The Torts exam is a casualty list, and the grader is checking whether you processed it like an adjuster or reacted to it like a bystander. One chain reaction, several injured parties, several arguably responsible ones, and a rubric that pays per pairing, per element, per argued side. The hub covers what the course tests and the outline guide builds the element tables; this page is the room: the archetypes, the inventory discipline, the causation block, and the sweep everyone forgets.

The three archetypes

The chain reaction: one triggering act, cascading harms, multiple plaintiff defendant pairings, the course's signature build. The deep single claim: one accident analyzed exhaustively, where the professor buries the exam inside causation.

And the intentional torts opener: a confrontation scene, batteries, assaults, privileges, usually placed first because it harvests fast and warms you up. Most exams stack two of the three.

The order of operations

Inventory before ink: the pairing grid, every plaintiff against every defendant with the candidate theory, built in the reading minutes per the five step read in issue spotting. Then run each pairing in a fixed internal order: intentional torts if the facts show purpose, otherwise the negligence checklist straight through, duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, damages, then strict liability or products if the facts trigger them. Defenses attach inside each pairing, not in a heap at the end.

And the closing move that separates answers: the multiplier sweep, one final pass asking, for every liable defendant, who else pays, respondeat superior for the employees, joint and several allocation where multiple causes converged. The sweep is two paragraphs and it is the most reliably forgotten credit on the exam.

The written inventory, for shape: Pairings: Store Owner v. Driver, negligence. Bystander v.

Driver, negligence. Bystander v. Driver's Employer, respondeat superior.

Rescuer v. Driver, negligence, rescue doctrine. Store Owner v.

Power Company, negligence, duty question. I take each in turn. Five lines, and the answer now grades itself against the grid.

The causation block

Whatever the archetype, the exam's center of gravity is causation, and it gets protected minutes and a fixed shape: actual cause in a sentence or two, but for the crash the pole stands, with the substantial factor or alternative liability escape named when multiple defendants blur it; then proximate cause as the built fight, both directions, the defendant arguing the harm's type or the plaintiff's position was unforeseeable, the plaintiff arguing the unbroken chain and the routine consequence, an intervening act tested for superseding status, then a committed pick. Keeping the two inquiries in separate paragraphs with separate labels is itself worth points, because merging them is the course's most common error and graders watch for the separation.

The fast points and the leaks

Harvest the intentional torts quickly: element tables make them two to four sentence issues, intent to contact not to harm stated precisely, the privilege analyzed where raised, and move. The leaks: verdict language without elements, clearly negligent, the bystander error; damages unchecked, so a near miss gets liability without harm; the eggshell rule stretched to unforeseeable types instead of extent; defenses forgotten entirely, when comparative fault in both regimes belongs in every negligence pairing the plaintiff contributed to; and the rescuer missed, when danger invites rescue makes the rescuer a foreseeable plaintiff the professor planted on purpose.

When the clock collapses

The grid is the collapse form: pairing, theory, the contested element, both sides in a clause each, conclusion, one bullet block per pairing, multiplier sweep as two closing lines. Because the rubric is organized by pairing, skeleton pairings capture real credit. Run the form once on a past exam via the practice question bank, graded against a model answer under the review discipline in the A exam teardown.

FAQ

How many issues should a Torts answer find?

The pairing grid decides, not a target number: a typical chain reaction yields eight to fifteen analyzable issues plus one line recognitions. Trust the grid over your memory of what a Torts exam should contain.

Do damages need dollar amounts?

No, categories and doctrines: the harm identified, compensatory versus punitive where raised, the eggshell extent rule where triggered, joint and several allocation where multiple defendants share. Numbers belong to Contracts.

Should I cite case names?

The load bearing handles at their elements, Palsgraf at scope, Carroll Towing at the formula, if your professor demonstrably rewards them, which their model answers reveal. The elements themselves are never optional.

Written by Ali, Georgetown Law, founder of Lovare Institut.

Book a call