1 | Page
MBE Post Midterm Answers Questions and Correct
Answers/ Latest Update / Already Graded
A man's car sustained moderate damage in a collision with a car driven by a
woman. The accident was caused solely
by the woman's negligence. The man's car was still drivable after the accident.
Examining the car the next morning,
the man could see that a rear fender had to be replaced. He also noticed that
gasoline had dripped onto the garage
floor. The collision had caused a small leak in the gasoline tank.
The man then took the car to a mechanic, who owns and operates a body shop,
and arranged with the mechanic to
repair the damage. During their discussion the man neglected to mention the
gasoline leakage. Thereafter, while the
mechanic was loosening some of the damaged material with a hammer, he caused
a spark, igniting vapor and
gasoline that had leaked from the fuel tank. The mechanic was severely burned.
The mechanic has brought an action to recover damages against the man and
woman. The jurisdiction has adopte
Ans: D. No, because there is no evidence that the woman was aware of the
gasoline leak.
A traveler was a passenger on a commercial aircraft owned and operated by an
airline. The aircraft crashed into a
mountain, killing everyone on board. The flying weather was good.
The traveler's legal representative brought a wrongful death action against the
airline. At trial, the legal representative
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
offered no expert or other testimony as to the cause of the crash.
On the airline's motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the legal representative's
case, the court should
Ans: C. deny the motion, because the jury may infer that the aircraft was
crashed due to the airline's negligence
A construction company was digging a trench for a new sewer line in a street in a
high-crime neighborhood. During
the course of the construction, there had been many thefts of tools and
equipment from the construction area. One
night, the construction company's employees neglected to place warning lights
around the trench. A delivery truck
drove into the trench and broke an axle. While the truck driver was looking for a
telephone to call a tow truck, thieves
broke into the truck and stole $350,000 worth of goods. The delivery company
sued the construction company to
recover for the $350,000 loss and for the damage to its truck. The construction
company has stipulated that it was
negligent in failing to place warning lights around the trench and admits liability for
damage to the truck, but it denies
liability for the loss of the goods.
On cross-motions for summary judgment on the claim for the goods, how should
the
Ans: A. Deny both motions, because there is evidence to support a finding that
the construction company should have realized that its negligence could create an
opportunity for a third party to commit a crime.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
A four-year-old child sustained serious injuries when a playmate pushed him from
between two parked cars into the
street, where he was struck by a car. The child, by his representative, sued the
driver of the car, the playmate's
parents, and his own parents. At trial, the child's total damages were determined
to be $100,000. The playmate's
parents were determined to be 20% at fault because they had failed to adequately
supervise her. The driver was
found to be 50% at fault. The child's own parents were determined to be 30% at
fault for failure to adequately
supervise him. The court has adopted the pure comparative negligence doctrine,
with joint and several liability, in
place of the common law rules relating to plaintiff's fault. In addition, the common
law doctrines relating to intra-family
liability have been abrogated.
What is the maximum amount, if anything, that the child's representative can
recove
Ans: C. $100,000.
A child was bitten by a dog while playing in a fenced-in common area of an
apartment complex owned by a landlord.
The child was the guest of a tenant living in the complex, and the dog was owned
by another tenant. The owner of the
dog knew that the dog had a propensity to bite, but the landlord did not have any
notice of the dog's vicious
propensities.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
MBE Post Midterm Answers Questions and Correct
Answers/ Latest Update / Already Graded
A man's car sustained moderate damage in a collision with a car driven by a
woman. The accident was caused solely
by the woman's negligence. The man's car was still drivable after the accident.
Examining the car the next morning,
the man could see that a rear fender had to be replaced. He also noticed that
gasoline had dripped onto the garage
floor. The collision had caused a small leak in the gasoline tank.
The man then took the car to a mechanic, who owns and operates a body shop,
and arranged with the mechanic to
repair the damage. During their discussion the man neglected to mention the
gasoline leakage. Thereafter, while the
mechanic was loosening some of the damaged material with a hammer, he caused
a spark, igniting vapor and
gasoline that had leaked from the fuel tank. The mechanic was severely burned.
The mechanic has brought an action to recover damages against the man and
woman. The jurisdiction has adopte
Ans: D. No, because there is no evidence that the woman was aware of the
gasoline leak.
A traveler was a passenger on a commercial aircraft owned and operated by an
airline. The aircraft crashed into a
mountain, killing everyone on board. The flying weather was good.
The traveler's legal representative brought a wrongful death action against the
airline. At trial, the legal representative
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
offered no expert or other testimony as to the cause of the crash.
On the airline's motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the legal representative's
case, the court should
Ans: C. deny the motion, because the jury may infer that the aircraft was
crashed due to the airline's negligence
A construction company was digging a trench for a new sewer line in a street in a
high-crime neighborhood. During
the course of the construction, there had been many thefts of tools and
equipment from the construction area. One
night, the construction company's employees neglected to place warning lights
around the trench. A delivery truck
drove into the trench and broke an axle. While the truck driver was looking for a
telephone to call a tow truck, thieves
broke into the truck and stole $350,000 worth of goods. The delivery company
sued the construction company to
recover for the $350,000 loss and for the damage to its truck. The construction
company has stipulated that it was
negligent in failing to place warning lights around the trench and admits liability for
damage to the truck, but it denies
liability for the loss of the goods.
On cross-motions for summary judgment on the claim for the goods, how should
the
Ans: A. Deny both motions, because there is evidence to support a finding that
the construction company should have realized that its negligence could create an
opportunity for a third party to commit a crime.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
A four-year-old child sustained serious injuries when a playmate pushed him from
between two parked cars into the
street, where he was struck by a car. The child, by his representative, sued the
driver of the car, the playmate's
parents, and his own parents. At trial, the child's total damages were determined
to be $100,000. The playmate's
parents were determined to be 20% at fault because they had failed to adequately
supervise her. The driver was
found to be 50% at fault. The child's own parents were determined to be 30% at
fault for failure to adequately
supervise him. The court has adopted the pure comparative negligence doctrine,
with joint and several liability, in
place of the common law rules relating to plaintiff's fault. In addition, the common
law doctrines relating to intra-family
liability have been abrogated.
What is the maximum amount, if anything, that the child's representative can
recove
Ans: C. $100,000.
A child was bitten by a dog while playing in a fenced-in common area of an
apartment complex owned by a landlord.
The child was the guest of a tenant living in the complex, and the dog was owned
by another tenant. The owner of the
dog knew that the dog had a propensity to bite, but the landlord did not have any
notice of the dog's vicious
propensities.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
