40. In this action, will the mechanic obtain a judgment against the woman?

The mechanic has brought an action to recover damages against the man and woman. The jurisdiction has adopted a pure comparative negligence rule in place of the traditional common law rule of contributory negligence.

The man then took the car to a mechanic, who owns and operates a body shop, and arranged with the mechanic to repair the damage. During their discussion the man neglected to mention the gasoline leakage. Thereafter, while the mechanic was loosening some of the damaged material with a hammer, he caused a spark, igniting vapor and gasoline that had leaked from the fuel tank. The mechanic was severely burned.

A man's car sustained moderate damage in a collision with a car driven by a woman. The accident was caused solely by the woman's negligence. The man's car was still drivable after the accident. Examining the car the next morning, the man could see that a rear fender had to be replaced. He also noticed that gasoline had dripped onto the garage floor. The collision had caused a small leak in the gasoline tank.

No, because there is no evidence that the woman was aware of the gasoline leak
No, because the mechanic would not have been harmed had the man warned him about the gasoline tank
Yes, because the mechanic was not negligent in failing to discover the gasoline leak himself
Yes, because the mechanic's injury was a proximate consequence of the woman's negligent driving

« PreviousSkipNext »

Show clarification Download PDF

To prove negligence, a plaintiff must establish duty, breach, causation, and damages. To establish causation, the plaintiff must address both types: actual causation and proximate causation. Actual causation, also called factual causation, traditionally asks whether the defendant's action was the «but-for» cause of the harm. In other words, «but-for» the defendant's actions or omissions, would the plaintiff still have suffered the harm? Proximate causation focuses on foreseeability and is a legal limit on actual causation to address unforeseeable harms. Generally, a defendant's action is considered a proximate cause where it was foreseeable that it could lead to the harm suffered.

D is correct. Here, it is stipulated that the accident was caused solely by the woman's negligence. She owed a duty to drive in a reasonable manner, and she failed to do so. But-for her failure to drive in a reasonable manner, the gasoline leak would not have developed. It was foreseeable that individuals attempting to remedy the damage the woman caused would suffer injury in doing so as a result of the damage the woman inflicted through her negligence. That is precisely what happened here: a mechanic attempting to repair the damage the woman caused to a vehicle powered by gasoline suffered an injury in the process when that gasoline leaked from damage caused in the collision. The mechanic suffered injury, and the mechanic is likely to recover in a negligence claim against the woman.

In addition, courts consider negligent conduct on the part of those who are hired to treat or repair injuries to be foreseeable consequences of the original tortfeasor's negligent conduct and will not find that the subsequent acts supersede the original liability unless there is some unforeseeable conduct. This is the best choice because it addresses the issue of proximate cause, which will determine the woman's liability to the mechanic.

A is incorrect. This answer choice misstates the law. The woman need not know of the specific harm that occurs to be liable in a negligence action. All that is required is that it be foreseeable, as a general matter, that the harm that occurred could happen.

B is incorrect. This answer misstates the law. The fact that he did not warn the mechanic would cut off the woman's liability only if it rose to the level of a superseding event. For example, classic superseding events are unforeseeable intentional torts, unforeseeable criminal acts, or other unforeseeable events. The man's potential negligence in not telling the mechanic does not rise to those levels and will not supersede the woman's liability. Thus, it would not prevent the mechanic from recovering from the woman.

C is incorrect. This answer choice misstates the law. It suggests that the mechanic could not recover from the woman if he had been negligent in failing to discover the gasoline leak. That is not the law for purposes of the MBE. The MBE instructs test takers to apply pure comparative negligence unless otherwise directed. This question goes a step further and specifies that pure comparative negligence applies in this jurisdiction. Under pure comparative negligence, the plaintiff may recover all of his damages except the percentage attributed to his own fault, and he may recover that amount even if he was more at fault/negligent than other parties involved.

Even if the mechanic had been negligent in failing to discover the gasoline leak, as long as he is not the only one at fault, his recovery will be reduced but not eliminated entirely. He would still be able to recover from the woman.

Comments (0)

There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it

40. In this action, will the mechanic obtain a judgment against the woman?

Comments (0)

Trial period expired