Contaminated Food
Plaintiff sues a grocery store after choking on a small chicken bone in a store-bought chicken salad. Which is the most accurate statement?
A. Plaintiff wins, because any foreign object in food gives rise to strict liability.
B. Plaintiff wins, because bones in chicken salad are always considered contaminants.
C. Plaintiff loses, because natural substances like bones and pits are not “contamination.”
D. Plaintiff loses, because the food did not reach her in substantially the same condition.
C
Defendant keeps a tiger in a private zoo. The tiger escapes and injures Plaintiff. Which is the best rule statement?
A. Defendant is strictly liable because wild animals are dangerous by nature.
B. Defendant is liable only if negligent in keeping the tiger.
C. Defendant is not liable because Plaintiff assumed all risks of entering the zoo.
D. Defendant is not liable because the tiger acted naturally.
A
For abnormally dangerous domestic animals, the plaintiff must prove:
A. The animal was wild.
B. Defendant kept the animal, the animal was dangerous, the defendant knew or should have known, causation, and harm.
C. Defendant acted negligently in restraining the animal.
D. The plaintiff assumed the risk.
B
Plaintiff sues a company for injuries after an explosion at a blasting site. The company argues it took “utmost care.” Which is the best response?
A. Defendant wins, because it exercised the highest standard of care.
B. Defendant wins, because blasting is common in construction.
C. Plaintiff wins, because care is irrelevant to strict liability for ultrahazardous activity.
D. Plaintiff loses, because blasting is not ultrahazardous.
C
Which factor is not part of determining whether an activity is ultrahazardous?
A. High degree of risk of harm
B. Inability to eliminate risk through care
C. Social utility outweighs risk
D. Activity is not common usage
C
Which of the following is not required for strict liability for contaminated food?
A. The food was manufactured or sold by the defendant.
B. The food was contaminated.
C. The food reached the consumer in substantially the same condition.
D. The defendant knew the food was contaminated.
D
Defendant owns a pet chimpanzee. Plaintiff, a neighbor, visits Defendant’s property with permission. The chimpanzee escapes its cage and scratches Plaintiff. Defendant argues that the chimpanzee had never shown aggression before. Which is most accurate?
A. Defendant is liable only if he knew the chimpanzee was dangerous.
B. Defendant is strictly liable because chimpanzees are wild animals regardless of prior behavior.
C. Defendant is not liable, because Plaintiff was a licensee, not an invitee.
D. Defendant is not liable, because chimpanzees are technically domestic animals.
B
Defendant’s bulldog has previously attacked two neighborhood children. Plaintiff, a new mail carrier, is bitten while delivering mail. Defendant argues he didn’t know about the prior incidents. Which result is most accurate?
A. Defendant is not liable, because scienter requires actual knowledge.
B. Defendant is strictly liable, because constructive knowledge (he should have known) is sufficient.
C. Defendant is liable only if negligent in securing the bulldog.
D. Defendant is not liable, because bulldogs are not considered abnormally dangerous
B
Defendant stores dynamite in a warehouse far outside the city. A lightning strike causes the dynamite to explode, injuring a hiker trespassing nearby. Which is the best outcome?
A. Defendant is strictly liable, because dynamite storage is ultrahazardous.
B. Defendant is not liable, because the harm was caused by an “act of God,” not the activity itself.
C. Defendant is strictly liable, because trespassers are still protected under ultrahazardous liability.
D. Defendant is not liable, because Plaintiff assumed the risk by trespassing.
B
Which of the following is the only complete defense to strict liability?
A. Contributory negligence
B. Comparative fault
C. Voluntary assumption of risk
D. Statute of limitation
C
Plaintiff buys a jar of peanut butter from a grocery store. Inside is a small pebble that breaks Plaintiff’s tooth. Defendant argues that peanuts often contain small pebbles from harvesting, and consumers should expect this. What’s the best result?
A. Defendant is strictly liable because the pebble is a foreign object.
B. Defendant is strictly liable only if the jar was manufactured negligently.
C. Defendant is not liable, because small stones and bones are considered natural substances, not contamination.
D. Defendant is not liable, because the plaintiff should have inspected the food.
C
The defendant keeps a chimpanzee as a pet in his suburban home. The chimpanzee has never shown aggression before. One day, without provocation, the chimpanzee suddenly bites a guest visiting the home. The defendant argues that he had no knowledge of the chimpanzee’s dangerous tendencies.
Who wins?
A. Plaintiff wins, because chimpanzees are wild animals and strict liability applies regardless of prior aggression.
B. Defendant wins, because strict liability requires proof of knowledge of dangerous propensities.
C. Plaintiff wins, but only if defendant failed to take reasonable precautions.
D. Defendant wins, because chimpanzees are classified as domestic if raised by humans.
A
The defendant owns a golden retriever with no prior history of aggression. One day, without warning, the dog bites a neighbor who was petting it. The neighbor sues under strict liability.
Who wins?
A. Plaintiff wins, because dogs are inherently dangerous.
B. Defendant wins, because strict liability for domesticated animals requires knowledge of dangerous propensities.
C. Plaintiff wins, because contributory negligence does not apply in strict liability cases.
D. Defendant wins, because dogs are legally classified as wild animals only if they attack.
B
Plaintiff agrees to help Defendant with demolition blasting in exchange for free tickets to a football game. Plaintiff is injured by flying debris. Which is the best outcome?
A. Defendant is liable, because ultrahazardous activity creates strict liability regardless of assumption of risk.
B. Defendant is not liable, because Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury.
C. Defendant is liable, because assumption of risk only applies to negligence, not strict liability.
D. Defendant is not liable, because Plaintiff was a volunteer and not a customer.
b
A farmer hires a company to perform aerial crop dusting. Despite taking precautions, the pesticide drifts into a neighboring organic farm, ruining crops.
Which factor under § 520 is most relevant to determining strict liability?
A. The farmer was negligent in choosing the pesticide company.
B. Crop dusting cannot be performed without creating a significant risk of harm.
C. Crop dusting is considered a common usage in rural areas.
D. Crop dusting is not ultrahazardous if performed by professionals.
B
Defendant manufactures bottled water. Plaintiff buys a bottle at a supermarket and finds a piece of plastic floating inside. Before drinking, Plaintiff notices the plastic and throws the bottle away, suffering no physical harm. Plaintiff sues for strict liability. Which result is most likely?
A. Plaintiff wins, because contamination alone creates strict liability.
B. Plaintiff loses, because strict liability for food requires actual harm.
C. Plaintiff wins, because the food did not reach the consumer in the substantially same condition.
D. Plaintiff loses, because bottled water is not a “food product” for purposes of strict liability.
B
A zoo keeps lions for public display. Despite barriers and warning signs, a visitor leans too close to the enclosure and is injured when the lion swipes its paw through the bars.
Who wins?
A. Plaintiff wins, because zoos are strictly liable for injuries caused by wild animals.
B. Defendant wins, because the plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably assumed the risk.
C. Plaintiff wins, because strict liability cannot be avoided even if the visitor ignored warnings.
D. Defendant wins, because strict liability does not apply to animals kept for public exhibition.
B
The defendant owns a Rottweiler that previously bit two delivery workers. The defendant had been warned by the city to restrain the dog. The dog later escapes and attacks a jogger.
Who wins?
A. Plaintiff wins, because the owner had actual knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities.
B. Defendant wins, because the jogger assumed the risk by running near the dog’s property.
C. Plaintiff wins, because strict liability applies to all domesticated animals regardless of history.
D. Defendant wins, because liability requires that the owner intentionally released the animal.
A
During a public fireworks show conducted by the city, debris injures a bystander. The city argues that the show was a public service and not a commercial activity. Which is the best result?
A. City is liable under strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.
B. City is not liable, because governmental fireworks displays are immune from strict liability.
C. City is liable only if negligent in conducting the display.
D. City is not liable, because fireworks shows are a matter of common us
A
A chemical company disposes of toxic waste deep underground using government-approved methods. Years later, the waste leaks and contaminates local groundwater.
Which factor under § 520 is least persuasive in deciding whether strict liability applies?
A. The high risk of harm to human health from toxic waste.
B. The inability to eliminate the risk even with the utmost care.
C. The unusual and uncommon nature of toxic waste disposal.
D. The fact that toxic waste disposal is heavily regulated and serves an important social function.
D
A restaurant sells prepackaged fruit cups.A customer purchases one and discovers a live insect inside, which bites her and causes an infection. The restaurant argues that it did not manufacture the cup; it merely sold it. Which is more accurate?
A. resturant is strictly liable becaused sellers are liable for selling contaminated food.
B. Resturant is strictly liable only if insect rendered the fruit poisoned
C. Resturant is not strictly liable because it did not manufacture the product.
D. Resturant is not liable because insects are a natural risk of fruit.
A
Defendant keeps a wolf on his property for display. The wolf is chained, but a trespassing teenage sneaks in to take a selfie and is bitten. Which is the best outcome?
A. Strictly liable because wolves are wild animals
B. Not liable because of trespass.
c. liable only if he knew the wolf was especially vicious
d. not liable, because the harm resulted from, the plantiffs voluntary assumption of risk
d
Defendant’s German Shepherd has bitten three delivery drivers over two years. Plaintiff, a mail carrier, is bitten after walking through the front gate, which Defendant left open. Which statement is most accurate?
A. Defendant is liable only if negligent, because dogs are domestic animals.
B. Defendant is strictly liable, because scienter applies when an owner knows or should know of the animal’s dangerous tendencies.
C. Defendant is not liable, because scienter requires two bites before liability attaches.
D. Defendant is not liable, because mail carriers assume the risk of dog bites.
B
Defendant operates a chemical storage facility in a residential neighborhood. Despite following all safety regulations, a leak occurs, poisoning nearby residents. Defendant argues that chemical storage benefits the community by providing jobs. Which is the best rule?
A. Defendant is not liable, because the social benefit outweighs the harm.
B. Defendant is liable, because ultrahazardous activity liability applies regardless of community benefit.
C. Defendant is not liable, because the harm could not be eliminated by any level of care.
D. Defendant is liable only if negligent in storing the chemicals.
B
The defendant conducts chemical blasting in an urban neighborhood. Despite taking all available safety measures, debris damages several nearby homes. The court must decide whether blasting qualifies as an ultrahazardous activity under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520.
Which of the following is the most accurate reason strict liability applies?
A. Blasting creates a high risk of harm that cannot be eliminated through reasonable care.
B. Blasting is not a common usage activity, and this weighs against imposing liability.
C. Blasting is socially useful, which always excuses strict liability.
D. Blasting only triggers liability if negligence can be proven.
A