Multistate Bar
Examination (MBE)
Torts
Questions
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Torts – Questions
Question 1
Neighbor, who lived next door to Homeowner, went into Homeowner's garage without
permission and borrowed Homeowner's chain saw. Neighbor used the saw to clear broken
branches from the trees on Neighbor's own property. After he had finished, Neighbor noticed
several broken branches on Homeowner's trees that were in danger of falling on Homeowner's
roof. While Neighbor was cutting Homeowner's branches, the saw broke. In a suit for
conversion by Homeowner against Neighbor, will Homeowner recover?
(A) Yes, for the actual damage to the saw.
(B) Yes, for the value of the saw before Neighbor borrowed it.
(C) No, because when the saw broke Neighbor was using it to benefit Homeowner.
(D) No, because Neighbor did not intend to keep the saw.
1
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Torts – Questions
Question 2
Homeowner hired Arsonist to set fire to Homeowner's house so that Homeowner could collect
the insurance proceeds from the fire. After pouring gasoline around the house, Arsonist lit the
fire with his cigarette lighter and then put the lighter in his pocket. As Arsonist was standing
back admiring his work, the lighter exploded in his pocket. Arsonist suffered severe burns to
his leg.
Arsonist brought an action against the manufacturer of the lighter based on strict product
liability. Under applicable law, the rules of pure comparative fault apply in such actions.
Will Arsonist prevail?
(A) Yes, if the lighter exploded because of a defect caused by a manufacturing error.
(B) Yes, if Arsonist can establish that the lighter was the proximate cause of his injury.
(C) No, because the lighter was not being used for an intended or reasonably foreseeable
purpose.
(D) No, because Arsonist was injured in the course of committing a felony by the device used
to perpetrate the felony.
2
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Torts – Questions
Question 3
Karen was crossing Main Street at a crosswalk. John, who was on the sidewalk nearby, saw a
speeding automobile heading in Karen's direction. John ran into the street and pushed Karen
out of the path of the car. Karen fell to the ground and broke her leg.
In an action for battery brought by Karen against John, will Karen prevail?
(A) Yes, because John could have shouted a warning instead of pushing Karen out of the way.
(B) Yes, if Karen was not actually in danger and John should have realized it.
(C) No, because the driver of the car was responsible for Karen's injury.
(D) No, if John's intent was to save Karen, not to harm her.
3
Examination (MBE)
Torts
Questions
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Torts – Questions
Question 1
Neighbor, who lived next door to Homeowner, went into Homeowner's garage without
permission and borrowed Homeowner's chain saw. Neighbor used the saw to clear broken
branches from the trees on Neighbor's own property. After he had finished, Neighbor noticed
several broken branches on Homeowner's trees that were in danger of falling on Homeowner's
roof. While Neighbor was cutting Homeowner's branches, the saw broke. In a suit for
conversion by Homeowner against Neighbor, will Homeowner recover?
(A) Yes, for the actual damage to the saw.
(B) Yes, for the value of the saw before Neighbor borrowed it.
(C) No, because when the saw broke Neighbor was using it to benefit Homeowner.
(D) No, because Neighbor did not intend to keep the saw.
1
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Torts – Questions
Question 2
Homeowner hired Arsonist to set fire to Homeowner's house so that Homeowner could collect
the insurance proceeds from the fire. After pouring gasoline around the house, Arsonist lit the
fire with his cigarette lighter and then put the lighter in his pocket. As Arsonist was standing
back admiring his work, the lighter exploded in his pocket. Arsonist suffered severe burns to
his leg.
Arsonist brought an action against the manufacturer of the lighter based on strict product
liability. Under applicable law, the rules of pure comparative fault apply in such actions.
Will Arsonist prevail?
(A) Yes, if the lighter exploded because of a defect caused by a manufacturing error.
(B) Yes, if Arsonist can establish that the lighter was the proximate cause of his injury.
(C) No, because the lighter was not being used for an intended or reasonably foreseeable
purpose.
(D) No, because Arsonist was injured in the course of committing a felony by the device used
to perpetrate the felony.
2
, Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) – Torts – Questions
Question 3
Karen was crossing Main Street at a crosswalk. John, who was on the sidewalk nearby, saw a
speeding automobile heading in Karen's direction. John ran into the street and pushed Karen
out of the path of the car. Karen fell to the ground and broke her leg.
In an action for battery brought by Karen against John, will Karen prevail?
(A) Yes, because John could have shouted a warning instead of pushing Karen out of the way.
(B) Yes, if Karen was not actually in danger and John should have realized it.
(C) No, because the driver of the car was responsible for Karen's injury.
(D) No, if John's intent was to save Karen, not to harm her.
3
