Joint Tortfeasors Auto 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
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
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →