Torts rewards structural discipline. These rankings keep negligence, proximate cause, products, and intentional torts at the top of the queue because they show up everywhere else in the subject.
Torts rewards structural discipline. These rankings keep negligence, proximate cause, products, and intentional torts at the top of the queue because they show up everywhere else in the subject.
Very High frequency
DUTY: General duty of reasonable care to foreseeable plaintiffs. Special relationships create affirmative duties (common carrier, innkeeper, employer). Landowners: Varies by entrant status (invitee, licensee, trespasser) - modern trend is reasonable care to all. BREACH: Failure to act as reasonably prudent person. Res ipsa loquitur: Accident doesn't normally occur without negligence, instrumentality in D's control, P didn't contribute. CAUSATION: Actual (but-for) + proximate (foreseeable). DAMAGES: Must have actual harm (not just risk). Eggshell plaintiff - take victim as you find them.
HYPO: Store employee mops floor but doesn't put up "Wet Floor" sign. Customer (P) slips, falls, and breaks hip. P sues Store. Store says another customer (X) spilled water and Store didn't know. Analyze negligence. ANALYSIS: DUTY: Store (landowner) owes invitees (customers) duty to keep premises reasonably safe and warn of known dangers. BREACH: If Store created hazard (employee mopped), failure to warn = breach. If X spilled and Store didn't know, need to show Store should have discovered (reasonable inspection). CAUSATION: But-for wet floor, P wouldn't have fallen. Foreseeable that wet floor causes falls. DAMAGES: Broken hip = physical harm. Could also use RES IPSA: People don't fall in stores normally; floor was Store's control. RESULT: P likely wins if Store mopped without warning OR failed reasonable inspection.
Section sources
Very High frequency
Limits liability to FORESEEABLE consequences of negligent act. DIRECT CAUSE: If unbroken chain, D liable for all foreseeable harms. INTERVENING CAUSES: Foreseeable intervening acts don't break chain (medical malpractice after injury, negligence of rescuers, subsequent disease). SUPERSEDING CAUSES break chain: Unforeseeable intervening acts (criminal acts of third parties generally unforeseeable, unless D's negligence increased risk). EGGSHELL PLAINTIFF: Take victim as you find them - liable for full extent of injuries even if unforeseeable severity (preexisting condition). Thin skull rule doesn't break proximate cause.
HYPO: D negligently rear-ends P's car (minor fender-bender). P has unknown brittle bone disease and suffers multiple fractures requiring surgery. At hospital, doctor negligently prescribes wrong medication, causing P liver damage. D argues not liable for extensive injuries. ANALYSIS: EGGSHELL PLAINTIFF: D takes P as D finds P. Brittle bones = preexisting condition. D liable for ALL fractures even though disproportionate to impact. INTERVENING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: Is it superseding cause breaking chain? NO - medical treatment after injury is FORESEEABLE intervening cause. Negligent medical treatment does not break causal chain. D remains liable for liver damage too. D can seek contribution from hospital. RESULT: D proximately caused ALL injuries - fractures (eggshell rule) AND liver damage (foreseeable intervening cause).
Section sources
High frequency
WILD ANIMALS: Strictly liable for injuries consistent with dangerous propensity. DOMESTIC ANIMALS: Strict liability only if owner knew of dangerous propensity ("one bite rule"). ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES: (1) High risk of serious harm, (2) Risk can't be eliminated with reasonable care, (3) Activity not common in area. Examples: Blasting, crop dusting, hazardous chemicals. PRODUCTS: Manufacturing defects, design defects (risk-utility test), warning defects. No privity required. DEFENSES: Comparative fault may apply (except for known dangerous wild animals). Assumption of risk defense available.
HYPO: Owner has pet dog that has never bitten anyone. Dog suddenly bites neighbor. Neighbor sues Owner. Meanwhile, Owner's friend keeps a pet tiger. Tiger escapes and mauls delivery driver. Analyze strict liability for each. ANALYSIS: DOG (domestic animal): "One bite rule" - strict liability only if owner knew of dangerous propensity. First bite with no prior aggression = NO strict liability. Neighbor must prove negligence instead. TIGER (wild animal): STRICT LIABILITY regardless of precautions or knowledge. Wild animals = inherently dangerous. No "one bite" rule. Owner liable even if tiger was always gentle before. Policy: Those who keep wild animals assume risk to others. RESULT: Dog owner NOT strictly liable (no knowledge of propensity). Tiger owner STRICTLY LIABLE. Neighbor must prove negligence; driver wins without proving fault.
Section sources
High frequency
THEORIES: Strict liability (most common), negligence, breach of warranty. MANUFACTURING DEFECT: Product departs from intended design. Strict liability - no reasonable care defense. DESIGN DEFECT: All products of that design are dangerous. Tests: Consumer expectation, risk-utility (feasible safer alternative). FAILURE TO WARN: Inadequate instructions or warnings. Must warn of foreseeable misuse and risks to foreseeable users. DEFENDANTS: Manufacturer, retailer, distributor - any commercial seller. DEFENSES: Comparative fault (most states), assumption of risk, substantial alteration of product, learned intermediary (prescription drugs). NO privity required in strict liability.
HYPO: P buys ladder from Retailer. Ladder was made by Manufacturer. One rung cracks due to air bubble in metal from factory. P falls and is injured. What type of defect? Who can P sue? ANALYSIS: DEFECT TYPE: Air bubble = product departed from intended design. This is MANUFACTURING DEFECT - not design defect (design itself isn't flawed; this particular ladder was made wrong). DEFENDANTS: P can sue MANUFACTURER (made defective product) AND RETAILER (commercial seller in chain). Strict liability applies - Retailer liable even without fault. No PRIVITY required. DEFENSES: Did P misuse ladder? Was ladder altered after sale? Comparative fault in most jurisdictions. RESULT: Manufacturing defect. P can sue Manufacturer AND Retailer under strict products liability. No need to prove negligence.
Section sources
High frequency
PURE: Plaintiff recovers percentage not at fault, even if 99% at fault. MODIFIED (FL post-2023): Plaintiff barred if MORE THAN 50% at fault. FL EXCEPTIONS: (1) Intoxicated defendant - pure comparative still applies; (2) Medical malpractice - pure comparative still applies. JOINT AND SEVERAL: Mostly abolished - each D pays their percentage (FL). CONTRIBUTION: D who pays more than share can seek contribution from other Ds. INDEMNITY: Full shifting of liability (contractual or vicarious liability). LAST CLEAR CHANCE: Abolished by comparative negligence in most jurisdictions.
HYPO: FL car accident. D ran red light but P was speeding 20 over and texting. Damages = $100K. Jury finds: D 40% at fault, P 60% at fault. How much does P recover under current FL law? What if D was drunk? ANALYSIS: FL uses MODIFIED COMPARATIVE FAULT (2023 HB 837) with 51% bar. P is MORE THAN 50% at fault (60%). Under normal rule, P BARRED entirely - recovers nothing. BUT: FL EXCEPTION for intoxicated defendants. If D was drunk, PURE comparative fault applies. P would recover 40% (D's share) = $40K even though P was 60% at fault. Also applies to medical malpractice. RESULT: If D sober, P recovers NOTHING (barred at 60% fault). If D intoxicated, P recovers $40K (pure comparative exception applies).
Section sources
Use it to decide review order, not as a substitute for practice. Start with the first two or three topics, then reinforce them with timed multiple-choice work.
No. It means the higher-ranked topics deserve earlier and more frequent review because they trigger more downstream issues and more repeat appearances across mixed sets.