BARBRI MBE EXAMINATION TEST 2026
QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS GRADED A+
◉ The governor of an arid western state owned a vacation home and
permitted his son to have a party there. At the end of the night the son
failed to properly extinguish a bonfire that he and his friends had built,
and within a few hours, wind-blown cinders had spread the fire to the
trees east of the lodge. At the same time several miles away, a worker at
a lumber mill was making emergency repairs to a pipe running between
two mill buildings. He did not notice some of the sparks from his
welding torch land in a pile of dried lumber and catch fire, and he failed
to check the area after he was finished. By the time the fire was noticed
by another employee, it was out of control. The wind blew both fires
toward a landowner's hunting lodge. They merged a mile away and
shortly thereafter totally consumed the lodge.
For political reasons, the landowner did not bring a lawsuit against the
governor or his son. He did, however. Answer: Yes, because the
negligence of the lumber mill's employee was a cause of the landowner's
injury.
◉ A plumber working for a company providing plumbing services to
commercial and industrial establishments was required to be "on call"
for emergency plumbing services 24 hours a day, and was required to
drive his company van home each night so he would have all of his tools
, and equipment at hand for any calls. However, he was not permitted to
use the company van for personal errands. On his way home one
afternoon, he took a detour toward a supermarket a few blocks away to
pick up some items for dinner. While entering the supermarket parking
lot, he drove negligently and struck a pedestrian, seriously injuring him.
The pedestrian filed suit against the plumber's company in a jurisdiction
that maintains traditional common law rules regarding contribution and
indemnity, and the jury awarded him $100,000 in damages, which the
company paid.
If the company sues the plumber to recoup its loss in the lawsuit, which
party will. Answer: The company can recover 100% of the judgment as
an indemnity, because the plumber was negligent, not the company.
◉ A plaintiff sued a defendant for damages suffered when a load of
bricks fell off the defendant's truck directly in front of the plaintiff while
she was driving on a highway. The plaintiff charged that the defendant
was negligent in supplying his truck with a defective load chain clamp,
which helped tie the load to the bed of the truck, and in failing to secure
the load properly on the truck. The plaintiff calls a witness who testifies
that he was formerly employed as a truck driver and is an acquaintance
of the defendant. The witness further testifies that immediately prior to
the accident he had coffee with the defendant at a cafe, and mentioned to
the defendant that the tie chains holding the load of bricks looked kind
of loose.
QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS GRADED A+
◉ The governor of an arid western state owned a vacation home and
permitted his son to have a party there. At the end of the night the son
failed to properly extinguish a bonfire that he and his friends had built,
and within a few hours, wind-blown cinders had spread the fire to the
trees east of the lodge. At the same time several miles away, a worker at
a lumber mill was making emergency repairs to a pipe running between
two mill buildings. He did not notice some of the sparks from his
welding torch land in a pile of dried lumber and catch fire, and he failed
to check the area after he was finished. By the time the fire was noticed
by another employee, it was out of control. The wind blew both fires
toward a landowner's hunting lodge. They merged a mile away and
shortly thereafter totally consumed the lodge.
For political reasons, the landowner did not bring a lawsuit against the
governor or his son. He did, however. Answer: Yes, because the
negligence of the lumber mill's employee was a cause of the landowner's
injury.
◉ A plumber working for a company providing plumbing services to
commercial and industrial establishments was required to be "on call"
for emergency plumbing services 24 hours a day, and was required to
drive his company van home each night so he would have all of his tools
, and equipment at hand for any calls. However, he was not permitted to
use the company van for personal errands. On his way home one
afternoon, he took a detour toward a supermarket a few blocks away to
pick up some items for dinner. While entering the supermarket parking
lot, he drove negligently and struck a pedestrian, seriously injuring him.
The pedestrian filed suit against the plumber's company in a jurisdiction
that maintains traditional common law rules regarding contribution and
indemnity, and the jury awarded him $100,000 in damages, which the
company paid.
If the company sues the plumber to recoup its loss in the lawsuit, which
party will. Answer: The company can recover 100% of the judgment as
an indemnity, because the plumber was negligent, not the company.
◉ A plaintiff sued a defendant for damages suffered when a load of
bricks fell off the defendant's truck directly in front of the plaintiff while
she was driving on a highway. The plaintiff charged that the defendant
was negligent in supplying his truck with a defective load chain clamp,
which helped tie the load to the bed of the truck, and in failing to secure
the load properly on the truck. The plaintiff calls a witness who testifies
that he was formerly employed as a truck driver and is an acquaintance
of the defendant. The witness further testifies that immediately prior to
the accident he had coffee with the defendant at a cafe, and mentioned to
the defendant that the tie chains holding the load of bricks looked kind
of loose.
