Strict Liability Overclaim
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
- Real Property1
- Torts1
Example wrong choices
15008_lydia-barnabas-excavation · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice AOnce land is improved with a building, the owner cannot invoke the common law right of lateral support.
Why it's attractive
The choice says improvement destroys the lateral-support right. That's backwards — improvement changes the standard but doesn't eliminate the right.
Why it's wrong
The choice says improvement destroys the lateral-support right. That's backwards — improvement changes the standard but doesn't eliminate the right.
15008_lydia-barnabas-excavation · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice BBarnabas's only obligation was to satisfy all local, state, and federal safety regulations.
Why it's attractive
Barnabas followed all the codes, but the common-law duty of lateral support exists independently of building regulations.
Why it's wrong
Barnabas followed all the codes, but the common-law duty of lateral support exists independently of building regulations.
15008_lydia-barnabas-excavation · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DBarnabas is liable, because he removed necessary support for Lydia's lot.
Why it's attractive
This would be true if Lydia's land were in its natural state, but her bakery means the land is improved. Strict liability doesn't apply to improvements.
Why it's wrong
This would be true if Lydia's land were in its natural state, but her bakery means the land is improved. Strict liability doesn't apply to improvements.
19045_church_festival_fireworks · TORTS · Choice BStrict liability for every public-event injury.
Why it's attractive
Strict liability has narrow doctrinal triggers; firing fireworks at a church festival is not one. The call is negligent selection, not strict liability.
Why it's wrong
Strict liability has narrow doctrinal triggers; firing fireworks at a church festival is not one. The call is negligent selection, not strict liability.
19045_church_festival_fireworks · TORTS · Choice CNo possible liability because independent contractors always insulate principals.
Why it's attractive
Direct negligence in selection is a separate route; the independent-contractor rule is not absolute.
Why it's wrong
Direct negligence in selection is a separate route; the independent-contractor rule is not absolute.
19045_church_festival_fireworks · TORTS · Choice DAutomatic respondeat superior because all contractors are employees.
Why it's attractive
The contractor controlled the launch details, so respondeat superior does not apply; the principal is liable, if at all, on a direct-negligence theory.
Why it's wrong
The contractor controlled the launch details, so respondeat superior does not apply; the principal is liable, if at all, on a direct-negligence theory.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →