Indivisible Harm
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 2 active questions. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Torts2
Example wrong choices
15131_indivisible-harm · TORTS · Choice Athe defendants breached a duty of reasonable care that each of them owed to Hannah.
Why it's attractive
Duty is already proven and not challenged by the directed verdict motion
Why it's wrong
Duty is already proven and not challenged by the directed verdict motion
15131_indivisible-harm · TORTS · Choice Beach defendant was the proximate cause in fact of all of Hannah's damages.
Why it's attractive
The phrase 'proximate cause in fact' conflates proximate cause (legal cause) with cause-in-fact (but-for/substantial factor) — these are separate elements
Why it's wrong
The phrase 'proximate cause in fact' conflates proximate cause (legal cause) with cause-in-fact (but-for/substantial factor) — these are separate elements
15131_indivisible-harm · TORTS · Choice Dthe defendants are joint tortfeasors who each aggravated the plaintiff's preexisting condition.
Why it's attractive
This answer says 'they are jointly and severally liable because they are joint tortfeasors' — that is the conclusion, not the argument
Why it's wrong
This answer says 'they are jointly and severally liable because they are joint tortfeasors' — that is the conclusion, not the argument
15151_retreat_courtyard_culverts · TORTS · Choice Anothing, because she did not introduce evidence enabling the court reasonably to apportion responsibility between the city and Emma Rail.
Why it's attractive
This answer shifts the issue from whether Emma Rail caused an indivisible loss to whether Lydia proved a fault split.
Why it's wrong
This answer shifts the issue from whether Emma Rail caused an indivisible loss to whether Lydia proved a fault split.
15151_retreat_courtyard_culverts · TORTS · Choice Cone-half of her loss, in the absence of evidence enabling the court to allocate responsibility fairly between the city and Emma Rail.
Why it's attractive
This answer guesses a neat fraction instead of answering the plaintiff's recovery from a jointly liable tortfeasor.
Why it's wrong
This answer guesses a neat fraction instead of answering the plaintiff's recovery from a jointly liable tortfeasor.
15151_retreat_courtyard_culverts · TORTS · Choice Dnothing, because she should have joined the city, without whose negligence she would have suffered no loss.
Why it's attractive
This answer makes the missing city the focus even though the call asks what Lydia can recover from Emma Rail.
Why it's wrong
This answer makes the missing city the focus even though the call asks what Lydia can recover from Emma Rail.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →