law
beginner
10 sample questions
Tort Law MCQ Practice Test
Civil wrongs and damage compensation
Q1. A plaintiff sues a defendant for negligence in failing to prevent a third party from trespassing on the plaintiff's property. The defendant had hired a security company to provide security services, but the security guards were not properly trained. The security company has a "hold harmless" clause in its contract with the defendant, which requires the defendant to indemnify the security company for any claims arising from the security company's negligence. Which of the following is the most likely outcome?
-
A. The court will decline to enforce the hold harmless clause because it would be against public policy to allow the security company to contract its way out of liability for its own negligence.
-
B. The court will enforce the hold harmless clause and require the defendant to indemnify the security company for any damages awarded to the plaintiff. ✓
-
C. The court will find the defendant vicariously liable for the security company's negligence, but will not enforce the hold harmless clause.
-
D. The court will find the defendant not liable because the plaintiff's injury was caused by the security company's independent contractor status.
Explanation: Under the doctrine of contractual indemnity, a contracting party may agree to indemnify another party for losses arising from the first party's negligence. However, this doctrine is subject to certain limitations, including the requirement that the indemnity agreement not violate public policy. In this case, the hold harmless clause is likely to be enforced because it does not violate public policy and is not unconscionable. The defendant will be required to indemnify the security company for any damages awarded to the plaintiff, despite the security company's negligence.
Q2. Under US premises liability law, when may a landowner be held liable for injuries that a third party inflicts on the property?
-
A. When the third party's harmful act was foreseeable and the landowner failed to take reasonable precautions such as adequate security ✓
-
B. Only if the landowner personally directed the third party's act
-
C. Never — landowners are categorically not responsible for third-party acts
-
D. Only when the injured person is an employee of the landowner
Explanation: Under negligent-security doctrine (e.g., foreseeability analysis used by most US states), a landowner can owe a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable third-party criminal conduct. The original keyed answer — that the duty never covers third-party risks — misstates the law, as does its citation of Donoghue v Stevenson (a product case).
Q3. A plaintiff in a negligence action brings a claim against a defendant who is alleged to have breached a duty of care in the provision of professional services. The plaintiff's expert witness, a specialist in the relevant field, testifies that the defendant's actions fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent professional. However, the expert witness also acknowledges that the defendant's actions were not motivated by a desire to cause harm, but rather by a genuine belief that the course of action taken was in the best interests of the patient. Which of the following is the correct legal principle that applies to this situation?
-
A. The defendant may still be liable for negligence, as the absence of intent to harm is irrelevant to the determination of breach of duty. ✓
-
B. The defendant's good faith belief in the appropriateness of the course of action taken is a complete defense to the claim, as it establishes a lack of negligence.
-
C. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with a reckless disregard for the well-being of the patient, rather than mere negligence.
-
D. The defendant's liability is limited to the extent that the plaintiff can establish that the defendant's actions were not in accordance with established professional standards.
Explanation: This question requires the application of the legal principle that a defendant's negligence is determined by their breach of duty, rather than their motive or intent. The absence of intent to harm is not a defense to a claim of negligence, as long as the defendant's actions fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent professional.
Q4. A plaintiff brings a claim against a defendant for negligence in the maintenance of a public park. The defendant hired a contractor to perform the maintenance, and the contractor was an employee of the defendant. Which of the following is the correct application of the vicarious liability doctrine in this scenario?
-
A. The defendant is liable for the contractor's negligence if the contractor was acting within the scope of their employment. ✓
-
B. The defendant is not liable for the contractor's negligence because the contractor was an employee.
-
C. The defendant is only liable for the contractor's negligence if the contractor was acting with the defendant's express authority.
-
D. The defendant is liable for the contractor's negligence, regardless of whether the contractor's actions were foreseeable or within the scope of their employment.
Explanation: The vicarious liability doctrine holds an employer liable for the actions of their employees if those actions occur within the scope of their employment. Since the contractor in this scenario was an employee of the defendant, the defendant is liable for the contractor's negligence, provided the negligent actions occurred within the scope of the contractor's employment.
Q5. A seller passes along a third-party inspection report about a property's condition but fails to disclose that the inspector was unlicensed. If the report is wrong and the buyer relies on it, the seller is ___
-
A. potentially liable for negligent misrepresentation for carelessly communicating inaccurate information in a business context ✓
-
B. immune from liability because a third party wrote the report
-
C. liable only if the buyer can sue the inspector instead
-
D. strictly liable regardless of any fault
Explanation: One who supplies false information for others' business decisions, even in good faith, can be liable under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 311 if they fail to exercise reasonable care in obtaining or communicating it. Passing on an unverified report from an unlicensed inspector, without disclosure, is a paradigm of such carelessness — reliance on a third party is not automatic immunity.
Q6. A plaintiff sues a defendant for negligence in failing to properly inspect a property that was later sold to the plaintiff. The defendant had relied on a prior inspection report prepared by a third-party inspector. The report contained a “known defect” notation, but the defendant was not aware of the extent of the defect. Which of the following is the correct legal standard for the defendant’s liability?
-
A. The defendant is strictly liable for the known defect because they failed to investigate further.
-
B. The defendant is only liable if they had actual knowledge of the defect or if they failed to exercise reasonable care in relying on the inspection report. ✓
-
C. The defendant is not liable because they had no knowledge of the defect and relied on a third-party expert.
-
D. The defendant is vicariously liable for the third-party inspector’s negligence in preparing the inspection report.
Explanation: This question requires the application of the duty of care and the reliance exception in negligence law. The defendant's liability is determined by their level of knowledge and the reasonableness of their reliance on the inspection report. The correct answer reflects the legal standard that a defendant is only liable if they had actual knowledge of the defect or if they failed to exercise reasonable care in relying on the inspection report.
Q7. A plaintiff sues a defendant for negligence in failing to diagnose a medical condition. The defendant argues that they were not negligent because the plaintiff had signed a pre-treatment waiver that explicitly released them from liability for any adverse outcomes. The waiver included a provision that the plaintiff was aware of the risks associated with the treatment and had chosen to undergo it with full knowledge of those risks. However, the waiver did not specifically mention the failure to diagnose the medical condition. Which of the following is the correct legal analysis?
-
A. The waiver is enforceable because the plaintiff assumed the risk of adverse outcomes by signing it.
-
B. The waiver is unenforceable because it did not specifically mention the failure to diagnose the medical condition. ✓
-
C. The waiver is unenforceable because it was not knowingly and voluntarily executed by the plaintiff.
-
D. The waiver is enforceable because it was part of a larger contract that included the provision for treatment.
Explanation: The waiver is unenforceable because it did not specifically mention the failure to diagnose the medical condition. The doctrine of express assumption of risk requires that the waiver specifically mention the risk that the plaintiff is assuming. Since the waiver did not mention the failure to diagnose the medical condition, the plaintiff did not assume that risk and the waiver is unenforceable.
Q8. A plaintiff brings a negligence action against a physician who administered a wrong medication to the plaintiff's spouse, resulting in a fatal overdose. The physician has a policy of relying on a third-party pharmacy to verify the identity of the medication. However, the pharmacy had a 'look-back' policy that only reviewed medication orders for the past 30 days. On the day of the fatal overdose, the pharmacy had not yet reviewed the physician's order for that medication. The physician had no knowledge of the pharmacy's policy. Which of the following is the most likely defense for the physician?
-
A. The physician is not vicariously liable for the pharmacy's negligence because the pharmacy was an independent contractor.
-
B. The physician is not liable for the plaintiff's loss because the pharmacy's 'look-back' policy was a reasonable safety measure. ✓
-
C. The physician is liable for the plaintiff's loss because the physician had a duty to ensure that the pharmacy verified the medication order.
-
D. The plaintiff cannot recover because the physician did not have a direct duty to the plaintiff.
Explanation: The physician may be able to argue that the pharmacy's 'look-back' policy was a reasonable safety measure, and that the physician did not have a duty to ensure that the pharmacy verified the medication order. This is an example of the "thin-skinned" approach to duty, where the physician is only liable for the harm that could have been reasonably foreseen.
Q9. A plaintiff in a negligence action brings a claim against a defendant who has been held to owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. The defendant, however, has taken steps to delegate the duty of care to a third-party contractor, who has subsequently breached the duty. Which of the following is the correct legal outcome?
-
A. The defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of the third-party contractor. ✓
-
B. The defendant has effectively discharged their duty of care by delegating it to the third-party contractor.
-
C. The plaintiff must bring a separate claim against the third-party contractor for their breach of duty.
-
D. The defendant is only liable for their own negligence, not the negligence of the third-party contractor.
Explanation: In tort law, a defendant who delegates a duty of care to a third-party contractor may still be held vicariously liable for the contractor's breach of that duty, provided the delegation was reasonable and the defendant had a sufficient level of control over the contractor's actions.
Q10. A plaintiff sues a defendant for negligence after being injured by a defective product. The defendant claims that the product was designed and manufactured by a subsidiary company, and that they should not be held liable for the subsidiary's actions. Which of the following legal doctrines is most relevant to this case?
-
A. Piercing the corporate veil ✓
-
B. Enterprise liability
-
C. Group negligence
-
D. Vertical privity
Explanation: Piercing the corporate veil is a legal doctrine that allows a court to disregard the separate legal existence of a subsidiary company and hold the parent company liable for the subsidiary's actions. This doctrine is relevant in cases where the parent company exercises significant control over the subsidiary's operations, and where the subsidiary is not a separate and independent entity.
That was just a sample. Sign up to unlock the full question bank with timed tests and certificates.
Sign Up Free