TORTS — FREE MBE PRACTICE QUESTIONS
A free sample of NCBE-style Torts questions with full per-choice explanations. Click “Reveal” after you commit to an answer. Pair these with the Torts Master Outline and its one-sheet.
📝 Want the full bank? These are a free sample. Drill thousands of NCBE-style MBE questions — with per-choice rationales, named trap analysis, an adaptive weak-spot engine, and a predicted-score tracker — at MBEMax. Your first 10 MBE questions and the entire MPRE bank are free. Part of the ALL4JDS / Bar Exam Project family.
QUESTION 1 — Strict Products Liability - Service Provider Exception (medium)
Dentist Dr. Naomi Park installed a custom dental crown manufactured by a third-party lab for patient Tyler Boone. The crown fractured because of a manufacturing flaw unrelated to Park's installation technique. Boone suffered oral injury. Boone sued Park under strict products liability. Is Park strictly liable as a seller of the crown?
(A) Yes, because Park transferred the crown to Boone for a price.
(B) Yes, because any professional who supplies a product is a seller for strict liability.
(C) No, because Park primarily furnished professional dental services and the crown was incidental to treatment.
(D) No, unless Boone proves Park manufactured the crown herself.
► Reveal answer & explanations
Correct answer: C. Correct. Service providers such as dentists are not sellers of products used incidentally in rendering services and are not strictly liable for manufacturing defects in those products.
Why the others are wrong:
(A) Incorrect. Receipt of payment alone does not make a service provider a seller when services are primary.
(B) Incorrect. Professionals furnishing incidental products during services are generally not sellers under strict products liability.
(D) Incorrect. The service-provider exception applies regardless of who manufactured the product.
Black-letter rule: Under strict products liability, a service provider who furnishes products incidental to professional services is generally not treated as a seller of those products.
Trap: Treats any paid transfer of a product as strict-liability sale.
Memory hook: Dentist fixes tooth, not sells crown — service not seller.
QUESTION 2 — Negligence - Defenses and Rebuttal of Prima Facie Case (medium)
Driver Rosa Mendez swerved into another lane when a child suddenly ran into the street from between parked cars in Austin. Mendez struck parked vehicle owner Paul Neri's car. Neri sued Mendez for negligence. How does the sudden emergency doctrine affect Mendez's duty of care?
(A) It eliminates Mendez's duty of care entirely.
(B) It excuses Mendez from liability if any emergency existed.
(C) It adjusts the standard of care to what a reasonable person would do under the sudden emergency, without excusing negligence.
(D) It applies only if Mendez did not cause the emergency.
► Reveal answer & explanations
Correct answer: C. Correct. The sudden emergency doctrine considers whether a reasonable person facing a sudden emergency would have acted as Mendez did, but it does not eliminate the duty to act reasonably.
Why the others are wrong:
(A) Incorrect. The doctrine does not eliminate duty; it contextualizes the reasonable-person standard.
(B) Incorrect. An emergency does not automatically excuse liability.
(D) Incorrect. While causation of the emergency matters in some analyses, the doctrine primarily adjusts the care standard rather than requiring the defendant to have not caused the emergency in all jurisdictions.
Black-letter rule: The sudden emergency doctrine adjusts the negligence standard to what a reasonable person would do under sudden peril but does not eliminate the duty of reasonable care.
Trap: Treats sudden emergency as automatic excuse from liability.
Memory hook: Sudden peril tweaks reasonable care — doesn't erase duty.
QUESTION 3 — Battery - Implied Consent to Ordinary Social Contact (easy)
At a company holiday party in Seattle, coworker Mia Santos tapped colleague Greg Olsen on the shoulder to get his attention across a noisy room. Olsen suffered no injury but sued Santos for battery. Does Santos have a valid defense?
(A) Yes, implied consent covers customary, nonharmful social contact reasonably expected in such settings.
(B) Yes, because Olsen consented by attending a social event.
(C) No, any intentional touching without express consent is battery.
(D) No, unless Santos proves Olsen previously allowed shoulder taps.
► Reveal answer & explanations
Correct answer: A. Correct. Implied consent protects intentional contacts that are customary and reasonably foreseeable in ordinary social intercourse, such as a light shoulder tap to attract attention.
Why the others are wrong:
(B) Incorrect. Attending a party does not consent to all touching, only to customary social contact.
(C) Incorrect. Battery requires lack of consent, but implied consent exists for ordinary social touching.
(D) Incorrect. Prior express permission is not required for customary brief social contact.
Black-letter rule: Implied consent extends to intentional contacts that are customary in ordinary social intercourse and within the scope of what a reasonable person would expect.
Trap: Treats any intentional touch without express consent as battery.
Memory hook: Light social tap = implied OK; punch = battery.
QUESTION 4 — Strict Products Liability - Manufacturing Defect (medium)
Wholesaler sold retailer a batch of electric heaters. Unknown to both, a factory assembly error left internal wiring exposed. Consumer Nora Blake bought a heater from retailer and suffered burns when the defect caused a fire. Is wholesaler strictly liable to Blake?
(A) Yes, as a commercial seller in the distribution chain for a manufacturing-defective product causing physical injury.
(B) Yes, only if wholesaler knew of the wiring defect.
(C) No, because wholesaler did not manufacture the heater.
(D) No, unless Blake sued retailer first.
► Reveal answer & explanations
Correct answer: A. Correct. Commercial sellers in the distribution chain are strictly liable for manufacturing defects causing physical harm regardless of privity or knowledge.
Why the others are wrong:
(B) Incorrect. Strict products liability for manufacturing defects does not require seller knowledge.
(C) Incorrect. Nonmanufacturing commercial sellers remain strictly liable for defective products they sell.
(D) Incorrect. Plaintiff may sue any liable seller in the chain without exhausting remedies against retailer first.
Black-letter rule: Commercial sellers in the chain of distribution are strictly liable for manufacturing defects in products that cause physical injury, regardless of privity or lack of fault.
Trap: Limits strict liability to manufacturers only.
Memory hook: Bad wiring at factory — every commercial seller in chain pays.
📝 Want the full bank? These are a free sample. Drill thousands of NCBE-style MBE questions — with per-choice rationales, named trap analysis, an adaptive weak-spot engine, and a predicted-score tracker — at MBEMax. Your first 10 MBE questions and the entire MPRE bank are free. Part of the ALL4JDS / Bar Exam Project family.
Keep studying: Torts Master Outline · Torts One-Sheet · How to Attack the MBE.