Torts MBE Exam 2025 Questions and
Answers
you got this bro don't give up - --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.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,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. - --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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
,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 - --
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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
, 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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 4
Answers
you got this bro don't give up - --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.
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 1
,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. - --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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 2
,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 - --
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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 3
, 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
....COPYRIGHT ©️ 2025 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED...TRUSTED & VERIFIED 4
