Share |
   |   Filter:   All Bar Exam Topics    All Law School Topics     All Attorney Topics    All Off Topics



Unanswered Active Topics Forums Search
Bar Exam
 Sort: AddThis - Bookmarking and Sharing Button

PrevPrev NextNext
Add ReplyAdd Reply
Sub: MBE Question Torts-Crim Law
Author: batata [140] Send Private Message
25 Jun 2009 02:55 AM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply
batata

Del's sporting goods shop was burglarized by an escaped inmate from a nearby
prison. The inmate stole a rifle and bullets from a locked cabinet. The
burglar alarm at Del's shop did not go off because Del had negligently
forgotten to activate the alarm's motion detector. Shortly thereafter, the
inmate used the rifle ammunition stolen from Del in a shooting spree that
caused injury to several people, including Paula. If Paula sues Del for the
injury she suffered, will Paula prevail?

A. Yes, if Paula's injury would have been prevented had the
motion detector been activated.
B. Yes, because Del was negligent in failing to activate the
motion detector.
C. No, because the storage and sale of firearms and ammunition
is not an abnormally dangerous activity.
D. No, unless there is evidence of circumstances suggesting a
high risk of theft and criminal use of firearms stocked by Del.

I hate calbar.......
11696
Author: Hmslf [21230]
25 Jun 2009 08:11 AM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		Hmslf

D is the best answer

15731
Author: Josette [77] Send Private Message
25 Jun 2009 08:17 AM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		Josette

D....looks good
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From:

15732
Author: raidermarc [21230]
25 Jun 2009 09:58 AM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		raidermarc

I agree D.

15734
Author: JohnS [6] Send Private Message
25 Jun 2009 11:55 AM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		JohnS

<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div>The answer should be A. Other choices are not good choices compared to A because A addresses the proximal causal relationship in negligence litigation.</div>
<div> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: verdana" webmail="1">
<div >-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: MBE Question Torts-Crim Law <BR>[00011696:00000000]<BR>From:

15738
Author: LLM [21230]
25 Jun 2009 12:07 PM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		LLM

D is the answer.

15740
Author: karizlyv [21230]
25 Jun 2009 01:38 PM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		karizlyv

I think I am the only one who likes B. I like D too though.

15742
Author: belandrei [300] Send Private Message
25 Jun 2009 02:34 PM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		belandrei

D: b/c articulates causation by substantial factor or foreseeable result.
Usually crime and intentional torts by 3rd parties are superseeding  force and cut chain of causation , but only when such actions are unforeseeable or  "highly extraordinary" under circumstances.


15746
Author: mm [21230]
25 Jun 2009 05:11 PM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		mm

I like D. Hi Batata can you give us the right answer.

15748
Author: jimmy [21230]
25 Jun 2009 06:49 PM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		jimmy

Proximate cause is a liability limiting doctrine based upon foreseeability, social utility and the gravity of the injury.

Where a force interrupts the chain of events between the action and injury, it is said to be intervening.

A foreseeable intervening force does not break the chain of events... thus the action is the proximate cause

Where an intervening force is unforeseeable... it is said to be a superceeding. Intervening forces that supercede break the chain of event -- and thus the action cannot be the proximate cause.

Third party torts and criminal activity are said to be both intervening and superceding... However where a third party tort or criminal activity is a foreseeable result from an action it is intervening.

Here, the shop owner knew there was a likelihood of theft of the guns. Therefore, he could foresee that negligently forgetting to set the alarm could result in the theft.

Because of the high gravity of harm of a stolen gun and the extreme likelihood that such harm would follow... the court will likely expand the zone of harm to the world.


15750
Author: jimmy [21230]
25 Jun 2009 06:51 PM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		jimmy

If you look at the above... that is the method I use to practice essays...MBE and the rules all at once.

Saves time and is effective. After all... MBE are just mini-essays. And your Bar Exam can be broken down into mini essays.


15751
Author: ebo82 [21230]
27 Jun 2009 02:31 AM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		ebo82

D...yawwwn. next please

15804
Author: Jeff [21230]
28 Jun 2009 01:59 AM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		Jeff

I like A also. Both A and D seem to be about causation. Why didn't anyone like A? I'm not saying D is wrong by any means, but I found it hard to choose between the two and eventually chose A rather than D. Any thoughts?

15834
Author: D [21230]
29 Jun 2009 12:39 AM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		D

D

15883
Author: NB [9] Send Private Message
29 Jun 2009 01:18 AM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		NB

A...I feel is the correct answer based on STRICT LIABILITY...and 'cause ' would be the factor to be considered..... b deals with Neg.   d. is not relevent because del is any way dealing in dangerous activity....

What do other say?

15886
Author: huh [21230]
29 Jun 2009 11:40 AM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		huh

D

The Q probably turns on the fact that D's gun cabinet was locked.

15900
Author: Josette [77] Send Private Message
29 Jun 2009 12:06 PM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		Josette

Or did the store owner act unreasonable.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From:

15902
Author: Josette [77] Send Private Message
29 Jun 2009 12:16 PM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		Josette

NB, that's one of the ways the MBE like to trip us up.

I approach all Tort MBE questions first by determine what area tort, intentional, neg, or strict. And eliminate

This question is not strict liability.

As you know strict liability is Abnormally Dangerous activity and Wild animals. So, let me ask you why do you feel this question is strict liability.

Fair:)
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From:

15903
Author: Young Silk [21230]
29 Jun 2009 02:47 PM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		Young Silk

I would choose a because of the causal link language.

15906
Author: NB [9] Send Private Message
30 Jun 2009 01:12 AM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		NB

Thanks Josette,... you seem to be right...I think, I overlooked the 'sporting' goods... part  (Burkett case)

15922
Author: Josette [77] Send Private Message
30 Jun 2009 01:28 AM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		Josette

Your welcome, NB, my belief we are all aspiring atty's and are here to learn from one another and to help each other grasp the law. It doesn't matter what law school we graduated from. We are all on the same page.

To prove my point, everyone of use know without a doubt Palsgraf,Terry V Ohio, and New York times paper cases.

We will all prevail. And those of you taking the Bar in July.....kick that bar butt and show the state bar what you got because in the end your clients will thank you ....

You never know we might all be partners in a law firm together.


Jo....

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From:

15923
Author: batata [140] Send Private Message
30 Jun 2009 03:28 AM
QuoteQuote ReplyReply 		batata

D is the correct answer. The commission of an intentional/criminal tort often supersedes the liability of the original negligent actor. (Thus B is not the best answer.) An exception occurs if the negligent act creates a condition such that a criminal act is the foreseeable consequence of that action. Del didn't forget to lock his door; he just forgot to set the alarm on his gun shop. While a thief who breaks into a gun shop is foreseeably looking for guns to commit crime with, the issue is whether the presence of an activated burglar alarm was necessary to prevent a high risk of theft and criminal use by potential burglars. D is the best choice because it addresses the appropriate issue of foreseeability that would create the duty to maintain an active alarm. B is incorrect. A is incorrect because it addresses causation. The issue of duty to keep the alarm set must be met before the issue of causation can be addressed, so D is the best answer. C does not address the appropriate theory of recovery. This is an issue of negligence, not strict liability. See the discussion for D, supra.
I hate calbar.......
15924
Add ReplyAdd Reply
Bar Exam
Active Forums 4.1
Bar Exam Links
California Bar Exam Essays
California Baby Bar Essays
Texas Bar Exam Essays
New York Bar Exam Essays
Georgia Bar Exam Essays
Massachusetts Bar Essays
Essay Frequency Chart
Bar Exam Mnemonics
Bar Exam Outlines
Bar Exam Flashcards
MBE Tips-Practice Qs
Sample Bar Exams (all states)
Law School Outlines
Law School Flashcards
MPRE Outlines
Essay-MBE Practice Timer
Contact-FeedBack
Books for Sale

Terms Of Use | Privacy Statement
Copyright 2009 by All4JDs.com aka AllForJDs.com and JDJinx.com

);