| --> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Torts Study Guide: Sample Exam Questions
IntroductionT he Law Library carries a number of resources that test your knowledge of torts. This guide provides a listing of resources of practice essay exams as well as multiple choice questions. There are also links to online multiple choice questions as well as resources to help with law school exams. The multiple choice questions in torts can be a great way to track your progress. Review the description of each resource for more details. Essay Samples Resources for Excelling in Law Exams Multiple Choice Practice Questions Online Multiple Choice
 Study Aids, Strategies & Exam Prep: Torts
Check out Jumpstart Your Studies: Resources and Tools to Prepare You for Class for more information!Some resources are available in both print and ebook format--see descriptions for more information and look for the ebook and print book icons., outlines and case summaries. Sample Questions and ExplanationsReviews and Hornbooks Online Tutorials Audio Books, Videos, and Podcasts In-depth Treatises and Practice Guides
 Exam Study Guide
How to Access Online Study AidsStudy aids to help in understanding torts, study aids for torts for review and exam preparation.
If accessing the online study aids from the West Academic subscription (either connected to Secure Wireless or on a networked computer), you can just click on the links below or go to https://subscription.westacademic.com . If you want to be able to access them from off-campus or from other parts of campus, create a West Academic account. A West Academic account also allows you to take notes, highlight, save favorites, or download titles for offline access. To create an account, click the Create an Account link at the top right corner of the Study Aids Subscription page. Use your UC email as the email address. Once you have filled in the required information to set up an account, you will need to verify your email address (they will send you a confirmation email that you will need answer to verify the email address). Once you have created an account and logged in, you can use the links to access individual study aids or you can access all study aids through https://subscription.westacademic.com while outside of the law school building. To access the study aids even when offline, download the app. For audio study aids there is a separate audio app. Accessing West Academic Study Aids Offline . If accessing the online study aids from the LexisNexis Digital Library (Lexis OverDrive) , you will need to authenticate using your UC credentials. If accessing the online study aids from the Aspen Learning Libary (formerly Wolters Kluwer ), you will need to authenticate using your UC credentials. To access CALI Lessons , set up a username and password by going to CALI. You will be asked to enter UC Law’s authorization code. You can get this code from any reference librarian or at the Circulation Desk. 
University of Cincinnati Libraries PO Box 210033 Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0033 Phone: 513-556-1424 Contact Us | Staff Directory University of Cincinnati Alerts | Clery and HEOA Notice | Notice of Non-Discrimination | eAccessibility Concern | Privacy Statement | Copyright Information © 2021 University of Cincinnati Login to your accountRemember Me Register for a Free AccountAccess sample lessons, a free LSAT PrepTest, and 100 question explanations today! Password (twice) * password strength indicator Good Essay Example 1 (July 2017 Torts)This lesson presents a real, good response to the July 2017 MEE Torts question . First, read the essay, then listen to the analysis below. Download the essay as a PDF. Good Essay 1Directed verdict 1. Fireworks display is an abnormally dangerous activity The judge was incorrect, and running fireworks displays is an abnormally dangerous activity. The key issue is the extent of the harm imposed by fireworks and whether it can be mitigated by exercising care. Under tort law, strict liability is imposed on those who cause harm while engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity. Abnormally dangerous activities generally include such activities as blasting dynamite or transporting extremely hazardous materials. The factors used to determine whether a particular activity is abnormally dangerous include: 1) the severity of the harm caused by the activity; 2) whether the location of the activity is appropriate; 3) the benefit to society or to the community of engaging in the activity and whether it outweighs the harm; and 4) whether harm caused by the activity can be minimized by exercising care. Here, the location of the activity--in the middle of the lake on the fourth of July--seems appropriate. Fireworks also bring a significant benefit to society by providing entertainment to a huge amount of people, particular for festive occasions such as the Fourth of July. However, the harm caused by fireworks is great; nationally, fireworks cause 9,000 injuries and 5 deaths per year. Furthermore, the plaintiffs established that fireworks can still misfire even with careful use by experts. While there are factors weighing in each direction, the fact that fireworks are explosive devices with a potential to cause harm including death even when exercising care cuts in favor of considering the use of fireworks to be an abnormally dangerous activity. And while fireworks are enjoyable, they do not provide the community with a necessary function. The judge was incorrect, and fireworks displays, because they are an abnormally dangerous activity, should subject defendants to strict liability. 2. A reasonable jury could conclude that the conduct of the fireworks company was negligent The judge was also incorrect as to the second point; a reasonable jury could find that the fireworks company's conduct was negligent. The issue is whether the company breached its duty in the placement of the fireworks. A prima facie showing of negligence requires duty, breach, actual and proximate causation, and damages. A defendant has breached its duty of care if it did not exercise the care that a reasonable person would have under similar circumstances. Here, the company owed a duty of care to individuals who might be harmed by its fireworks display. The plaintiffs also showed cause, at least with respect to the wife's injury (the mortar hit her dock and hit her with flaming debris), and damages (she was severely injured). A reasonable jury may have found that the standard of care was determined by the applicable fireworks statute requiring a 500 foot safety zone around the launching site--though the statute does not prove a breach as it not apply to water launches, in the absence of other regulations, this is reasonable guidance. There is no indication that the defendants proved an industry standard for water launches that would have weighed in the opposite direction (though it would not have been dispositive). It seems that the company could have feasibly taken further measures to prevent or mitigate the injury, such as changing the launch location or warning all residents of the lake to stay back from the shoreline. Based on the evidence available, a reasonable jury could gave found that launching fireworks from a site that was under 500 feet from four different land or dock locations on the lake was a breach of the company's duty of care. 3. The misfiring mortar was the proximate cause of the husband's injuries The issue is whether, if the company is determined to have breached the standard of care, the husband's injury was a foreseeable consequence of the company's breach. A showing of both actual and proximate causation is necessary for a finding of negligence. Actual cause is "but-for" cause--the injury would not have occurred but for the actions constituting the breach. Proximate cause, on the other hand, means that the injury was the natural and probable consequence of the action. Where the resulting injury is caused indirectly, the harm must have been foreseeable. Generally, harm caused to rescuers of those who have been injured is considered foreseeable. Here, the husband was inside the house, and saw his wife get injured by the mortar. He became injured after he ran out to help her, tripping on the rug, falling down the stairs, and sustaining a fracture. It is the natural and probable consequence of setting off fireworks too close to shore that someone on shore might get injured, and it is foreseeable that the rush to aid an injured person might cause additional injuries. It is not necessary that the particular injury of a fracture due to falling down a flight of stairs cold specifically be anticipated--this injury is of the kind that is to be expected from those who rush to help someone who has been injured by fireworks. Therefore, the mortar was the proximate cause. 4. The homeowners association can be held liable for the fireworks company's acts or omissions The homeowners association can be held liable. The issue is whether the homeowners association expressly authorized the tortious action here, or whether the action was committed in the scope of employment with a desire to serve the principle. Principals are liable for the torts of their agents if they expressly authorize them or if the torts are committed in the scope of employment with a desire to service the principle. A principal/agent relationship exists when there is assent to the relationship, the activity engaged in by the agent benefits the principal, and the principal has control over the agent. Even where the control element is not met, and the company is considered an independent contractor, there is still liability for torts stemming from inherently dangerous activities. This is an exception from the general rule that principals are not liable for torts of an independent contractor. Held liable if fireworks company was an agent and if vicarious lability applies: expressly authorized or scope of employment/desire to service. Here the fireworks company was a contractor, and it appears that the association did not have control over the manner of the company's performance. However, the homeowners association can still be held liable because, as explained above, fireworks are an bnormally dangerous activity. Therefore, the judge was wrong and the association is liable. Analysis of the Sample EssayOkay. So we are going to walk through an actual test taker's answer to a torts MEE question from the July 2017 bar exam, and this answer is provided by New York. So this test taker took the bar exam in New York. I'm going to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this answer. But first, remember that each jurisdiction, that is, each state, grades the MEEs for their respective jurisdiction. So what one state identifies as a very good or strong essay answer may not necessarily translate as a very good or strong essay answer in another state. Each state uses the model answers provided by the National Conference of Bar Examiners for the MEEs. But each state has its own graders, and each state's graders have some flexibility in allocating points to their test takers. So when you compare your answer to an old answer, focus more on whether your answer picks up the general rules and analysis identified in the model answer. If so, you are likely going to score really well on that essay. But know that there may be some problems with model answers. For instance, the rules may not always be correct, or the analysis may not be as robust or as effective as it can be. All right. Let's take a look at the model answer provided by New York for the July 2017 MEE. Right off the bat, you can see that the model answer is visually appealing, that is, you can see that the test taker didn't just write her answer in one giant paragraph. Rather, she used multiple short paragraphs, which likely helped the grader better follow the test taker's answer. One other effective technique that the test taker did to help the grader better follow her answer was that she included the transition phrase "Here" every time she moved into her application. You can also quickly see that this test taker also chose to format her answer in a CRAC, and the first C of her CRAC was a clear, one-sentence heading at the start of each of the four separate subparts to the question. You will also notice that even though the test taker wrote her answer as a CRAC, she still wrote a sentence within her rule paragraph, where she clearly identified the issue for each subpart. That's fine. It wasn't necessary, but it's fine. It showed the reader that she understood what each subpart was testing. Overall, this essay answer was very well organized and it included clear rules and effective application. There were some grammar issues and misspelled words here and there, but they did not take away from the overall strength of the answer. Let's quickly look at each subpart. Subpart 1 is likely the strongest part of the test taker's answer. She provided a clear and confident conclusion and provided some really nice substantive rules. She started with a broad rule for abnormally dangerous activities, and then she effectively funneled down to more specific rules relating to what a court may consider in determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous. So the rule paragraph was quite good for subpart 1, although I do think that the test taker could have done a better job of talking about strict liability. She referenced abnormally dangerous activities as falling under the concept of strict liability, but she didn't fully or directly discuss what strict liability is. However, the application for subpart 1 was very strong. The test taker effectively used the various statistics included in the facts to support her conclusion that the fireworks display imposed substantial risk of harm, no matter how much care was exercised. She also acknowledged the counterargument, that is, that fireworks can be popular activities, particularly on the 4th of July. Subpart 2 was also strong. Like subpart 1, the test taker had a clear and confident conclusion. She clearly identified the elements for negligence and she effectively used the facts relating to the location of the fireworks launch to establish that the fireworks company breached a duty of care. She also did not forget to address the causation and damages elements for negligence, which I imagine some test takers might have done since they may have been so focused on breach of duty. Here, the test taker quickly discussed causation and damages, which likely increased her score for this subpart. A potential negative in this subpart is that the test taker did not directly address that an unexcused violation of a statutory standard can establish a breach of duty, but that compliance with a statutory standard does not necessarily imply no breach of duty. All right. Let's look at subpart 3. The test taker did another effective job with subpart 3. She provided a clear and confident conclusion, she provided a nice funnel of rules from causation from big, broad rules to narrow, specific rules, which included providing rules for actual cause as well as proximate cause. The test taker provided a really effective application as to why the husband's injuries were foreseeable and therefore proximately caused by the defendant's actions. I would have also quickly explained how the defendant's actions were also the actual or but-for cause of the husband's injuries, just to be safe, because the court would not have had to address proximate cause if the injuries were not first actually caused by the defendant's actions. Let's talk about subpart 4. Finally, the test taker did a good job with subpart 4 as well, but her rules and the general organization of her CRAC were not as strong as her other subparts. Subpart 4 was definitely the weakest part of this essay answer. I suspect that the test taker may have been running out of time to complete this subpart answer. She did not identify vicarious liability as the main rule and issue until the last paragraph of her essay answer, after she had already discussed what an independent contractor is, and after she had discussed when a principal can be held liable for the actions of an independent contractor. So the organization of her rules was off. Her big, broad rule for vicarious liability came later in her answer, and when she did discuss the rule for vicarious liability, the rule statement was a bit confusing. She also had only one sentence of application for this subpart, which likely was not enough. I think she could have done a better job explaining why the fireworks company was, in fact, an independent contractor and why the HOA could still be liable for the company's actions. But again, overall, I think this model answer does a really good job of showing clear and confident conclusions. The answer shows what clear and direct rules can look like. The answer shows generally how you can funnel from broad rules to more specific rules. And the answer shows how to effectively use facts from the hypo to support your conclusions. Yes, there were some grammar issues and misspelled words, and it seemed like the last subpart was rushed, but the graders understand that you have a limited amount of time to write out your answer, particularly for long and potentially complex questions like this particular MEE torts question. The graders are not going to take away points for grammar issues or misspelled words. They're looking to award you points, and you can get some really good points when you have effective rules and analysis like this model answer from New York. Lesson NoteNo note. Click here to write note. Click here to reset Leave a Reply CancelYou must be logged in to post a comment. You can get a free account here . JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser. Save up to 60% off RRP* on selected titles until 5pm on Thursday, 11 th of July. Terms and conditions apply. Shop Now
 LexisNexis Questions and Answers: Torts, 6th editionA clear and systematic approach to successfully tackling torts assignments and exams. Published: 05 May, 2023
This popular text provides valuable tools for the study of torts. Each chapter includes a summary of key principles, relevant cases and legislation necessary for effective revision. Where pertinent, alternative causes of action and their strengths and weaknesses are also noted. Many areas of tort law have been significantly impacted by statute, so comparative tables of the applicable provisions across Australia are provided for ease of reference. Points of statutory interpretation are noted throughout many of the summaries of key principles. Examples of written questions with fact scenarios are included for all topics, each with a suggested answer plan, sample answer and comments on how the answer might be viewed by an examiner. Readers are provided with advice on common errors to avoid when answering questions and practical hints and tips on how to achieve higher marks. Fully revised and updated, the sixth edition references more than a dozen recent High Court decisions covering trespass, negligence, defamation, intentional economic torts and damages, incorporates legislative amendments, notably in the areas of institutional child abuse, defamation and the new motor accidents scheme in the Australian Capital Territory, and includes an expanded coverage of topics including notions of fault (intent, recklessness and negligence), defences to trespass, employment-related mental harm, recreational activity defences and intentional torts such as civil conspiracy, inducing breach of contract and misfeasance in public office. Related Titles • Davies & Malkin, Focus: Torts , 9th ed, 2021 • Howe & Walsh, LexisNexis Study Guide: Torts , 4th ed, 2021 • Rolph et al, Balkin & Davis Law of Torts , 5th ed, 2021 • Vines, Quick Reference Card: Torts , 4th ed, 2021 Ch1 Civil Liability Legislation: Application and Interpretation Ch 2 Trespass Ch 3 Private and Public Nuisance Ch 4 Negligence: Duty of Care and Breach Ch 5 Causation and Remoteness Ch 6 Mental Harm Ch 7 Pure Economic Loss Ch 8 Omission Cases and Public Authorities Ch 9 Defences Ch 10 Vicarious Liability and Non-Delegable Duty of Care Ch 11 Defamation Ch 12 Damages Ch 13 Revision Questions Featured AuthorsTim Paine is a Lecturer in Law, teaching for the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board, Western Sydney University and the University of Technology Sydney. He has taught and coordinated in the areas of Torts and Advanced Torts, Remedies and Evidence. He was an original author and editor of The Australian Torts Reporter (CCH) from the early 1980s and has contributed to a number of publications since then. 
Sorry, there was a problem. Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required . Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web. Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.  Image Unavailable
Follow the author Siegel's Torts: Essay & Multiple Choice Questions & Answers, 5th Edition 5th Edition
Products related to this item Product details
About the authorArthur best. Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more  Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them. To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Top reviews from the United StatesThere was a problem filtering reviews right now. please try again later.. 
 🎉 JD Advising’s Biggest Sale is Live! Get 25% off our top bar exam products, including our must-have one-sheets – Shop Now 🎉 With the bar exam fast approaching, our FREE MEE Highly Tested Topics guide and our FREE July 2024 UBE Study Guide can help you use your remaining study time wisely! Our LIVE MEE Mastery Class is coming up on July 13th! Join this exclusive event tailored to the July bar exam to get an in-depth look at the critical law, plus expert MEE strategies! Reserve your seat now ! Torts on the Multistate Essay Exam: Highly Tested Topics and TipsTorts is regularly tested on the MEE. Thus, it is important to be aware of the key principles that are tested and how to approach this MEE topic generally. Torts on the Multistate Essay Exam1. first, be aware of how torts is tested. Torts is tested about once a year on the MEE. While it is frequently tested on its own, it has been combined with Agency. For example, Torts was recently tested on the MEE with Agency on issues of vicarious liability of an employer. The way that Torts is tested on the MEE is fairly predictable because the examiners test basic tort principles. If you are familiar with the highly tested Torts MEE topics, you should be well on your way to writing a high-scoring Torts MEE answer. 2. Be aware of the highly tested Torts issuesThe examiners tend to test several of the same issues in Torts MEE questions. You can maximize your score by being aware of these highly tested issues. (We have a summary of these in our MEE One-Sheets if you want to see all of them and have them all in one place.) Some of the highly tested Torts MEE issues include :Negligence basics. Negligence is by far the most heavily tested Torts MEE topic . Thus, it is important to focus on this topic. The basic elements of a negligence claim are (1) duty , (2) breach, (3) causation (both actual and proximate) , and (4) damages. It is critical to understand these four elements. Many students think they understand negligence but struggle with the topics of actual/proximate causation and duty. If you find yourself in this situation, we recommend that you seek tutoring, rewatch your bar exam course lectures, or seek other help. Causation and duty are tricky topics that are highly tested on the MEE! Additionally, causation also appears in Criminal Law MEE questions. So, taking the time to understand causation is time well spent.  Further, negligence is the most highly tested topic on the MBE. Make sure you learn negligence well! Children and dutyGenerally, a child owes the duty of care of a hypothetical child of similar age, intelligence, and experience, acting under similar circumstances . An exception to this rule is when the child is engaging in an adult activity , such as driving a car or shooting a gun. In those circumstances, the child is held to the same duty of care as an adult. Additionally, some states follow the tender-years doctrine, where children under a certain age (e.g., seven years old) cannot be found negligent (although this is not commonly applied on the MEE).  Eggshell-skull rule Premises liabilityThis topic has turned up frequently on Torts MEEs in the past. The premise possessor’s standard of care depends on the plaintiff’s legal status at the time of entry.
 Negligence per seConsider negligence per se if you see a Torts MEE that presents a statute that establishes a duty of care. To sue under a theory of negligence per se, the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant violated the statute without excuse , (2) the plaintiff was in the class of people the statute was trying to protect , and (3) the plaintiff received the injury that the statute was trying to prevent . If the plaintiff can show these three things, then the plaintiff has proven the duty and breach elements of negligence .  Remember that the plaintiff must still prove causation and harm! Strict liabilityTo recover for a strict liability tort, the plaintiff does not need to show that the defendant breached their duty . However, the plaintiff must still show duty (in this case, absolute), actual and proximate causation, and harm. The three categories of strict liability torts are (1) wild animals , (2) abnormally dangerous activities , and (3) strict products liability . Strict products liability has frequently been tested on the MEE . For a strict products liability claim, the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant is a merchant , (2) the product had a defect (manufacturing, design, or absence of warning or instructions), and (3) the plaintiff used the product in a foreseeable way at the time of the injury.  3. Spend a lot of time on negligence to earn points on the MEE and the MBENegligence is the most highly tested topic in Torts on the MEE. It is also the most highly tested topic on the MBE portion of the bar exam (with 12–13 questions covering negligence!). Dedicating a lot of time to mastering negligence is an excellent way to study efficiently for the bar exam. 4. Practice!Practice is critical if you want to master Torts on the MEE. Here, we provide you with some links to free Torts MEE questions and NCBE point sheets. (If you would like to purchase a book of Torts MEE questions and NCBE point sheets, check out our MEE books here. You can also see some additional exams on the NCBE website for free here .)
Go to the next topic, Decedents’ Estates .Seeking mee expertise. Our July 2024 bar exam sale is live! Check out our fantastic deals on everything you need to pass the bar 🌟 Freebies & Discounts
🔥 Top-Rated MEE Resources
🔥 NEW! Dive deep into our Repeat Taker Bar Exam Course and discover our unrivaled Platinum Guarantee Pass Program . Related posts Leave a ReplyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
By using this site, you allow the use of cookies, and you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service . Cookie and Privacy SettingsWe may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website. Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer. These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features. Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site. We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain. We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings. We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page. Google Webfont Settings: Google Map Settings: Google reCaptcha Settings: Vimeo and Youtube video embeds: You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page. 
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful. Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings. If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again. Advertisement Supported by Corruption Law Allows Gifts to State and Local Officials, Supreme Court RulesThe court, which has limited the sweep of several anti-corruption laws, distinguished after-the-fact rewards from before-the-fact bribes.
 By Abbie VanSickle and Adam Liptak Reporting from Washington The Supreme Court limited the sweep of a federal law on Wednesday aimed at public corruption, ruling that it did not apply to gifts and payments meant to reward actions taken by state and local officials. The 6-to-3 ruling , which split along ideological lines, was the latest in a series of decisions cutting back federal anti-corruption laws. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for a conservative majority, said that the question in the case was whether federal law makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept such gratuities after the fact. He wrote, “The answer is no.” Federal prosecutors’ interpretation of the law created traps for public officials, leaving them to guess what gifts were allowed, he added. If they guessed wrong, the opinion continued, the officials could face up to a decade in prison. The decision reflected a sharp divide on the court, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting. While the conservative wing asserted that the ruling gave discretion to state and local governments and protected officials from having to guess whether their behavior had crossed a criminal line, the liberals said the decision represented more chipping away of a statute aimed at protecting against graft. “Officials who use their public positions for private gain threaten the integrity of our most important institutions,” Justice Jackson wrote. “Greed makes governments — at every level — less responsive, less efficient and less trustworthy from the perspective of the communities they serve.” We are having trouble retrieving the article content. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in . Want all of The Times? Subscribe . | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
This publication contains the four essay questions from the October 2017 California First-Year Law Students' Examination and two selected answers for each question. The answers were assigned high grades and were written by applicants who passed the examination. The answers were produced as submitted by the applicant, except that minor ...
SAMPLE ESSAY QUESTIONS FROM PAST EXAMS SAMPLE ESSAY QUESTIONS & ANSWERS TORTS II PROF. FIELD, SOUTH TEXAS COLLEGE OF LAW HOUSTON. This file contains sample essay questions that you can use to practice for the final exam. For best results, write your responses to these questions under exam conditions (i., timed and without referring to any ...
Applicants were given four hours to answer four essay questions. ... Torts 1 2. Criminal Law 14 3. Contracts 23 4. Torts 32 . ESSAY EXAMINATION INSTRUCTIONS Your answer should demonstate your ability to analyze the facts in the question, to tell the differnce between material facts and immaterial facts, and to discern the points of ...
Torts. 12 questions, 30 minutes: defamation, fraud, intentional torts, products liability, negligence, wrongful death and survival actions, enforcement of judgments, multiple tortfeasors. Note: This is a different, shorter version of the Yodel exam listed above, which is 2.0 hours (30/90). For a model answer, see the listing above.
The Multistate Essay Examination (MEE) is developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE). This publication includes the questions and analyses from the July 2017 MEE. (In the actual test, the questions are simply numbered rather than being identified by area of law.) The instructions for the test appear on page iii.
opportunity of testing yourself with the type of question asked on an exam, and comparing your answer with a model answer. In addition, a number of other features are included to help you understand the subject matter and prepare for examinations: Short Questions and Answers: This feature is designed to help you spot and
ESSAY QUESTIONS AND SELECTED ANSWERS. Part I of this publication contains the essay questions from the July 2011 and February 2012 Florida Bar Examinations and one selected answer for each question. The answers selected for this publication received high scores and were written by applicants who passed the examination.
The multiple-choice questions require students to pick the best of a list, the worst of a list, or the story that illustrates a point of doctrine most effectively. The short answers require analysis of scenarios and communication of discrete points. The Practice Final Exam and Essay Issue-Spotter Questions contain an additional 54 questions.
SELECTED ANSWER B. 1. H's claims against D and D's defenses. Harry (H) will file a claim for negligence against Doug (D) Negligence To successfully assert a negligence claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant (i) had a duty, (ii) breached that duty, (iii) the breach of that duty was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's ...
CALIFORNIA BAR EXAMINATIONThis publication contains the six essay questions from the February 2008 California Bar Examination and two selecte. answers to each question.The answers received good grades and were written by applicants. o passed the examination. The answers were prepared by their authors, and were transcribed as submitted, except ...
Offers over 1,000 short answer questions that present a fact pattern and ask you to provide a conclusion. Questions cover: Civil Procedure, Contracts, Criminal Law and Procedure, Property, and Torts. Multiple-choice and short-answer questions and answers. Older editions available on 2nd Floor at KF1250.Z9 B47.
Every tort claim for relief, and every affirmative tort defense, has a set of required elements. It is the student's task to learn these elements and to develop an understanding about how to apply them to real and hypothetical fact patterns. Questions & Answers: Torts can help with this task. The book includes 202 questions organized by topic.
Good Essay 1. Directed verdict. 1. Fireworks display is an abnormally dangerous activity. The judge was incorrect, and running fireworks displays is an abnormally dangerous activity. The key issue is the extent of the harm imposed by fireworks and whether it can be mitigated by exercising care. Under tort law, strict liability is imposed on ...
ESSAY QUESTIONS AND SELECTED ANSWERS FEBRUARY 2009 CALIFORNIA BAR EXAMINATION This publication contains the six essay questions from the February 2009 California Bar Examination and two selected answers to each question. ... 4 Torts 50 5 Contracts 62 6 Business Associations 77 . 2 FEBRUARY 2009 ESSAY QUESTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 California ...
ANSWER A TO ESSAY QUESTION 5 Sally will bring products liability actions against Mfr. based on strict liability, negligence, intentional torts and warranty theories. Strict Products Liability A strict products liability prima facie case requires a manufacturer or (dealer) of the goods, an unreasonably dangerous product that could have been made ...
helps students revise important concepts before attempting problem questions. assists students understand how to structure written responses to essay and problem assessment tasks. Provides answer plans and tips. Reinforces understanding of statutory interpretation principles in the Torts context. Provides a focus on interpretation of the Civil ...
The Siegel's Series works through key topics in a Q&A format, providing an additional source for self-quizzing. A proven resource for high performance, titles in this exam prep series contain essay questions with model answers, as well as multiple-choice questions and answers.
Negligence is the most highly tested topic in Torts on the MEE. It is also the most highly tested topic on the MBE portion of the bar exam (with 12-13 questions covering negligence!). Dedicating a lot of time to mastering negligence is an excellent way to study efficiently for the bar exam. 4. Practice!
February 2021. Essay Questions with Sample Candidate Answers. download. October 2020. Essay Questions with Sample Candidate Answers. February 2020. Essay Questions with Sample Candidate Answers. July 2019. Essay Questions with Sample Candidate Answers.
Identify any actions available in the tort of negligence and analyse the elements of the tort accordingly. We have two available answers from different researchers to this problem question. Answer 1. Answer 2. Answer 1 Introduction. This scenario concerns the law relating to the tort of negligence.
The Supreme Court limited the sweep of a federal law on Wednesday aimed at public corruption, ruling that it did not apply to gifts and payments meant to reward actions taken by state and local ...