Bar Exam — MBE (Multistate Bar Exam)TortsEasy
A homeowner, while trimming a large oak tree in his backyard, accidentally dropped a heavy branch. The branch fell onto his neighbor's prize-winning rose garden, destroying several rare rose bushes. The homeowner had taken reasonable precautions, including using appropriate safety equipment and checking the branch's stability before cutting. The neighbor sued the homeowner for the damage to her rose garden. Which of the following is the most likely outcome?
- AThe homeowner is liable under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, as the damage would not have occurred without negligence.
- BThe homeowner is liable because trimming trees is an inherently dangerous activity, invoking strict liability.
- CThe homeowner is not liable because he took reasonable precautions, and there was no intent or negligence.
- DThe homeowner is not liable because the neighbor assumed the risk by planting her garden near the property line.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. The homeowner is not liable because he took reasonable precautions, and there was no intent or negligence.
For the homeowner to be liable in this scenario, there must be a finding of either intent, negligence, or a basis for strict liability. Here, the homeowner took reasonable precautions, negating negligence, and there was no intent to harm. Tree trimming is generally not considered an abnormally dangerous activity for strict liability.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Res ipsa loquitur requires that the incident would not ordinarily occur without negligence, and here, the homeowner took reasonable precautions, making negligence less likely.
- B. Tree trimming by a homeowner is typically not considered an abnormally dangerous activity that would trigger strict liability.
- D. The neighbor planting a garden near the property line does not constitute assumption of risk for the homeowner's accidental damage.
Elements of Negligence
To establish a claim of negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, the breach caused the plaintiff's injury, and actual damages resulted.
- Duty: Obligation to conform to a certain standard of conduct.
- Breach: Failure to meet the standard of care.
- Causation: Factual (but-for) and Proximate (foreseeable) cause.
- Damages: Actual injury or loss suffered.
Memory trick: Intentional, Negligent, or Strict: Pick Your Path to Pain.