1 | Page
MBE Question Set 24 Questions and Correct
Answers/ Latest Update / Already Graded
A homeowner contracted for construction of a custom-built, elevated deck in his
backyard. The deck's designer supervised the construction, which was carried out
by several employees of a local building company. The homeowner was pleased
with the appearance of the deck, but the first time he stepped on it, a support on
one side of the deck gave way, causing the homeowner to fall and be injured. The
homeowner brought an action joining the building company and the deck's
designer as defendants, alleging negligence. In his complaint, he alleged that he
does not know which of the defendants is responsible for the damages.
Which of the following doctrines would be most helpful against the designer?
A Respondeat superior.
B Res ipsa loquitur.
C Contribution.
D Indemnity.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
Ans: B Res ipsa loquitur.
Res ipsa loquitur will be most helpful against the designer. Res ipsa loquitur means
the thing speaks for itself. It is appropriate in situations where an injury does not
usually occur unless someone was negligent and the plaintiff does not know which
of the defendants caused the injury.
******While res ipsa loquitur is sometimes not available where more than one
person may have been in control of the instrumentality causing the injury, it is
available in a case where a particular defendant had the power of control over the
site of the injury*******
Even if the homeowner does not know why the deck collapsed, the deck's
designer would be responsible because he designed the deck and was supervising
the construction. Hence, res ipsa loquitur likely could be used.
(A) is not correct because the doctrine of respondeat superior imposes vicarious
liability on an employer for the tortious conduct of its employee. That doctrine
would be helpful against the building company for any negligence by its employees
but not against the designer, because the workers were not the designer's
employees.
(C) and (D) are incorrect because the doctrines of contribution and indemnity
pertain to how the responsibility of the loss is apportioned or shifted among the
defendants after the plaintiff has recovered his judgment. They are not relevant to
the homeowner's right to recover.
A doctor and a lawyer owned adjoining parcels of land. Ten years ago, the doctor
installed a swimming pool on her land. The doctor obtained the lawyer's oral
consent to run plumbing from the pool across part of the lawyer's land. Last year,
the lawyer sold his land to a buyer. The buyer wants to plant a garden on the land
under which the doctor's plumbing runs, and wants to eject the doctor and quiet
title. The statute of limitations for ejectment is seven years.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
With respect to the land under which the plumbing was laid what, if anything, has
the doctor acquired?
A The doctor has acquired title by adverse possession.
B The doctor has acquired a prescriptive easement.
C The doctor has acquired both title by adverse possession and a prescriptive
easement.
D The doctor has acquired neither title by adverse possession nor a prescriptive
easement.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
MBE Question Set 24 Questions and Correct
Answers/ Latest Update / Already Graded
A homeowner contracted for construction of a custom-built, elevated deck in his
backyard. The deck's designer supervised the construction, which was carried out
by several employees of a local building company. The homeowner was pleased
with the appearance of the deck, but the first time he stepped on it, a support on
one side of the deck gave way, causing the homeowner to fall and be injured. The
homeowner brought an action joining the building company and the deck's
designer as defendants, alleging negligence. In his complaint, he alleged that he
does not know which of the defendants is responsible for the damages.
Which of the following doctrines would be most helpful against the designer?
A Respondeat superior.
B Res ipsa loquitur.
C Contribution.
D Indemnity.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
Ans: B Res ipsa loquitur.
Res ipsa loquitur will be most helpful against the designer. Res ipsa loquitur means
the thing speaks for itself. It is appropriate in situations where an injury does not
usually occur unless someone was negligent and the plaintiff does not know which
of the defendants caused the injury.
******While res ipsa loquitur is sometimes not available where more than one
person may have been in control of the instrumentality causing the injury, it is
available in a case where a particular defendant had the power of control over the
site of the injury*******
Even if the homeowner does not know why the deck collapsed, the deck's
designer would be responsible because he designed the deck and was supervising
the construction. Hence, res ipsa loquitur likely could be used.
(A) is not correct because the doctrine of respondeat superior imposes vicarious
liability on an employer for the tortious conduct of its employee. That doctrine
would be helpful against the building company for any negligence by its employees
but not against the designer, because the workers were not the designer's
employees.
(C) and (D) are incorrect because the doctrines of contribution and indemnity
pertain to how the responsibility of the loss is apportioned or shifted among the
defendants after the plaintiff has recovered his judgment. They are not relevant to
the homeowner's right to recover.
A doctor and a lawyer owned adjoining parcels of land. Ten years ago, the doctor
installed a swimming pool on her land. The doctor obtained the lawyer's oral
consent to run plumbing from the pool across part of the lawyer's land. Last year,
the lawyer sold his land to a buyer. The buyer wants to plant a garden on the land
under which the doctor's plumbing runs, and wants to eject the doctor and quiet
title. The statute of limitations for ejectment is seven years.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
With respect to the land under which the plumbing was laid what, if anything, has
the doctor acquired?
A The doctor has acquired title by adverse possession.
B The doctor has acquired a prescriptive easement.
C The doctor has acquired both title by adverse possession and a prescriptive
easement.
D The doctor has acquired neither title by adverse possession nor a prescriptive
easement.
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
