trespassing on the factory's property.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The teenager is a known or anticipated trespasser. While a landowner generally owes no duty to undiscovered trespassers, a duty arises with respect to known trespassers. The landowner owes a duty to warn or make safe known, artificial, non-obvious, dangerous conditions. Here, the owner knew teenagers used the path, the trench was a new artificial condition, it was dangerous, and it was not obvious at night. Therefore, the owner breached his duty. (B) is incorrect because while digging a trench could be seen as willful and wanton, the more precise legal basis for liability is the specific duty owed to a known trespasser. (C) is incorrect because it states the general rule for undiscovered trespassers, which does not apply here because the owner knew of their presence. (D) is incorrect because while the teenager assumed some risks by trespassing, he did not assume the risk of an unknown, man-made hazard like the newly dug trench.

Question 14

A driver was proceeding carefully through a residential neighborhood when a child suddenly darted into the street from between two parked cars. The driver, unable to stop in time despite not being at fault, struck the child. The child was knocked unconscious but appeared to have only minor scrapes. The driver, panicked and late for an appointment, quickly drove away from the scene without calling for help or rendering aid. The child was discovered minutes later by a neighbor. Due to the delay in receiving medical attention, the child's internal injuries were exacerbated, leading to permanent disability. The child's family sued the driver.

On what basis is the driver most likely to be found liable for the enhanced injuries? Select one.

The driver's violation of a hit-and-run statute constitutes negligence per se.
The driver had a pre-existing duty to all child pedestrians in a residential neighborhood.
The driver, having created the peril, had an affirmative duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent further harm. (correct answer)
The driver assumed a duty to rescue by initially stopping his car, which he then breached by leaving.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Even if a person is not at fault for the initial accident, one who creates a situation of peril for another has an affirmative duty to render reasonable assistance to prevent further harm. The driver, by striking the child, created the peril. This act gave rise to a special duty to render aid, such as calling 911. His failure to do so was a breach of that duty, making him liable for the worsened injuries that resulted from the delay in care. (A) is plausible, as most jurisdictions have statutes requiring drivers to stop and render aid. A violation could be negligence per se. However, C states the underlying common law duty, which is the more fundamental basis for liability regardless of a specific statute. (B) is too broad; while drivers owe a general duty of care, the specific duty to render aid arises from creating the peril. (D) is factually incorrect; the driver did not assume a duty because he never began to render aid.

Question 15

What is the legal status of the friend and the effect of the sign on the homeowner's potential liability? Select one.

The friend was a licensee, and the sign was sufficient to satisfy the homeowner's duty to warn.
The friend was an invitee, and the sign was insufficient to satisfy the heightened duty to make the premises safe. (correct answer)
The friend was a licensee, but the sign was an inadequate warning for the specific danger of the broken step.
The friend was an invitee, but the homeowner only had a duty to warn of the danger, which the sign accomplished.

Question 16

A father gave his 17-year-old son a high-performance sports car for his birthday. The father knew that his son had received two speeding tickets in the past year and had a reputation among his friends for reckless driving. The father warned his son to 'be careful.' The following week, the son was racing a friend on a public road and lost control of the car, striking and severely injuring a pedestrian. The pedestrian sued both the son and the father.

What is the most viable theory of liability against the father? Select one.

Vicarious liability, because a parent is automatically liable for the torts of their minor child.
Negligent entrustment, because the father gave a dangerous instrumentality to a person he knew was likely to use it negligently. (correct answer)
Strict liability, because driving a high-performance sports car is an abnormally dangerous activity.
The family purpose doctrine, because the car was provided for the general use and enjoyment of the family.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Negligent entrustment occurs when one party (the entrustor) provides a chattel (the car) to another party (the entrustee), whom the entrustor knows or should know is likely to use the chattel in a manner involving unreasonable risk of harm to others. Here, the father knew of his son's history of reckless driving, making the son a foreseeably dangerous driver. Entrusting him with a high-performance car was arguably a breach of the father's duty to others on the road. (A) is incorrect; parents are generally not vicariously liable for their children's torts, though some statutes impose limited liability for willful acts, which is not the theory here. (C) is incorrect; driving, even a sports car, is not considered an abnormally dangerous activity for the purposes of strict liability. (D) is a minority rule that imposes vicarious liability on the owner of a family car for the torts of any family member driving it with permission; negligent entrustment is a more widely recognized and direct theory of negligence based on the father's own actions.

Question 17

Is the teenager likely to recover from the factory owner? Select one.

Yes, because the owner owed a duty to warn of a known, artificial, and non-obvious dangerous condition. (correct answer)
Yes, because the owner engaged in willful and wanton conduct by creating a trap for trespassers.
No, because the teenager was a trespasser, and a landowner owes no duty of care to trespassers.
No, because the teenager assumed the risk of injury by knowingly trespassing on the factory's property.

Question 18

A passenger was riding a city bus. Another passenger, who was visibly agitated and shouting erratically, boarded the bus. The bus driver noticed the agitated passenger but did nothing. A few stops later, the agitated passenger, without provocation, suddenly attacked the first passenger, causing significant injuries. The injured passenger sued the city transit authority, which operates the bus service.

Is the passenger likely to prevail against the city transit authority? Select one.

Yes, because as a common carrier, the transit authority owed its passengers the highest duty of care, including a duty to protect them from foreseeable harm from other passengers. (correct answer)
Yes, because the transit authority is vicariously liable for the intentional tort committed by the agitated passenger on its bus.
No, because the transit authority is not responsible for the sudden and unforeseeable criminal acts of third parties.
No, because governmental immunity protects the city transit authority from liability for negligence in its public functions.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. A common carrier, such as a bus service, owes its passengers a very high duty of care, consistent with the practical operation of its business. This duty includes protecting passengers from foreseeable harm, including assault by fellow passengers. Here, the other passenger was visibly agitated and shouting, which made the risk of him harming someone foreseeable. The bus driver, an employee of the transit authority, observed this behavior and did nothing, breaching the high duty of care. (B) is incorrect because vicarious liability applies to employees, not third parties like other passengers. (C) is incorrect because the agitated passenger's conduct made the attack arguably foreseeable, not sudden and unforeseeable. (D) is incorrect because while governmental immunity can be a defense, it is often waived for proprietary functions like operating a public transit system, and in any event, the special duty of a common carrier is the more direct issue.

Question 19

During a therapy session, a patient told his psychiatrist that he was planning to harm his former supervisor by setting fire to her car. The patient had a history of making threats but had never acted on them. Believing the patient was just venting, the psychiatrist did not take any action. Two weeks later, the patient carried out the threat, and the supervisor's car was destroyed. The supervisor sued the psychiatrist for negligence.

What is the most likely basis for the supervisor's claim against the psychiatrist? Select one.

The psychiatrist breached his duty of confidentiality by failing to protect the patient's privacy.
The psychiatrist had a duty to control the conduct of his patient and prevent him from committing crimes.
The psychiatrist had a duty to warn the readily identifiable potential victim of the patient's credible threat. (correct answer)
The psychiatrist is vicariously liable for the intentional torts committed by his patient.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This scenario implicates the principle from Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of California. When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger. This duty may require the therapist to warn the intended victim or notify the police. The duty arises because of the special relationship between the therapist and the patient. (A) is incorrect; the duty to warn is a recognized exception to the duty of confidentiality. (B) is too broad; a therapist has a duty to warn or protect, not a general duty to control the patient's conduct. (D) is incorrect; vicarious liability does not apply to the relationship between a therapist and patient.

Question 20

A woman was dining at a restaurant when she began to choke on a piece of food. She became unable to breathe and collapsed. The restaurant manager saw the woman collapse but, fearing he would perform the Heimlich maneuver incorrectly and be sued, instructed his staff not to intervene and did not call 911 for several minutes while he tried to figure out what to do. By the time paramedics arrived, the woman had suffered irreversible brain damage. The woman's family sued the restaurant.

Is the restaurant likely liable for the woman's enhanced injuries? Select one.

No, because a business owner has no affirmative duty to rescue a patron from a medical emergency not caused by the business.
No, because Good Samaritan laws protect business owners from liability when they choose not to render aid.
Yes, because the restaurant is strictly liable for all injuries occurring on its premises, regardless of their cause.
Yes, because the special relationship between a business and its patrons imposes a duty to provide reasonable assistance in an emergency. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests the law of premises liability and the duty of care that businesses owe to their customers. When analyzing liability for failure to act, you need to distinguish between general "no duty to rescue" principles and situations where special relationships create affirmative duties. The correct answer is D because businesses have a special relationship with their patrons that creates a duty to provide reasonable assistance during emergencies. This duty arises from the commercial relationship and the business's control over the premises. The restaurant didn't need to perform the Heimlich maneuver perfectly, but it had a duty to take reasonable steps like calling 911 promptly. The manager's delay in calling emergency services while "figuring out what to do" likely breached this duty and contributed to the woman's enhanced injuries. Answer A is wrong because it applies the general "no duty to rescue" rule too broadly. While this rule applies to strangers, special relationships like business-patron create exceptions. Answer B misapplies Good Samaritan laws, which protect people who voluntarily render aid from liability for their mistakes—they don't protect someone who chooses not to help at all. Answer C incorrectly states that restaurants are strictly liable for all injuries on their premises. Strict liability typically applies only to abnormally dangerous activities, not routine business operations. Remember this key distinction: while strangers generally have no duty to rescue, special relationships (business-patron, doctor-patient, school-student) create affirmative duties to provide reasonable assistance. Look for these relationship-based exceptions when analyzing duty questions on the bar exam.