Contribution Default
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
15111_gideon-repair-shed · TORTS · Choice AContribution only, based on comparative fault, because Peter himself was negligent.
Why it's attractive
Choice A states a real rule (comparative-fault contribution) but ignores the decisive fact that Daniel committed an intentional tort, which upgrades the remedy to full indemnity.
Why it's wrong
Choice A states a real rule (comparative-fault contribution) but ignores the decisive fact that Daniel committed an intentional tort, which upgrades the remedy to full indemnity.
15111_gideon-repair-shed · TORTS · Choice BNothing, because Peter's negligence was a substantial proximate cause of the injury.
Why it's attractive
Choice B conflates Peter's liability to the plaintiff (where proximate cause matters) with the between-tortfeasor indemnity question (where the intentional act supersedes).
Why it's wrong
Choice B conflates Peter's liability to the plaintiff (where proximate cause matters) with the between-tortfeasor indemnity question (where the intentional act supersedes).
15111_gideon-repair-shed · TORTS · Choice DOne-half of the amount of the judgment.
Why it's attractive
Choice D invents a 50/50 split. No rule supports equal division; contribution is proportionate-fault-based, and indemnity is all-or-nothing.
Why it's wrong
Choice D invents a 50/50 split. No rule supports equal division; contribution is proportionate-fault-based, and indemnity is all-or-nothing.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →