Torts MBE UPDATED ACTUAL Exam
Questions and CORRECT Answers
you got this bro don't give up - CORRECT ANSWER you're so right bro i won't give up
A company owned and operated a private golf course. One of the fairways on the course ran
parallel to a navigable body of water. The company was aware that golfers frequently but
unintentionally hit golf balls into the water when playing that hole because there were no barriers
to prevent the balls from going into the water. A 12-year-old child, while sailing on the water,
was struck by one such ball and suffered a serious physical injury. The injured child's parent has
filed a public nuisance action against the company, on behalf of his child, to recover for his
injuries. Is the plaintiff precluded from recovering?
No, because the child was seriously injured while on navigable water due to the company's
negligence.
No, because of the attractive nuisance doctrine.
Yes, because the child did not have an ownership interest in land.
Yes, because the golfer's action was unintentional. - CORRECT ANSWER A. Correct.
Private citizens can maintain a public nuisance action if they suffer special injuries different in
kind to that suffered by the general public. P's physical injury here constitutes a special injury.
Regarding the public passageway, P's injury must arise from the use of that passageway and D's
conduct must interfere with, obstruct, or render the passageway dangerous for passage.
B. Attractive nuisance applies to child-plaintiff who trespasses on D's property ad is injured by
an artificial condition on the property. Here, kid was injured while legally on the water, not while
trespassing on D's property
C. Wrong because unlike a private nuisance, public nuisance doesn't require P have possessory
rights in real property
,D. Wrong because P's suit is against the company that operated the golf course, not the golfer
personally. Nuisance actions whether public or private can be based on D's negligent conduct
which doesn't need to be intentional
The maker of a prescription drug provides physicians who prescribe the drug with detailed
instructions regarding its use. The instructions include a warning about the possibility of an
allergic reaction that could result in serious physical harm if the drug is taken with a common
over-the-counter medication. However, the allergic reaction is only likely to occur in a very
small portion of the population, so the drug maker does not provide this warning to consumers of
the drug in the instructions that accompany the drug.
A physician who had received the detailed instructions from the drug maker prescribed the drug
for a patient. The physician did not warn the patient about the possible allergic reaction. The
patient experienced an allergic reaction from taking the drug in combination with the over-the-
counter medication and suffered a debilitating injury. The patient brought a strict products
liability action agains - CORRECT ANSWER A. Wrong because for drugs that can't be
legally obtained without a prescription, the drug maker isn't generally required to provide a
warning directly to the patient, but can rely on the learned intermediary rule
B. Wrong because the patient sought to base the defective nature of the product on the maker's
failure to warn, the drug maker isn't liable because it satisfied its duty to warn by warning the
physician
C. Correct. Under the learned intermediary rule, the manufacturer of a prescription drug or
medical device satisfies its duty to warn by informing the prescribing physician of problems with
the drug or device rather than informing the patient taking the drug
D. Wrong because the manufacturer can be liable for a failure to warn when a small number of
persons are at risk if the severity of the potential harm is great
On a winter day, a youth, seeking refuge from the cold, entered a small neighborhood grocery
store without the knowledge of the store's owner, who was standing at the cash register. Shortly
thereafter, the only other person in the store approached the register and requested an item
located on a shelf behind the owner. As the owner turned to retrieve the requested item, the
individual drew a gun and commanded the owner to give him the money in the register.
, As the owner turned back toward the customer, the customer fired the gun at her and missed. The
owner grappled with the customer and succeeded in knocking the gun out of the customer's hand.
As the customer retrieved his gun, the owner grabbed her own gun, for which she had a valid
license. They fired at each other, each missing the other. Although the owner's actions did not
create an unreasonable risk of harm to the youth, the bullet from the owner's gun nevert -
CORRECT ANSWER A. See B.
B. Correct. When someone uses self-defense and unintentionally harms a third party, the person
isn't liable for injuries to the third party that occur while the person is acting in self-defense if the
injuries were accidental, not deliberate, and the person wasn't negligent to the third party
C. Wrong. While the kid was an invitee, the owner's duty towards him wasn't to act with
reasonable care. The shooting of the kid was accidental and not negligent under the
circumstances, and owner didn't breach his duty to the kid
D. Wrong because the mere fact that the youth wasn't a co-conspirator with the robber isn't
enough to impose liability on the store owner. The estate of the kid would have to prove that the
store owner was negligent WRT the kid while acting in self-defense or that the store owner
intentionally shot the kid
In a bicycle race with a $5,000 prize for the winner, a cyclist was leading by a significant
margin. A spectator at the race was married to the second place rider. Sensing that her husband
would not win unless she took action, the spectator drove to a point two miles ahead on the
course, scattered several nails in the middle of the course, and then left the area. Soon thereafter,
the cyclist approached the area and noticed the nails. He attempted to swerve around the
obstruction but a nail punctured his tire. He fell off his bike, suffered significant physical
injuries, and was unable to complete the race.
If the cyclist sues the spectator, under what theory is the cyclist LEAST LIKELY to recover
maximum punitive damages?
Assault
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Questions and CORRECT Answers
you got this bro don't give up - CORRECT ANSWER you're so right bro i won't give up
A company owned and operated a private golf course. One of the fairways on the course ran
parallel to a navigable body of water. The company was aware that golfers frequently but
unintentionally hit golf balls into the water when playing that hole because there were no barriers
to prevent the balls from going into the water. A 12-year-old child, while sailing on the water,
was struck by one such ball and suffered a serious physical injury. The injured child's parent has
filed a public nuisance action against the company, on behalf of his child, to recover for his
injuries. Is the plaintiff precluded from recovering?
No, because the child was seriously injured while on navigable water due to the company's
negligence.
No, because of the attractive nuisance doctrine.
Yes, because the child did not have an ownership interest in land.
Yes, because the golfer's action was unintentional. - CORRECT ANSWER A. Correct.
Private citizens can maintain a public nuisance action if they suffer special injuries different in
kind to that suffered by the general public. P's physical injury here constitutes a special injury.
Regarding the public passageway, P's injury must arise from the use of that passageway and D's
conduct must interfere with, obstruct, or render the passageway dangerous for passage.
B. Attractive nuisance applies to child-plaintiff who trespasses on D's property ad is injured by
an artificial condition on the property. Here, kid was injured while legally on the water, not while
trespassing on D's property
C. Wrong because unlike a private nuisance, public nuisance doesn't require P have possessory
rights in real property
,D. Wrong because P's suit is against the company that operated the golf course, not the golfer
personally. Nuisance actions whether public or private can be based on D's negligent conduct
which doesn't need to be intentional
The maker of a prescription drug provides physicians who prescribe the drug with detailed
instructions regarding its use. The instructions include a warning about the possibility of an
allergic reaction that could result in serious physical harm if the drug is taken with a common
over-the-counter medication. However, the allergic reaction is only likely to occur in a very
small portion of the population, so the drug maker does not provide this warning to consumers of
the drug in the instructions that accompany the drug.
A physician who had received the detailed instructions from the drug maker prescribed the drug
for a patient. The physician did not warn the patient about the possible allergic reaction. The
patient experienced an allergic reaction from taking the drug in combination with the over-the-
counter medication and suffered a debilitating injury. The patient brought a strict products
liability action agains - CORRECT ANSWER A. Wrong because for drugs that can't be
legally obtained without a prescription, the drug maker isn't generally required to provide a
warning directly to the patient, but can rely on the learned intermediary rule
B. Wrong because the patient sought to base the defective nature of the product on the maker's
failure to warn, the drug maker isn't liable because it satisfied its duty to warn by warning the
physician
C. Correct. Under the learned intermediary rule, the manufacturer of a prescription drug or
medical device satisfies its duty to warn by informing the prescribing physician of problems with
the drug or device rather than informing the patient taking the drug
D. Wrong because the manufacturer can be liable for a failure to warn when a small number of
persons are at risk if the severity of the potential harm is great
On a winter day, a youth, seeking refuge from the cold, entered a small neighborhood grocery
store without the knowledge of the store's owner, who was standing at the cash register. Shortly
thereafter, the only other person in the store approached the register and requested an item
located on a shelf behind the owner. As the owner turned to retrieve the requested item, the
individual drew a gun and commanded the owner to give him the money in the register.
, As the owner turned back toward the customer, the customer fired the gun at her and missed. The
owner grappled with the customer and succeeded in knocking the gun out of the customer's hand.
As the customer retrieved his gun, the owner grabbed her own gun, for which she had a valid
license. They fired at each other, each missing the other. Although the owner's actions did not
create an unreasonable risk of harm to the youth, the bullet from the owner's gun nevert -
CORRECT ANSWER A. See B.
B. Correct. When someone uses self-defense and unintentionally harms a third party, the person
isn't liable for injuries to the third party that occur while the person is acting in self-defense if the
injuries were accidental, not deliberate, and the person wasn't negligent to the third party
C. Wrong. While the kid was an invitee, the owner's duty towards him wasn't to act with
reasonable care. The shooting of the kid was accidental and not negligent under the
circumstances, and owner didn't breach his duty to the kid
D. Wrong because the mere fact that the youth wasn't a co-conspirator with the robber isn't
enough to impose liability on the store owner. The estate of the kid would have to prove that the
store owner was negligent WRT the kid while acting in self-defense or that the store owner
intentionally shot the kid
In a bicycle race with a $5,000 prize for the winner, a cyclist was leading by a significant
margin. A spectator at the race was married to the second place rider. Sensing that her husband
would not win unless she took action, the spectator drove to a point two miles ahead on the
course, scattered several nails in the middle of the course, and then left the area. Soon thereafter,
the cyclist approached the area and noticed the nails. He attempted to swerve around the
obstruction but a nail punctured his tire. He fell off his bike, suffered significant physical
injuries, and was unable to complete the race.
If the cyclist sues the spectator, under what theory is the cyclist LEAST LIKELY to recover
maximum punitive damages?
Assault
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
