Causation in Torts: A Comprehensive Guide for Law Students

Question 1

Maria negligently leaves her stove on while she goes out shopping. Upon her return, she discovers that her home has burned down. Which type of causation is illustrated in this example?

Accepted Answer

Direct cause

Answer

Indirect cause

Answer

Concurrent cause

Answer

Intervening cause

Question 2

According to the 'but-for' test, which of the following is a requirement for establishing causation?

Accepted Answer

The plaintiff's injuries would not have occurred but for the defendant's conduct.

Answer

The defendant's conduct must have been the sole cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Answer

The defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries.

Answer

The plaintiff's injuries were foreseeable by the defendant.

Question 3

Which of the following is a common defense to a claim of causation?

Accepted Answer

Intervening cause

Answer

Statute of limitations

Answer

Contributory negligence

Answer

Comparative negligence

Question 4

Which of the following is NOT considered when determining foreseeability?

Accepted Answer

The plaintiff's contributory negligence

Answer

The defendant's knowledge of the plaintiff's vulnerability

Answer

The likelihood of the harm occurring

Answer

The existence of intervening causes

Question 5

A defendant's conduct is considered a 'substantial factor' in causing the plaintiff's injuries if it:

Accepted Answer

Increased the risk of the plaintiff's injuries

Answer

Was the only cause of the plaintiff's injuries

Answer

Could not have been prevented by the plaintiff

Answer

Was foreseeable by the defendant

Question 6

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct:

Accepted Answer

Was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries

Answer

Caused the plaintiff's injuries

Answer

Was the sole cause of the plaintiff's injuries

Answer

Was foreseeable and caused the plaintiff's injuries

Question 7

In tort law, which of the following is the definition of legal causation?

Accepted Answer

The requirement that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury

Answer

The requirement that the defendant's conduct was the direct and immediate cause of the plaintiff's injury

Answer

The requirement that the defendant's conduct was foreseeable and likely to cause the plaintiff's injury

Answer

The requirement that the plaintiff's injury was solely caused by the defendant's conduct

Question 8

Which test is used to determine whether the defendant's conduct was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's injury?

Accepted Answer

The "but-for" test

Answer

The proximate cause test

Answer

The foreseeability test

Answer

The negligence test

Question 9

Which of the following is NOT a type of proximate cause?

Accepted Answer

Ultimate cause

Answer

Direct cause

Answer

Concurrent cause

Answer

Intervening cause

Question 10

Which of the following defenses to causation can be raised when an intervening cause breaks the chain of causation?

Accepted Answer

Superseding cause

Answer

Act of God

Answer

Contributory negligence

Answer

Statute of limitations

Question 11

True or False: The concept of causation in torts is static and does not adapt to changing social and technological advancements.

Accepted Answer

False

Answer

True

Question 12

In the 'but-for' test for causation, which element is crucial?

Accepted Answer

Without the defendant's actions, the plaintiff's injuries would not have happened.

Answer

The defendant's actions significantly contributed to the plaintiff's injuries.

Answer

The defendant's actions were the only cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Question 13

In tort law, explain the 'substantial factor' test used to establish causation.

Accepted Answer

The defendant's conduct was a major contributor to the injury.

Answer

The defendant's conduct was the only cause of the injury.

Answer

The test weighs the plaintiff's need for compensation against the defendant's liability concerns.

Answer

Only foreseeable causes are considered in determining liability.

Question 14

In a negligence case in the United States, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's breach of duty:

Accepted Answer

Was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries

Answer

Actually caused the plaintiff's injuries

Answer

Was the sole cause of the plaintiff's injuries

Answer

Was foreseeable by the defendant

Question 15

The 'eggshell plaintiff' rule:

Accepted Answer

Imposes liability on the defendant even if the plaintiff's injuries are unusually severe

Answer

Precludes liability if the plaintiff's injuries are unusually minor

Answer

Requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant intended to cause the plaintiff's injuries

Answer

Is not recognized in the United States

Question 16

Which of the following is NOT a factor considered in determining foreseeability in the United States?

Accepted Answer

The defendant's financial situation

Answer

The likelihood of the harm occurring

Answer

The magnitude of the harm

Answer

The defendant's knowledge of similar incidents

Question 17

The 'thin skull' rule:

Accepted Answer

Imposes liability on the defendant if the plaintiff's injuries are more severe than the defendant reasonably anticipated

Answer

Precludes liability if the plaintiff's injuries are less severe than the defendant reasonably anticipated

Answer

Requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant intended to cause the plaintiff's injuries

Answer

Is not recognized in the United States

Question 18

The 'substantial factor' test for causation in the United States requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant's conduct:

Accepted Answer

Was a significant contributing factor to the plaintiff's injuries

Answer

Was the only cause of the plaintiff's injuries

Answer

Was the most direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries

Answer

Was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries

Question 19

Define an intervening cause.

Accepted Answer

A new, independent force that breaks the chain of causation

Answer

The plaintiff's own negligence contributes to the harm

Answer

The defendant's actions are not the legal cause of the harm

Answer

The harm was foreseeable by the defendant

Question 20

Which of the following is not an element of proximate cause in a negligence case?

Accepted Answer

Proximate cause is always present

Answer

Cause in fact

Answer

Foreseeability

Answer

Intervening cause

Question 21

True or False: But-for causation requires that the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred without the defendant's conduct.

Accepted Answer

True

Answer

False

Question 22

Which of the following is an example of concurrent causation?

Accepted Answer

Two drivers negligently collide at an intersection.

Answer

A defective product malfunction causes an accident.

Answer

A drunk driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian.

Answer

A bee sting causes an allergic reaction.

Question 23

Which of the following is NOT a method of determining causation in fact?

Accepted Answer

Causation in law

Answer

But-for test

Answer

Substantial factor test

Answer

Eggshell skull rule

Question 24

True or False: Intervening causes are always unforeseeable.

Accepted Answer

False

Answer

True

Question 25

True or False: The substantial factor test is less lenient than the but-for test in determining cause in fact.

Accepted Answer

False

Answer

True

Question 26

Which of the following is NOT a policy consideration in determining proximate cause?

Accepted Answer

Consistency with scientific knowledge

Answer

Preventing unreasonable liability

Answer

Promoting fairness

Answer

Encouraging careful conduct

Question 27

Which of the following elements is NOT included in the determination of proximate cause?

Accepted Answer

Contributory negligence

Answer

Cause-in-fact

Answer

Foreseeability

Answer

Legal duty

Question 28

In a negligence action, who bears the burden of proving the element of causation?

Accepted Answer

Plaintiff

Answer

Defendant

Answer

Judge

Answer

Jury

Question 29

What is the definition of the 'but-for' test for establishing cause-in-fact?

Accepted Answer

Would the injury have occurred in the absence of the defendant's conduct?

Answer

Was the defendant's conduct a significant factor in causing the harm?

Answer

Was the harm caused by the defendant's intentional misconduct?

Answer

Did the defendant have a duty of care to the plaintiff?

Question 30

In which of the following scenarios is the defendant's conduct least likely to be considered the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries?

Accepted Answer

The defendant negligently caused a car accident, but the plaintiff's injuries were worsened by a negligent surgeon.

Answer

The defendant negligently left a banana peel on the sidewalk, causing the plaintiff to slip and fall.

Answer

The defendant negligently released a dangerous animal that attacked the plaintiff.

Question 31

In cases involving indivisible injuries caused by multiple defendants, what is the general rule regarding liability?

Accepted Answer

Joint and several

Answer

Proportional

Answer

Strict

Answer

Vicarious

Question 32

When determining the scope of a defendant's duty of care, which factor is given the highest priority by courts?

Accepted Answer

Foreseeability of harm

Answer

Proximity to the plaintiff

Answer

Defendant's ability to control the risk

Answer

Defendant's knowledge of the risk

Question 33

In the context of tort law, which of the following definitions describes the concept of 'but-for cause'?

Accepted Answer

The defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff's injuries.

Answer

The defendant's conduct was the only factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries.

Answer

The defendant's conduct could have reasonably been foreseen to lead to the plaintiff's injuries.

Answer

The plaintiff's injuries were caused by an intervening act that breaks the causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injuries.

Question 34

In situations involving multiple causes, liability may be apportioned among:

Accepted Answer

Both joint and concurrent tortfeasors.

Answer

Only joint tortfeasors.

Answer

Only concurrent tortfeasors.

Answer

Neither joint nor concurrent tortfeasors.

Question 35

When determining proximate cause, which factor is irrelevant?

Accepted Answer

Contributory negligence of the plaintiff.

Answer

Foreseeability of the consequences.

Answer

Legal duty owed to the plaintiff.

Answer

Occurrence of an intervening cause.

Question 36

In cases involving intentional torts, the plaintiff must establish:

Accepted Answer

Both but-for cause and proximate cause.

Answer

But-for cause only.

Answer

Proximate cause only.

Answer

Neither but-for cause nor proximate cause.

Question 37

An example of a superseding cause in tort law is:

Accepted Answer

An act of nature that could not have been reasonably anticipated.

Answer

The plaintiff's voluntary assumption of risk.

Answer

The defendant's failure to take reasonable precautions.

Answer

The plaintiff's contributory negligence.

Question 38

In a case involving multiple defendants:

Accepted Answer

The plaintiff can recover damages from any or all of the defendants.

Answer

The plaintiff can only recover damages from one defendant.

Answer

The plaintiff can only recover damages from the defendant who caused the most harm.

Answer

The plaintiff cannot recover damages from any of the defendants.

Question 39

In a negligence case, the burden of proving causation lies with the:

Accepted Answer

Plaintiff

Answer

Defendant

Answer

Judge

Answer

Jury

Question 40

In a negligence action, which of the following defenses challenges the existence of a causal link between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury?

Accepted Answer

Lack of causation

Answer

Assumption of risk

Answer

Statute of limitations

Answer

Contributory negligence

Question 41

Which legal doctrine limits a defendant's liability for the consequences of their negligence based on the concept of remoteness?

Accepted Answer

Proximate causation

Answer

Factual causation

Answer

Statutory causation

Answer

But-for causation

Question 42

In a negligence case, who bears the burden of proving that the defendant's conduct caused the plaintiff's injury?

Accepted Answer

Plaintiff

Answer

Defendant

Answer

Jury

Answer

Judge

Question 43

The "lost chance" doctrine allows a plaintiff to recover damages when their injury is:

Accepted Answer

Made worse by the defendant's negligence

Answer

Caused by multiple defendants

Answer

Not as severe as it could have been

Question 44

In a product liability case, which theory of causation can be used to hold a manufacturer liable even if the plaintiff is unable to identify the specific product that caused their injury?

Accepted Answer

Market share liability

Answer

Negligence per se

Answer

Vicarious liability

Answer

Res ipsa loquitur

Question 45

A driver, whose brakes suddenly fail, hits a pedestrian, causing a leg fracture.  The driver claims the brake failure was unavoidable. Which of these, if proven, would establish proximate cause and hold the driver liable despite the brake failure?

Accepted Answer

The driver disregarded repeated warnings about faulty brakes.

Answer

The pedestrian was not wearing reflective clothing at night.

Answer

A sudden downpour made road conditions slippery.

Question 46

Which scenario best illustrates the 'but for' causation principle?

Accepted Answer

A driver, ignoring a red light, crashes into another car, injuring a passenger. The passenger would not have been injured had the driver not run the red light.

Answer

A homeowner fails to clear ice from their sidewalk. A pedestrian, wearing inappropriate footwear, slips and falls, suffering a head injury. The homeowner argues the fall would have happened regardless of the ice.

Question 47

In a negligence case, which example best illustrates a superseding cause that breaks the chain of causation?

Accepted Answer

A plaintiff, injured in a car accident due to the defendant's negligence, suffers further injury when the ambulance transporting them is struck by lightning.

Answer

A defendant spills cleaning product in a grocery store aisle. A customer slips on the spill and suffers a sprained ankle.

Question 48

Which situation is most likely to involve the 'loss of chance' doctrine?

Accepted Answer

A doctor's negligent misdiagnosis of cancer reduces the patient's chances of survival from 40% to 10%.

Answer

A driver speeding through a red light collides with another vehicle, causing severe injuries to the other driver.

Question 49

The 'eggshell skull' rule states that:

Accepted Answer

A defendant is liable for the full extent of a plaintiff's injuries, even if those injuries are more severe than expected due to a pre-existing condition.

Answer

A defendant can be held liable for negligence even if they did not intend to cause harm.

Question 50

Which of the following is NOT a recognized defense to causation in a negligence case?

Accepted Answer

Strict liability of the defendant.

Answer

Assumption of risk by the plaintiff.

Answer

Superseding intervening cause.

Answer

Contributory negligence of the plaintiff.

Question 51

What is the primary difference between proximate cause and cause in fact?

Accepted Answer

Proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause in fact, taking into account foreseeability and policy considerations.

Answer

Cause in fact is a legal limitation on proximate cause, focusing solely on the direct link between action and harm.

Question 52

In a case with multiple negligent parties, which doctrine allows a plaintiff to recover damages from any defendant, even if it's unclear which defendant's negligence directly caused the harm?

Accepted Answer

Joint and several liability.

Answer

Last clear chance doctrine.

Answer

Assumption of risk.

Answer

Contributory negligence.

Question 53

What is a key element to prove causation in a product liability case based on a design defect?

Accepted Answer

The existence of a safer alternative design.

Answer

The plaintiff's knowledge of the defect.

Answer

The defendant's intent to cause harm.

Answer

The product's compliance with industry standards.