Injury Equals Strict Liability
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
19448_praise_night_tshirt_cannon · TORTS · Choice AYes, because negligent entrustment makes Lydia strictly liable for any injury caused by the T-shirt cannon.
Why it's attractive
The injury makes automatic liability feel satisfying because the chattel was dangerous. The breaker is that 'strictly liable' and 'any injury' overstate a negligence theory.
Why it's wrong
The answer converts a negligence-duty theory into strict liability for any injury.
Spot it next time
Circle 'strictly' and 'any' and cut the overclaim.
19448_praise_night_tshirt_cannon · TORTS · Choice BNo, because only the legal owner of a chattel can be liable for negligent entrustment.
Why it's attractive
Formal title sounds like the clean legal gate for responsibility over property. The breaker is the Gold Key: negligent entrustment looks to control or supply, not just ownership.
Why it's wrong
The answer invents a legal-owner-only gate that the Gold Key defeats.
Spot it next time
Ask whether the defendant supplied or controlled access to the chattel.
19448_praise_night_tshirt_cannon · TORTS · Choice CNo, because Barnabas alone fired the cannon and third-party conduct always cuts off Lydia's duty.
Why it's attractive
Barnabas physically fired the cannon, so the student may stop at the operator. The breaker is the word 'always' and the call-focus move: Lydia's duty can arise from foreseeable misuse by the person she supplied.
Why it's wrong
The answer overclaims that third-party conduct always cuts off the target defendant's duty.
Spot it next time
Reject 'always' and ask whether the third-party misuse was the foreseeable risk.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →