CALIFORNIA BAR EXAM 300 MULTIPLE
CHOICE PRACTICE QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS WITH RATIONALES LATEST
UPDATE 2026
Question 1
A plaintiff filed a negligence action in federal court against a defendant, alleging
$100,000 in damages. Both parties are citizens of different states. The defendant
moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. How should the court
rule?
(A) Grant the motion, because the amount in controversy is insufficient.
(B) Grant the motion, because complete diversity does not exist.
(C) Deny the motion, because complete diversity exists and the amount exceeds
$75,000.
(D) Deny the motion, because federal question jurisdiction exists.
Correct Answer: (C)
Rationale: Federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Here, both
requirements are satisfied—the parties are from different states, and the plaintiff
seeks $100,000. The court should deny the motion.
---
1
,Question 2
Under California Civil Code §1714(a), a property owner's duty of care to persons
entering the property is determined by which standard?
(A) The common-law tripartite classification of invitee, licensee, and trespasser.
(B) A single standard of ordinary care to all persons, regardless of their status on
the property.
(C) Strict liability for any injury occurring on the premises.
(D) A heightened duty of care only when the owner has actual knowledge of a
dangerous condition.
Correct Answer: (B)
Rationale: California abandoned the common-law tripartite classification in
*Rowland v. Christian* (1968), codified in Civil Code §1714(a). California
imposes a single duty of ordinary care on property owners toward all persons,
regardless of whether they are invitees, licensees, or trespassers.
---
Question 3
A public high school football player painted "Smoke Pot!" on his school-issued
jersey and wore it during practice. The principal suspended him for promoting
illegal drug use. The student sued, claiming his suspension violated his First
Amendment rights. Did the suspension violate his free speech rights?
2
,(A) No, because the jersey caused a substantial and material disruption to the
school's educational environment.
(B) No, because the school has the authority to regulate student speech that
promotes illegal drug use.
(C) Yes, because the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, even among
high school students.
(D) Yes, because the football practice was a recreational activity that did not take
place in a classroom.
Correct Answer: (B)
Rationale: Under *Morse v. Frederick*, schools may restrict student speech that
promotes illegal drug use. The Supreme Court held that such speech is not
protected by the First Amendment in the school context, even absent a showing of
substantial disruption.
---
Question 4
In California, pure comparative fault applies to negligence actions. If a plaintiff is
found 80% at fault and the defendant 20% at fault, and the plaintiff's total damages
are $100,000, what amount can the plaintiff recover?
(A) Nothing, because the plaintiff's fault exceeds 50%.
(B) $20,000.
(C) $80,000.
3
, (D) $100,000.
Correct Answer: (B)
Rationale: California follows pure comparative fault established in *Li v. Yellow
Cab Co.* (1975). A plaintiff may recover damages reduced by their percentage of
fault, even if they are more at fault than the defendant. An 80%-at-fault plaintiff
recovers 20% of total damages: $20,000.
---
Question 5
A car dealer sent an order form to a tire manufacturer for 200 premium tires at $50
per tire, with delivery in 30 days. The manufacturer shipped 180 tires 20 days later
with a notice that it was shipping "for accommodation only." The dealer accepted
the tires but intends to sue for breach. Will the dealer prevail?
(A) No, because the manufacturer made a counteroffer for 180 tires.
(B) No, because the 30-day delivery period has not yet passed.
(C) Yes, because the dealer may reject a nonconforming tender.
(D) Yes, because the shipment of 180 tires constituted an acceptance of the offer
and a breach.
Correct Answer: (D)
Rationale: Under UCC §2-206, a shipment of nonconforming goods can constitute
both an acceptance of the offer and a breach of contract. The manufacturer
4
CHOICE PRACTICE QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS WITH RATIONALES LATEST
UPDATE 2026
Question 1
A plaintiff filed a negligence action in federal court against a defendant, alleging
$100,000 in damages. Both parties are citizens of different states. The defendant
moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. How should the court
rule?
(A) Grant the motion, because the amount in controversy is insufficient.
(B) Grant the motion, because complete diversity does not exist.
(C) Deny the motion, because complete diversity exists and the amount exceeds
$75,000.
(D) Deny the motion, because federal question jurisdiction exists.
Correct Answer: (C)
Rationale: Federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship
between the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Here, both
requirements are satisfied—the parties are from different states, and the plaintiff
seeks $100,000. The court should deny the motion.
---
1
,Question 2
Under California Civil Code §1714(a), a property owner's duty of care to persons
entering the property is determined by which standard?
(A) The common-law tripartite classification of invitee, licensee, and trespasser.
(B) A single standard of ordinary care to all persons, regardless of their status on
the property.
(C) Strict liability for any injury occurring on the premises.
(D) A heightened duty of care only when the owner has actual knowledge of a
dangerous condition.
Correct Answer: (B)
Rationale: California abandoned the common-law tripartite classification in
*Rowland v. Christian* (1968), codified in Civil Code §1714(a). California
imposes a single duty of ordinary care on property owners toward all persons,
regardless of whether they are invitees, licensees, or trespassers.
---
Question 3
A public high school football player painted "Smoke Pot!" on his school-issued
jersey and wore it during practice. The principal suspended him for promoting
illegal drug use. The student sued, claiming his suspension violated his First
Amendment rights. Did the suspension violate his free speech rights?
2
,(A) No, because the jersey caused a substantial and material disruption to the
school's educational environment.
(B) No, because the school has the authority to regulate student speech that
promotes illegal drug use.
(C) Yes, because the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, even among
high school students.
(D) Yes, because the football practice was a recreational activity that did not take
place in a classroom.
Correct Answer: (B)
Rationale: Under *Morse v. Frederick*, schools may restrict student speech that
promotes illegal drug use. The Supreme Court held that such speech is not
protected by the First Amendment in the school context, even absent a showing of
substantial disruption.
---
Question 4
In California, pure comparative fault applies to negligence actions. If a plaintiff is
found 80% at fault and the defendant 20% at fault, and the plaintiff's total damages
are $100,000, what amount can the plaintiff recover?
(A) Nothing, because the plaintiff's fault exceeds 50%.
(B) $20,000.
(C) $80,000.
3
, (D) $100,000.
Correct Answer: (B)
Rationale: California follows pure comparative fault established in *Li v. Yellow
Cab Co.* (1975). A plaintiff may recover damages reduced by their percentage of
fault, even if they are more at fault than the defendant. An 80%-at-fault plaintiff
recovers 20% of total damages: $20,000.
---
Question 5
A car dealer sent an order form to a tire manufacturer for 200 premium tires at $50
per tire, with delivery in 30 days. The manufacturer shipped 180 tires 20 days later
with a notice that it was shipping "for accommodation only." The dealer accepted
the tires but intends to sue for breach. Will the dealer prevail?
(A) No, because the manufacturer made a counteroffer for 180 tires.
(B) No, because the 30-day delivery period has not yet passed.
(C) Yes, because the dealer may reject a nonconforming tender.
(D) Yes, because the shipment of 180 tires constituted an acceptance of the offer
and a breach.
Correct Answer: (D)
Rationale: Under UCC §2-206, a shipment of nonconforming goods can constitute
both an acceptance of the offer and a breach of contract. The manufacturer
4
