Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
- Homepage »
- Torts »
- Negligence
18. In an action brought on behalf of the driver's son against the child's parents to recover for the son's injuries, the driver's son will
An eight-year-old child had a habit of riding his bicycle onto a busy highway. His parents knew about this habit but continued to let the child ride his bicycle. One afternoon, the child rode his bicycle down his driveway onto the busy highway and a driver had to stop her car suddenly to avoid colliding with the bike. Because of the sudden stop, the driver's son, who was sitting on the seat without any restraint, was thrown into the dashboard and injured. Had the driver's son been properly restrained in a baby car seat, as required by a state safety statute of which his mother was aware, he would not have been injured.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
C is correct. Here, the facts demonstrate that the child had a dangerous habit, riding a bicycle into a busy highway, and the parents knew of that habit but permitted the child to do so. It is foreseeable that a child bicycling in a busy highway would cause an accident, and thus this answer correctly states that the parents are liable for negligent supervision.
A is incorrect. This answer choice overstates the rule. Although parents are not always vicariously liable for the negligent acts of their children, they can be, and they also can be liable for those negligent actions indirectly because the parent failed to supervise or control a child with known dangerous propensities of that type.
B is incorrect. This answer choice misstates the law. This answer choice suggests contributory liability is the governing law. In a contributory liability jurisdiction, the plaintiff's even slight negligence is a bar to recovery unless the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the harm. However, the MBE instructs test takers to apply pure comparative negligence unless directed otherwise in a question, and this question provides no such direction. Under pure comparative negligence, the child's failure to wear a seatbelt could reduce recovery on the child's behalf, but it would not be a bar to recovery.
D is incorrect. This answer choice correctly notes that the child was negligent and that this negligence was the proximate cause of the driver's son's injuries, but it ignores the more likely basis of recovery: the parent's negligence in failing to supervise their child. This is because parents are often not liable for the negligence of their children absent some special situation (such as the child acting as the parent's agent). This answer choice suggests recovery would be under vicarious liability when it is not likely that is the case; the parent's failure to supervise their child, however, is a likely source of liability here.