.png)
Torts drills are casualty lists, and the rep that matters is the one where you build the pairing grid before writing a word. Two original questions below: the chain reaction with a full model answer, and the intentional torts opener with a self grading key. Doctrine in the hub, the room in the exam guide, and the grading protocol in how to use practice exams.
Dara, answering work texts while driving a delivery van for ZipCo, runs a red light in violation of the traffic code. Swerving to avoid a bus, she clips scaffolding on a construction site. A paint bucket falls from the scaffold and strikes Omar, fracturing his shoulder.
Lena, running from across the street to help Omar, trips on scattered debris and breaks her wrist. The collapsing scaffold also severs a power line, cutting electricity to Fresh Mart two doors down, which loses 4,000 dollars of refrigerated inventory. Identify and analyze all claims.
The grid first: Omar v. Dara, negligence. Omar v.
ZipCo, respondeat superior. Lena v. Dara, negligence via the rescue doctrine.
Fresh Mart v. Dara, negligence with a proximate cause fight. Taking each in turn.
Omar v. Dara: duty and breach are quick, texting through a red light is unreasonable, and running the light violates a safety statute designed to protect road adjacent persons from exactly this harm, so negligence per se supplies breach; actual cause is but for; proximate cause is direct, falling objects are the paradigm risk of striking scaffolding; damages, the fracture. Omar v.
ZipCo: Dara was delivering for ZipCo when texting about work, squarely within the scope of employment, so respondeat superior attaches, one paragraph, and it is the paragraph most answers forget. Lena v. Dara: danger invites rescue, so a rescuer injured in a non reckless rescue attempt is a foreseeable plaintiff, and her wrist claim runs through the same breach with proximate cause supplied by the doctrine.
Fresh Mart is the built fight: but for causation holds, but Dara argues spoiled groceries two doors away are outside the risk of red light running and the loss is purely economic; Fresh Mart answers that downed lines and outages are the routine consequence of vehicles striking structures, an unbroken physical chain. A court could go either way, and if the course covered the economic loss rule, one sentence flags that pure economic harm without property damage often fails, though spoiled inventory is arguably property damage.
Close with the sweep: Dara and ZipCo jointly and severally liable where both are liable, comparative fault checked and inapplicable, no plaintiff contributed. Grid, per pairing elements, both sides on the built fight, sweep: that is the full harvest.
At a crowded bar, Theo raises a fist at Marcus and says, you are dead. Marcus ducks; Theo's swing misses him and strikes Priya, who was standing behind Marcus and never saw it coming.
The bouncer drags Theo to a storeroom and locks him in for two hours until police arrive. Analyze all claims.
Full credit finds four issues and defines intent precisely. Assault, Marcus v. Theo: intentional act creating reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact, the raised fist plus words supplying imminence, with a line answering the words alone concern, here words accompanied conduct.
Battery, Priya v. Theo: transferred intent moves the intent aimed at Marcus to the contact with Priya, and her unawareness is irrelevant to battery, contact not apprehension, a distinction worth a sentence. No assault for Priya, who saw nothing, one line.
False imprisonment, Theo v. bouncer: confinement in a bounded area, awareness present, so the case turns on privilege, a citizen's detention of a violent patron pending police is reasonable in purpose, but two hours tests reasonableness in duration and manner, argued both directions before concluding the privilege likely holds if police were genuinely en route. Deduct from yourself if intent was defined as intent to harm rather than intent to contact, or if the privilege was asserted without the duration fight; those are the question's two engineered points.
Your professor's past exams, profiled before spent, since Torts weighting swings hard by instructor, some grade half the exam on causation, some love products, and the professor profile is exactly what the Exam Analyzer extracts from the archive. Then the Glannon Torts problems, then released exams from adjacent sections, every one written, timed, and logged into the element tables of the outline.
Three to five minutes on a full exam question, less on drills. It feels like lost writing time and is the opposite: answers written from a grid finish faster because nothing gets discovered at minute fifty.
Grade the finding by its handling: a genuine near issue dismissed in one line is judgment and costs nothing; a phantom given a full analysis is a time leak. The model's issue list is the floor, not the ceiling.
Yes, as speed work: ten minute scenes like drill two, graded on element precision and pace. They are the exam's fast points, and fast points are only fast if the tables are automatic.
Written by Ali, Georgetown Law, founder of Lovare Institut.
July 30, 2026
July 30, 2026