MBE Practice Exam 1 - Torts

Question 1

How is the intent element of battery satisfied through the transferred intent rule?

Answer 1

A defendant is liable for battery if the defendant intended to cause contact with the plaintiff’s person and the defendant’s affirmative conduct caused contact that was harmful or offensive to the plaintiff. However, under the doctrine of transferred intent, the intent requirement for battery is also satisfied if the defendant:

-> intended to cause contact with a third party but instead caused contact with the plaintiff (same tort against a different person) or

-> intended to commit an assault—i.e., to cause anticipation of imminent, and harmful or offensive, contact—but instead committed a battery (different tort against the same person).

Question 2

Can “think skinned” (overly sensitive) and “thick skinned” (not sensitive at all) able to recover damages under private nuisance claims?

Answer 2

Plaintiffs who are abnormally sensitive to the defendant’s interference with the use and enjoyment of their property (i.e., “thin-skinned”) and plaintiffs who are not bothered by it (i.e., “thick-skinned”) can recover damages—so long as a normal person in the community would find the interference to be offensive, inconvenient, or annoying.

Question 3

What is the standard of care that a landowner owes to children knowing that their property created an attractive nuisance?

Answer 3

Reasonable care.

Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, land possessors have a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect child trespassers from artificial (i.e., man-made) conditions on their land.

Question 4

What are the elements under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine in negligence?

Answer 4

When there is no direct evidence of such a violation, negligence can be inferred from circumstantial evidence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Under the traditional standard for this doctrine, negligence is inferred when the plaintiff provides evidence that:

-> the accident was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence
-> the thing that caused the harm was under the defendant’s exclusive control
AND
-> that harm was not due to the plaintiff’s actions.

Question 5

How does the substantial factor test work?

Answer 5

The substantial-factor test for actual causation can be used when multiple forces combine to cause the plaintiff’s injury and any one on its own would have been sufficient to cause the injury. This test is satisfied when the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury.

Question 6

How can a plaintiff still recover in a contributory-negligence jurisdiction if they were found to be also negligent?

Answer 6

In contributory-negligence jurisdictions, the last-clear-chance rule allows a plaintiff to recover despite his/her contributory negligence (without the rule, the jurisdiction bars any recovery) if the defendant (1) had the last clear chance to avoid the plaintiff’s injury but (2) failed to use reasonable care to do so.

Question 7

When is a person strictly liable for damages caused by their will animal (what damages are they strictly liable for)?

Answer 7

The owner of a wild animal is strictly liable for the harm that is caused by a person’s fearful reaction to the sight of an (1) unrestrained wild animal or (2) directly results from the animal’s abnormally dangerous characteristics.

Question 8

Can a commercial seller limit its consequential damages?

Answer 8

A seller may generally disclaim or limit remedies and warranties in products liability actions.

But any such disclaimer or limitation does not bar or reduce an injured plaintiff’s recovery for physical harm.

And in the case of consumer goods, any limitation of consequential damages for personal injuries is UNCONSCIONABLE and INVALID.