Unlock hundreds more features
Save your Quiz to the Dashboard
View and Export Results
Use AI to Create Quizzes and Analyse Results

OR
Sign inSign in with Facebook
Sign inSign in with Google
Quizzes > Society & Culture > Politics & Civics

Legal Causation Tort Law Quiz - Think You Can Ace It?

Challenge your knowledge of proximate cause and negligence causation - start the quiz!

Difficulty: Moderate
2-5mins
Learning OutcomesCheat Sheet
Paper art style icons of scales, gavel, document and arrows on coral background representing a tort law causation quiz

Ready to master the ins and outs of legal causation tort law? Our interactive quiz is your chance to challenge and refine your understanding of tort law negligence causation, from actual cause tort law examples to the nuances of foreseeability. Whether you're reviewing definitions or diving into our proximate cause quiz for a brain-tease, you'll sharpen critical thinking that matters for exams and real-world cases. Brush up on core principles with our duty of care quiz and keep building confidence through targeted torts multiple choice questions. Don't wait - test your skills now, track your progress, and ace negligence questions today!

Which test is used to establish cause in fact in negligence cases?
But-for test
Proximate cause test
Substantial factor test
Market share liability test
The but-for test asks whether the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct, making it the standard test for actual cause in tort law. It links the defendant’s breach directly to the injury. Without satisfying this test, a plaintiff cannot prove cause in fact. Learn more
What does the “eggshell skull” rule in tort law signify?
Defendant must take the plaintiff as they find them and is liable for full extent of unforeseeable injuries
Defendant is liable only for injuries that were foreseeable at the time of breach
Liability is limited to the harm typically expected from the breach
Plaintiff’s own negligence is imputed back to the defendant
The eggshell skull rule holds that a defendant must ‘take the plaintiff as they find them,’ so they remain liable for the full extent of injuries even if the plaintiff had a preexisting vulnerability. It bars the defendant from arguing that the injuries were too severe or unforeseeable due to the plaintiff’s condition. Learn more
In cases involving multiple independent sufficient causes, which test do courts commonly apply when the but-for test fails?
But-for test
Substantial factor test
Proximate cause test
Market share liability test
When two or more independent negligent acts each alone would have been sufficient to cause the harm, the but-for test cannot identify a single cause. Courts therefore apply the substantial factor test to determine if each act was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. Learn more
Which of the following best describes a superseding cause?
A foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligence
An unforeseeable intervening act that breaks the chain of causation
A concurrent cause that accelerates harm
A harm that is too remote to be compensable
A superseding cause is an unforeseeable, intervening act or event that relieves the original negligent actor of liability because it breaks the chain of causation. If the intervening act is deemed foreseeable, it is not superseding. Learn more
In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., why did the court find no proximate cause?
Because the railroad owed no duty to any passenger
Because the type of harm was not reasonably foreseeable
Because the act was not the actual cause
Because the injuries were too severe
The Palsgraf decision established that liability for negligence requires that the particular harm must have been a foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct. Although the railroad’s guard’s actions set off a chain of events, the resulting explosion and injury to Palsgraf were not within the foreseeable risk. Learn more
Under the doctrine established in Summers v. Tice, what liability concept applies when two defendants act negligently but only one caused the harm?
Joint and several liability
Alternative liability
Market share liability
Res ipsa loquitur
Summers v. Tice held that when multiple defendants act negligently and it is unclear which one caused the harm, the burden of proof shifts to the defendants to exonerate themselves. This is known as alternative liability. Learn more
Which standard governs the admissibility of scientific expert testimony required to prove specific causation in toxic tort cases?
Frye standard
Daubert standard
Res ipsa loquitur
Substantial factor test
The Daubert standard requires that expert testimony be both scientifically valid and relevant to the issues in the case. Courts evaluate the methodology’s reliability, peer review, error rates, and general acceptance before admitting it to establish specific causation in toxic tort litigation. Learn more
Under the lost chance doctrine in medical malpractice, when can a plaintiff recover damages?
Only if the negligent act made the outcome more likely than not
Always full value of the harm regardless of probability
When the negligent act deprived the patient of a chance for a better outcome, even if less than 50%
Only if the defendant admits that causation is clear
The lost chance doctrine allows recovery for the reduction in chances of a better medical outcome, even if the plaintiff’s overall chance of survival or recovery was under 50%. Damages are apportioned proportionally to the percentage chance lost due to negligence. Learn more
0
{"name":"Which test is used to establish cause in fact in negligence cases?", "url":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/QPREVIEW","txt":"Which test is used to establish cause in fact in negligence cases?, What does the “eggshell skull” rule in tort law signify?, In cases involving multiple independent sufficient causes, which test do courts commonly apply when the but-for test fails?","img":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/3012/images/ogquiz.png"}

Study Outcomes

  1. Understand Actual Cause -

    Grasp the role of cause-in-fact in tort law by applying the but-for test to negligence scenarios.

  2. Differentiate Proximate Cause -

    Distinguish proximate cause from actual cause and identify the legal boundaries of liability.

  3. Apply Causation Tests -

    Use the substantial factor test and other causation frameworks to assess negligence causation.

  4. Analyze Negligence Scenarios -

    Evaluate tort law negligence causation problems to pinpoint factual and legal causes of harm.

  5. Evaluate Intervening Acts -

    Assess the effect of intervening and superseding causes on a defendant's liability.

  6. Critique Real-World Examples -

    Strengthen legal reasoning by reviewing actual cause tort law examples and identifying gaps in understanding.

Cheat Sheet

  1. But-For Test (Factual Causation) -

    The but-for test asks whether the harm would have occurred "but for" the defendant's action, making it the foundation of actual cause tort law examples (Prosser & Keeton, Univ. of Texas). Remember the mnemonic "B4" (Before & After) to recall that you remove the defendant's conduct to see if the injury still happens. This simple check is used in almost every legal causation tort law exam and is key to understanding tort law negligence causation.

  2. Proximate Cause (Legal Causation) -

    Proximate cause limits liability to harms that are a foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, as illustrated in the famous Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad case (Cornell Law). In your proximate cause quiz, focus on foreseeability and the "zone of risk" test to determine if an intervening event was predictable. Keeping this bright-line rule in mind helps you draw the boundary between factual link and legal responsibility.

  3. Intervening vs. Superseding Causes -

    An intervening cause breaks the chain of liability only if it's unforeseeable or extraordinary; a superseding cause actually cuts off the original defendant's responsibility (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 447). For example, a random act of God may be superseding, whereas a negligent paramedic's mistake often remains an intervening factor. Distinguish these in your legal causation quiz by asking: "Was the event within the scope of foreseeable risk?"

  4. Eggshell Plaintiff Rule -

    This rule holds defendants fully liable even if the plaintiff has a preexisting vulnerability that makes the injury worse (Wagner v. International Railway, Harvard Law). Always remember: you take your victim as you find them, so even a minor bump can incur full damages if the plaintiff is unusually susceptible. Flashcard tip: "Eggshell skull = skull cracks easier but blame stays the same."

  5. Substantial Factor Test -

    When multiple actors contribute to harm, the substantial factor test (adopted by many states, see Restatement § 433) assesses if each defendant's conduct was a significant contributor. Cases like Summers v. Tice demonstrate that both defendants can be liable when either alone could have caused the injury. Use this test to navigate tort law negligence causation scenarios where "but-for" is too rigid.

Make a Quiz (FREE) Copy & Edit This Quiz Create a Quiz with AI

Politics & Civics Quizzes

Powered by: Quiz Maker