All Foreseeable Readers Can Sue
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Torts1
Example wrong choices
20024_loaves_fishes_crate_count · TORTS · Choice AYes, because inventory consultants are strictly liable for inaccurate count sheets.
Why it's attractive
The student sees a professional error and wants automatic liability. The breaker is that the call asks negligence, not strict liability.
Why it's wrong
The choice changes a negligent-misrepresentation claim into a strict-liability shortcut.
Spot it next time
Say: strict liability is a different frame.
20024_loaves_fishes_crate_count · TORTS · Choice CNo, because pure economic loss is never recoverable for negligent misrepresentation.
Why it's attractive
The student wants the correct no-liability result and accepts a broad economic-loss slogan. The breaker is the absolute word 'never.'
Why it's wrong
The word 'never' overstates the economic-loss rule.
Spot it next time
Flinch at 'never' and ask whether an exception category exists.
20024_loaves_fishes_crate_count · TORTS · Choice DYes, because it was foreseeable that someone might read the booth packet.
Why it's attractive
The student applies ordinary negligence foreseeability to an unknown later reader. The breaker is the Gold Key: targeted-use duty, not open-ended foreseeability.
Why it's wrong
The choice proves broad foreseeability but not targeted-use duty.
Spot it next time
Ask whether the information was supplied for this person/class and this transaction.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →