Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Vicarious Liability

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Vicarious LiabilityQuestion 1 of 20

A hospital contracted with a highly specialized surgeon to perform complex cardiac procedures. The contract stipulated that the surgeon was an independent contractor. The surgeon set her own hours, used her own preferred surgical instruments, and was paid a fee per procedure rather than a salary. The hospital did not direct the manner in which she performed the surgeries. During a procedure, the surgeon negligently severed an artery, causing severe injury to a patient. The patient sued the hospital, claiming it was vicariously liable for the surgeon's negligence.

What is the hospital's strongest argument that it is not vicariously liable for the surgeon's negligence? Select one.

The surgeon committed medical malpractice, which is a professional tort for which only the individual practitioner is liable.

The hospital lacked the requisite control over the manner and method of the surgeon's work, making her an independent contractor.

The surgeon's actions were a superseding cause of the patient's injury, breaking the chain of causation from any hospital duty.

The hospital can only be liable if it held the surgeon out as an employee, and the patient did not rely on such a representation.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Vicarious Liability

Practice Vicarious Liability 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 Vicarious Liability, 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 the hospital's strongest argument that it is not vicariously liable for the surgeon's negligence? Select one.

The surgeon committed medical malpractice, which is a professional tort for which only the individual practitioner is liable.
The hospital lacked the requisite control over the manner and method of the surgeon's work, making her an independent contractor. (correct answer)
The surgeon's actions were a superseding cause of the patient's injury, breaking the chain of causation from any hospital duty.
The hospital can only be liable if it held the surgeon out as an employee, and the patient did not rely on such a representation.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. The primary test for distinguishing between an employee and an independent contractor is the principal's right to control the manner and method of the work. The facts indicate a lack of control: the surgeon set her own hours, used her own instruments, and was not directed in her surgical technique. These factors strongly support her status as an independent contractor, for whose torts the principal is generally not vicariously liable. A is incorrect because hospitals can be vicariously liable for the malpractice of their employee-physicians. C is incorrect because superseding cause relates to proximate causation in a direct negligence claim against the hospital, not to the issue of vicarious liability. D describes the doctrine of apparent authority or estoppel, which is an exception to the independent contractor rule. While a valid theory of liability, B represents the hospital's primary defense by attacking the fundamental relationship required for vicarious liability in the first place.

Question 2

You are representing a client who was injured when her car was struck by a driver employed as a salesperson for a pharmaceutical company. The accident occurred at 10 a.m. on a weekday. The salesperson was driving a company-owned car from his home to his first sales call of the day. The employer required the salesperson to have the company car at his home so he could travel directly to clients' offices without first reporting to the main office. The salesperson's territory was a 100-mile radius from his home.

Which argument provides the strongest basis for holding the pharmaceutical company vicariously liable for the salesperson's negligence? Select one.

The salesperson was driving a company-owned vehicle, which creates strict liability for the employer.
The 'special mission' or 'required vehicle' exception to the coming and going rule applies because the salesperson's commute was part of his job. (correct answer)
The salesperson was an independent contractor, but the company is liable because selling pharmaceuticals is an inherently dangerous activity.
The company negligently entrusted the vehicle to the salesperson by allowing him to take it home.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. This scenario presents a key exception to the 'coming and going' rule. When an employee's travel is an integral part of their job, or when the employer requires the employee to use their vehicle (or a company vehicle) for work-related tasks during the commute, the commute itself can be brought within the scope of employment. Here, the salesperson's job required travel, and he was required to have the company car at home to facilitate that travel. Driving from home to the first client call was a direct fulfillment of his employment duties, making the company vicariously liable. A is incorrect; owning the vehicle does not create strict liability. C is incorrect because the facts suggest an employee relationship, and selling pharmaceuticals is not an inherently dangerous activity. D suggests direct liability (negligent entrustment), not vicarious liability, and there are no facts to suggest the salesperson was known to be a negligent driver.

Question 3

A large grocery store contracted with an independent cleaning service to wax its floors overnight. The cleaning service was responsible for providing its own equipment and personnel and for determining the specific methods for cleaning and waxing. An employee of the cleaning service negligently failed to place 'Wet Floor' signs after waxing an aisle. The next morning, shortly after the store opened, a customer slipped on the slick floor and was seriously injured. The customer sued the grocery store.

Is the grocery store likely to be held liable for the customer's injuries? Select one.

No, because the cleaning service was an independent contractor, and its employee's negligence cannot be imputed to the store.
No, because the store did not have control over the manner in which the cleaning service's employee performed the work.
Yes, because the duty of a landowner to keep its premises reasonably safe for business invitees is non-delegable. (correct answer)
Yes, because the store is strictly liable for any injuries that occur on its premises during business hours.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This question involves an important exception to the general rule of non-liability for the torts of independent contractors. A possessor of land who holds it open to the public has a non-delegable duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for business invitees. The store cannot escape this duty by hiring an independent contractor to perform maintenance. The negligence of the cleaning service in creating a dangerous condition is imputed to the store because the underlying duty to its customers is non-delegable. A and B state the general rule for independent contractors but fail to account for this specific exception. D is incorrect because the store's liability is based on negligence (breach of a duty of care), not strict liability.

Question 4

A mechanic at an auto repair shop was working on a customer's car. The customer began to loudly and persistently complain that the mechanic was overcharging him. The argument grew heated. The mechanic, who had a history of anger issues unknown to his employer, picked up a wrench and struck the customer, causing a head injury. The customer sued the auto repair shop on a theory of respondeat superior.

Which of the following is the shop's strongest argument against vicarious liability? Select one.

The shop cannot be vicariously liable for an employee's intentional tort.
The mechanic's act was a result of his own personal anger and was not intended to serve any purpose of the employer. (correct answer)
The shop was not negligent in hiring the mechanic because it was unaware of his history of anger issues.
The customer's verbal provocation was a superseding cause that broke the chain of liability.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. For an employer to be vicariously liable for an employee's intentional tort, the tort must be committed within the scope of employment. This often means the act was committed in furtherance of the employer's business or was a foreseeable outgrowth of the job. Here, the mechanic's violent act stemmed from a personal, emotional reaction to a customer's complaint. The shop's strongest argument is that this act was not intended to serve the shop's interests (e.g., collect a debt) but was a purely personal response, taking it outside the scope of employment. A is an incorrect statement of law; employers can be vicariously liable for intentional torts. C addresses direct liability (negligent hiring), not vicarious liability. D is incorrect; customer provocation might be relevant to the mechanic's liability or damages, but it is not a superseding cause that would sever the shop's potential vicarious liability.

Question 5

A homeowner hired a local teenager to mow her lawn every two weeks for a flat fee of $50 per mow. The homeowner provided the lawnmower and gasoline. She instructed the teenager to mow on a specific day of the week but did not otherwise supervise his work or dictate the manner in which he mowed. While mowing the lawn, the teenager negligently ran over a valuable sprinkler head, destroying it. The homeowner wants to sue the teenager's parents to recover the cost of the sprinkler head.

What is the likely result of the homeowner's claim against the teenager's parents? Select one.

The parents are vicariously liable because the teenager was acting as their agent when he agreed to mow the lawn.
The parents are vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior because they control their minor child's activities.
The parents are liable because the teenager was using the homeowner's equipment, which transfers the risk to the supervising adults.
The parents are not vicariously liable, as parents are generally not liable for the torts of their children. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of parental liability for their minor children's torts, a key concept in tort law that often surprises students because it goes against common intuition about family responsibility. The correct answer is D because, under general tort law principles, parents are not automatically vicariously liable for their children's negligent acts. Parental liability typically requires one of several specific circumstances: the parent directly participated in or encouraged the wrongful conduct, the parent was negligent in supervising the child, or a statute specifically imposes such liability. Here, the teenager was working independently for the homeowner, and there's no indication the parents were involved in or should have prevented this particular negligent act. Answer A incorrectly applies agency law. The teenager wasn't acting as his parents' agent—he had his own independent contract with the homeowner for his own benefit. Answer B misapplies respondeat superior, which governs employer-employee relationships, not parent-child relationships. While parents have general authority over minor children, this doesn't create the same automatic liability that employers face for employees' actions within the scope of employment. Answer C creates a non-existent legal rule. Using someone else's equipment doesn't automatically transfer tort liability to the equipment owner's "supervising adults"—the parents weren't supervising this work arrangement. Remember this counterintuitive principle: family relationships don't automatically create vicarious liability. Unlike employment relationships, being someone's parent doesn't make you liable for their independent negligent acts unless special circumstances apply. This distinction frequently appears on bar exams.

Question 6

A woman lent her car to her adult son so he could drive to a job interview. She knew that her son's driver's license had been suspended a month earlier due to multiple speeding violations and that he continued to drive recklessly. While on his way to the interview, the son sped through a residential neighborhood and struck and injured a child. The child's parents sued the mother for the child's injuries.

What is the strongest theory of liability against the mother? Select one.

Direct liability for negligent entrustment. (correct answer)
Vicarious liability under the family car doctrine.
Vicarious liability under a permissive use statute.
Strict liability because she is the owner of the vehicle.

Explanation: When you encounter a question about car owner liability, you need to distinguish between direct liability (the owner's own negligence) and vicarious liability (being held responsible for someone else's actions). The key is identifying which theory gives the plaintiff the strongest case. Direct liability for negligent entrustment occurs when a car owner negligently allows an incompetent or unfit driver to use their vehicle. Here, the mother knew her son's license was suspended due to multiple speeding violations and that he continued driving recklessly. By lending her car despite this knowledge, she breached her duty to exercise reasonable care in entrusting the vehicle. This creates a strong case because her own negligent conduct directly contributed to the harm. Option B, the family car doctrine, makes parents vicariously liable when a family member uses the family car for family purposes. However, driving to a job interview likely isn't a "family purpose," and many jurisdictions have abolished this doctrine. Option C, permissive use statutes, make car owners vicariously liable when they give others permission to drive. While this might apply, these statutes often contain exceptions for unlicensed drivers, making it a weaker theory than direct negligence. Option D is incorrect because vehicle ownership alone doesn't create strict liability. The owner must have done something wrong or fall under a specific vicarious liability rule. Remember: Direct liability theories are often stronger than vicarious liability because they're based on the defendant's own wrongful conduct. Look for facts showing the owner knew or should have known about the driver's incompetence or unfitness.

Question 7

A delivery driver for a national courier company was assigned a route that required him to make all deliveries between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. At 2 p.m., after completing a delivery, the driver decided to visit his mother, who lived ten miles off his designated route. This personal visit took approximately one hour. While returning to his route from his mother's house, the driver negligently ran a red light and struck a pedestrian, causing serious injuries. The pedestrian has sued the courier company.

What is the courier company's most likely defense against a claim based on vicarious liability? Select one.

The driver's visit to his mother constituted a frolic, severing the agency relationship for the purposes of liability. (correct answer)
The driver was an independent contractor, not an employee, because he had control over his specific delivery order.
The driver's negligence was an intentional tort, which is outside the scope of employment for delivery drivers.
The accident occurred during the driver's return trip, which is considered part of a minor detour, not a frolic.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The doctrine of respondeat superior holds an employer vicariously liable for an employee's torts committed within the scope of employment. A 'frolic' occurs when an employee significantly deviates from the employer's business for personal reasons. A ten-mile deviation for a one-hour personal visit is substantial enough to be considered a frolic, which temporarily suspends the scope of employment. The liability does not reattach until the employee has returned to the point of deviation or is once again engaged in the employer's business. Because the accident occurred while the driver was returning from this major personal errand, the company has a strong defense that he was outside the scope of employment. B is incorrect because the facts suggest an employer-employee relationship (assigned route, hours). C is incorrect because the driver's action was negligent, not an intentional tort. D misstates the law and the likely characterization of the facts; a minor deviation is a 'detour,' but this significant deviation is a frolic, and the return trip from a frolic is generally still considered outside the scope of employment until the employee is back on the authorized path.

Question 8

A bouncer was employed by a nightclub to maintain order and remove disruptive patrons. A patron, who had been peacefully drinking at the bar, made a derogatory comment about the bouncer's favorite sports team. Angered by the comment, the bouncer grabbed the patron, dragged him outside, and threw him to the ground, causing the patron to suffer a broken arm. The nightclub had a strict policy prohibiting employees from using physical force unless in self-defense or defense of others. The patron sued the nightclub under a theory of vicarious liability.

Is the nightclub likely to be held vicariously liable for the bouncer's battery of the patron? Select one.

No, because the bouncer's actions were in direct violation of the nightclub's explicit policy against using physical force.
No, because the bouncer acted out of a personal motive, and the altercation was not in furtherance of the nightclub's business.
Yes, because the use of force is a foreseeable risk associated with the job of a nightclub bouncer. (correct answer)
Yes, because the bouncer was on duty and on the nightclub's premises when the battery occurred.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Employers can be held vicariously liable for the intentional torts of their employees if the tort was committed within the scope of employment. For jobs that involve the potential use of force, such as a bouncer, courts often find that a battery is a foreseeable risk, even if it is misguided or excessive. The altercation arose during the bouncer's work, and the nature of the job involves physical confrontation, making the tortious conduct an outgrowth of his employment duties. A is incorrect because an employer's prohibition of the specific conduct does not automatically insulate it from liability if the act is otherwise within the scope of employment. B is incorrect because while the bouncer had a personal motive (anger over a comment), the act of controlling patrons is job-related. The tort does not need to be intended to benefit the employer, only that it originates from the employment context and is foreseeable. D is an oversimplification; being on duty and on the premises is necessary but not sufficient for liability. The key is whether the act itself was within the scope of employment, which is determined here by foreseeability.

Question 9

A father owned a hardware store. His 19-year-old son worked at the store as a paid, part-time employee. One Saturday, after his shift ended, the son asked to borrow the store's delivery van to help a friend move into a new apartment. The father agreed. While driving to his friend's apartment, the son negligently caused an accident that injured another driver. The injured driver sued the father, individually and as the owner of the hardware store.

What is the most likely basis upon which the injured driver could hold the father liable? Select one.

Respondeat superior, because the son was an employee of the father's business.
The family car doctrine, because the son was using a vehicle owned by his father for a family purpose.
A permissive use statute, if the jurisdiction has enacted one that imputes a driver's negligence to the vehicle's owner. (correct answer)
Parental liability, because parents are vicariously liable for the torts of their children.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The strongest basis for liability against the father would be a permissive use statute. These statutes, enacted in many states, make the owner of a motor vehicle vicariously liable for the negligence of any person driving it with the owner's express or implied permission. Here, the father gave his son express permission to use the van. A is incorrect because respondeat superior does not apply; the son was not acting within the scope of his employment. His shift had ended, and he was using the van for a purely personal purpose. B is incorrect because the family car doctrine typically applies to vehicles maintained for general family use, not a commercial vehicle like a delivery van, and is often limited to minor children. D is incorrect as a general statement of law; parents are not broadly vicariously liable for their children's torts, especially not for a 19-year-old adult child.

Question 10

Two partners in a law firm, Partner A and Partner B, operated under a general partnership agreement. Partner A was responsible for the firm's litigation practice. While representing a client in a complex civil suit, Partner A negligently missed a critical filing deadline, resulting in the dismissal of the client's case and a significant financial loss. The client sued Partner B for legal malpractice to recover the damages.

Assuming Partner A committed malpractice, is Partner B likely to be held liable for the client's damages? Select one.

No, because Partner B was not involved in the litigation and did not personally commit any negligent act.
No, because professional malpractice is a personal tort for which only the acting professional can be held liable.
Yes, because partners in a general partnership are vicariously liable for torts committed by other partners in the ordinary course of the partnership's business. (correct answer)
Yes, but only if Partner B was negligent in supervising Partner A's work on the case.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. A fundamental principle of partnership law is that all partners in a general partnership are jointly and severally liable for the torts committed by any partner acting in the ordinary course of the partnership's business. Representing a client in litigation is squarely within the ordinary course of a law firm's business. Therefore, Partner A's malpractice is imputed to the partnership and to Partner B, making Partner B vicariously liable. A is incorrect because vicarious liability exists precisely to hold a party liable for another's torts, even without personal fault. B is incorrect; while the individual professional is liable, their partners and the partnership are also vicariously liable. D describes a theory of direct liability (negligent supervision), which could also be a basis for liability, but vicarious liability exists even without any negligence on Partner B's part.

Question 11

Which of the following is the shop's strongest argument against vicarious liability? Select one.

The shop cannot be vicariously liable for an employee's intentional tort.
The mechanic's act was a result of his own personal anger and was not intended to serve any purpose of the employer. (correct answer)
The shop was not negligent in hiring the mechanic because it was unaware of his history of anger issues.
The customer's verbal provocation was a superseding cause that broke the chain of liability.

Question 12

What is the likely result of the homeowner's claim against the teenager's parents? Select one.

The parents are vicariously liable because the teenager was acting as their agent when he agreed to mow the lawn.
The parents are vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior because they control their minor child's activities.
The parents are liable because the teenager was using the homeowner's equipment, which transfers the risk to the supervising adults.
The parents are not vicariously liable, as parents are generally not liable for the torts of their children. (correct answer)

Question 13

A pizza restaurant employed its own delivery drivers. One driver, while on a delivery, was cut off in traffic by another motorist. Enraged, the driver followed the motorist for several blocks, forced him to the side of the road, and physically assaulted him. The motorist had no connection to the restaurant or the pizza delivery. The motorist sued the pizza restaurant for battery under a theory of respondeat superior.

Will the restaurant likely be held vicariously liable for the driver's battery? Select one.

No, because the driver's actions constituted a major deviation from his employment duties and were for purely personal reasons. (correct answer)
Yes, because road rage is a foreseeable risk associated with the job of a delivery driver.
Yes, because the incident arose out of the driver's operation of the delivery vehicle, which is central to his employment.
No, because the restaurant cannot be held liable for the criminal act of assault and battery committed by an employee.

Explanation: When you encounter a question about an employer's vicarious liability under respondeat superior, focus on whether the employee's conduct falls within the scope of employment. The key test is whether the employee's actions were in furtherance of the employer's business or were a substantial deviation for purely personal reasons. Here, the driver's assault clearly exceeds the scope of his employment duties. While he was technically "on the job" making a delivery, chasing down and physically attacking another motorist was entirely personal conduct—motivated by road rage, not any business purpose. The assault had no connection to completing the pizza delivery or serving the restaurant's interests. Courts consistently hold that such major deviations from employment duties, driven by personal motivations, break the chain of vicarious liability. Answer A correctly identifies this principle: the driver's actions were a major deviation from his duties and purely personal in nature. Answer B incorrectly suggests that foreseeability alone establishes liability—but even if road rage is foreseeable, that doesn't make it within the scope of employment. Answer C falls into the trap of thinking that any use of a company vehicle automatically creates liability, but the vehicle's involvement doesn't transform personal conduct into work-related activity. Answer D is wrong because employers can indeed be held liable for employees' criminal acts if those acts occur within the scope of employment—the issue isn't the criminal nature but the personal motivation. Remember: respondeat superior requires more than just being "on the clock"—the employee's actions must serve some employment purpose, not purely personal interests.

Question 14

A city hired an independent contractor to conduct a fireworks display for a holiday celebration. The contractor was an experienced pyrotechnics company. Due to the negligence of one of the contractor's employees, a firework misfired and shot into the crowd, injuring a spectator. The spectator has brought a tort claim against the city.

If the spectator sues the city, what is the likely outcome? Select one.

The city will not be liable because it hired a competent independent contractor to perform the work.
The city will not be liable because municipal governments are generally immune from tort liability for governmental functions.
The city will be liable because conducting a fireworks display is an abnormally dangerous activity for which liability is strict.
The city will be liable because its duty to ensure public safety during the display was non-delegable. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. This is another example of a non-delegable duty. Activities that are inherently dangerous or that pose a peculiar risk of harm to the public create non-delegable duties for the entity that initiates them. A public fireworks display is a classic example. Even though the city hired an independent contractor, it cannot delegate away its responsibility to ensure the display is conducted safely. Therefore, the contractor's negligence is imputed to the city. A is incorrect because hiring a competent contractor does not absolve the principal of a non-delegable duty. B is incorrect because sovereign immunity for municipalities has been broadly waived for tortious acts. C is close but less precise than D. While fireworks can be an abnormally dangerous activity leading to strict liability, the basis for the city's liability for the contractor's negligence is better articulated as a non-delegable duty. The underlying claim against the contractor might be for strict liability or negligence, but the city's liability stems from its non-delegable duty.

Question 15

A software engineer who worked for a large tech company finished her workday at 5 p.m. and began her commute home in her personal vehicle. Her employer did not pay for her commuting time or expenses. Twenty minutes into her drive, while still on a public highway, she negligently caused a multi-car accident. A driver injured in the accident sued the tech company, alleging it was vicariously liable for the engineer's negligence.

Is the court likely to find the tech company vicariously liable for the engineer's negligence? Select one.

Yes, because the engineer was returning from her place of employment, which is a foreseeable part of her job responsibilities.
Yes, because the company benefits from its employees being able to commute to and from the office.
No, because of the 'coming and going' rule, which holds that commuting is not within the scope of employment. (correct answer)
No, because the engineer was driving her own vehicle rather than a company-provided car.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The 'coming and going' rule is a widely accepted principle in tort law that an employee is not acting within the scope of their employment while commuting to or from their workplace. This is because the employer generally does not control the employee's commute, and the risks of the commute are common to the public at large. Therefore, the tech company is not vicariously liable for the engineer's negligence during her commute. A and B state rationales that are legally insufficient to overcome the coming and going rule. The foreseeability or benefit to the employer is not the test for commuting. D is incorrect because while use of a company car can be a factor in some scope-of-employment analyses, the dispositive rule here is that the employee was engaged in a simple commute, making the ownership of the vehicle less relevant.

Question 16

Two individuals, a chef and a manager, agreed to operate a food truck together for the duration of a three-month summer festival. They agreed to split the profits equally. The chef was responsible for all cooking and menu design, while the manager handled scheduling, supplies, and customer service. One afternoon, while driving the truck to purchase supplies, the manager negligently struck a pedestrian. The pedestrian sued both the manager and the chef for her injuries.

Is the chef likely to be held liable for the manager's negligence? Select one.

No, because the chef had no control over the manager's driving at the time of the accident.
No, because the chef and the manager were independent contractors in a business relationship, not partners.
Yes, because the manager was acting in furtherance of their joint enterprise when the accident occurred. (correct answer)
Yes, but only if the chef negligently entrusted the food truck to the manager.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The arrangement between the chef and the manager has the hallmarks of a joint enterprise or partnership: an agreement, a common purpose (operating the food truck), a community of pecuniary interest (splitting profits), and an equal right of control over the venture. In a joint enterprise, each member is an agent of the others for acts within the scope of the enterprise. The manager was driving to purchase supplies, which is an act in furtherance of their business. Therefore, his negligence is imputed to the chef, making the chef vicariously liable. A is incorrect because in a joint enterprise, the right of control is over the overall venture, not necessarily the specific tortious act at the moment it occurs. B mischaracterizes the relationship; their agreement to share profits from a common business strongly suggests a partnership or joint enterprise. D describes a theory of direct liability (negligent entrustment), not vicarious liability, and there are no facts to support it.

Question 17

Which argument provides the strongest basis for holding the pharmaceutical company vicariously liable for the salesperson's negligence? Select one.

The salesperson was driving a company-owned vehicle, which creates strict liability for the employer.
The 'special mission' or 'required vehicle' exception to the coming and going rule applies because the salesperson's commute was part of his job. (correct answer)
The salesperson was an independent contractor, but the company is liable because selling pharmaceuticals is an inherently dangerous activity.
The company negligently entrusted the vehicle to the salesperson by allowing him to take it home.

Question 18

A commercial developer hired a demolition company as an independent contractor to demolish an old office building in a crowded downtown area. The demolition company was known for its expertise and had an excellent safety record. During the demolition, an employee of the demolition company negligently failed to secure a section of the facade, causing it to fall and crush a car parked on an adjacent public street. The owner of the car sued the commercial developer for the value of the vehicle.

Is the commercial developer likely to be held liable for the negligence of the demolition company's employee? Select one.

No, because the demolition company was an independent contractor, and a principal is not liable for the torts of an independent contractor.
No, because the developer exercised reasonable care in selecting a competent and experienced demolition company.
Yes, because demolition is an inherently dangerous activity, creating a non-delegable duty for the developer. (correct answer)
Yes, because the developer owned the property where the activity took place and is strictly liable for all damages originating from it.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. While a principal is generally not vicariously liable for the torts of an independent contractor, there are exceptions. One major exception is for inherently dangerous activities. Demolishing a building in a crowded urban area is a classic example of an inherently dangerous activity because it involves a peculiar risk of serious harm to others that cannot be eliminated by ordinary care. When a principal hires an independent contractor for such an activity, the principal's duty to ensure the work is done safely is considered non-delegable. Therefore, the developer remains liable for the contractor's negligence. A states the general rule but ignores the applicable exception. B describes the duty of care in hiring, which is a basis for direct liability (negligent hiring), not vicarious liability, and exercising such care does not negate liability for non-delegable duties. D is incorrect; property ownership does not create strict liability for all activities on the land. The liability here is based on the specific nature of the activity.

Question 19

A long-haul truck driver was employed by a shipping company. The company had a strict policy, of which the driver was aware, forbidding drivers from picking up hitchhikers in company trucks. While on a cross-country haul, the driver felt lonely and decided to pick up a hitchhiker in violation of the rule. A few hours later, the driver negligently fell asleep at the wheel, causing the truck to crash. Both the driver and the hitchhiker were injured. The hitchhiker sued the shipping company for his injuries.

Is the shipping company likely to be held vicariously liable for the hitchhiker's injuries? Select one.

Yes, because the driver was operating the truck in furtherance of the company's business at the time of the crash.
Yes, because the company owned the truck and is therefore responsible for all injuries caused by its operation.
No, because the driver was acting in direct violation of a specific company policy when he gave the hitchhiker a ride.
No, because with respect to the unauthorized passenger, the driver was acting outside the scope of his employment. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. While the driver was acting within the scope of employment with respect to his driving for the company, he was not acting within the scope of employment when he invited the hitchhiker into the truck. An employer is generally not liable to an unauthorized passenger because the employee's act of inviting the passenger is not in furtherance of the employer's business and is not authorized. The driver's duty to the hitchhiker was personal, not one that arose from his employment. A is incorrect because although the driver's overall activity (driving the truck) was for the employer, his specific act of providing a ride to an unauthorized person was not. C is relevant but not the core legal reason; an act can be within the scope of employment even if it violates a rule. The better reason is D, which focuses on the fact that the driver's relationship with the hitchhiker was entirely personal and unauthorized, placing the hitchhiker outside the scope of the employer's duty.

Question 20

Is the nightclub likely to be held vicariously liable for the bouncer's battery of the patron? Select one.

No, because the bouncer's actions were in direct violation of the nightclub's explicit policy against using physical force.
No, because the bouncer acted out of a personal motive, and the altercation was not in furtherance of the nightclub's business.
Yes, because the use of force is a foreseeable risk associated with the job of a nightclub bouncer. (correct answer)
Yes, because the bouncer was on duty and on the nightclub's premises when the battery occurred.