Torts Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) Practice Test

Access More Questions
A five-year-old child is burned by a downed power line managed by the electric company. Is there liability if the company could have taken reasonable steps to prevent the lines from falling when insulators were repeatedly destroyed?
Correct Answer:
Yes, if the company could have taken reasonable steps to prevent the lines from falling.
Explanation:
Power lines are a dangerous instrumentality, and the company that controls them has a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep them in a safe condition for the public. If the insulators were repeatedly destroyed, the company has notice of a persistent risk that the lines could fall. In that situation, it must take reasonable steps to prevent the hazard—such as repairing or replacing components, increasing inspections, or securing the lines. If it could have taken such steps but did not, that breach of duty makes the company liable for injuries caused by the downed line. This is negligence, not strict liability. Strict liability would apply only in limited circumstances involving abnormally dangerous activities, which isn’t prompted by simply having a dangerous instrumentality that could have been managed with reasonable care. Warnings alone are not enough when there are reasonable precautions that could have prevented the harm, and the hazard isn’t considered unavoidable if preventive steps were available.

Access more questions from this quiz

Continue to Torts Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) Practice Test for more practice questions and the full quiz experience.

Access More Questions