<p>Jentz-11e Appendix I: Sample Answers for End-of-Chapter Questions with Sample Answer </p><p>Chapter 7: Negligence and Strict Liability</p><p>7–2. Question with Sample Answer </p><p>Ruth carelessly parks her car on a steep hill, leaving the car in neutral and failing to engage the parking brake. The car rolls down the hill and knocks down an electric line. The sparks from the broken line ignite a grass fire. The fire spreads until it reaches a barn one mile away. The barn houses dynamite, and the burning barn explodes, causing part of the roof to fall on and injure Jim, a passing motorist. Which element of negligence is of the greatest concern here? What legal doctrine resolves this issue? Will Jim be able to recover damages from Ruth? </p><p>Sample Answer:</p><p>This is a causation question. You will recall from the chapter that four elements must be proved for a plaintiff to recover in a claim for negligence: that the defendant owed a duty of care, the defendant breached this duty, the plaintiff suffered a legally recognizable injury, and the defendant’s breach of the duty of care caused the injury. Ruth did breach the duty of care that she owed Jim (and others in society) when she parked carelessly on the hill. Jim also clearly suffered an injury. The only remaining question, then, has to do with causation. Causation is broken down into two parts, causation in fact and proximate cause. In order for Jim to recover, he must prove that both kinds of causation existed in this case. Causation in fact is answered by the “but for” test and readily answered here. Ruth’s car set into motion a chain of events without which the barn would not have fallen down. Meeting the proximate cause test will be more difficult for Jim. Recall that proximate cause exists only when the connection between an act and an injury is strong enough to justify imposing liability. Careless parking on a hill creates a risk that a reasonable person can foresee could result in harm. The question here is whether the electric spark, the grass fire, the barn full of dynamite, and the roof falling in are foreseeable risks stemming from a poor parking job. In this case, it would be a question of fact for a jury to determine whether there were enough intervening events between Ruth’s parking and Jim’s injury to defeat Jim’s claim.</p>