MBE QUESTIONS

No, because the father never made any promise to give the son $5,000

Every year for Christmas, a father gave his adult son a check for $5,000. The son, assuming his father would give him a check again for Christmas this year, purchased a $3,000 computer on credit two weeks before Christmas. The father, believing his son was too dependent on his money, did not give the son any money for Christmas. The son claims he can get $5,000 from his father in an action for promissory estoppel. Is the son correct?

No, because there is neither diversity jurisdiction nor a federal question

A State X school district hired a State X contractor to do environmental clean-up work and construction on an area of land that it planned to use as athletic fields for its state champion soccer teams. As part of the contract, the contractor agreed to reduce levels of contaminants to below federally mandated minimums, as set by EPA regulations. The EPA regulations do not provide for a private cause of action, but do provide for government-imposed penalties against any party in violation of the regulations. The contractor completed the work, certifying that it had done so within EPA regulations, but when an EPA inspector inspected the land, she determined that the level of contaminants on the property were still in violation of the EPA regulations. The school district filed suit in federal district court, arguing that the contractor had breached the contract under State X contract law because the contractor failed to reduce the contaminant levels to below federal minimums. The school alleged $500,000 in damages. The contractor argued that it did the work properly, and that the EPA inspector used faulty measurements. The EPA has not yet penalized the school district, and has given the school district one year to remedy the level of contaminants. Does the federal district court have jurisdiction over the case?

There was an illusory promise

A baker sold cookies at a farmer's market in her small coastal town every week. One week she experimented with a new type of cookie that she called a "penguin" which was a chocolate and vanilla cookie with frosting made to look like icicles. That week, Sally passing through the town stopped at the farmer's market and bought a penguin cookie. Sally loved the cookie, and said she wanted to buy as many as possible to send back to her friends and family. Sally agreed she would stop back at the farmer's market and buy "as many penguins" as the baker could make in the next week for $2 apiece. The baker agreed, and went to work baking 1,000 penguin cookies over the next week. At the next week's farmer's market, Sally failed to show up. The baker tracked Sally down, but Sally said she was back on her diet and did not want to be tempted by all the cookies, so she was no longer interested in the penguin cookies. The baker sued Sally for $2,000. What is Sally's best argument that there was not a valid contract?

Yes, because it is relevant to the issue of whether the electric scooter was properly assembled

A boutique electric scooter manufacturer experimented with a particular type of welding process to assemble his electric scooters. He sold a number of these electric scooters, but after several months a few of his loyal customers came in and said that this process seemed to result in loosely welded parts. One customer's electric scooter malfunctioned as a result of the process, and resulted in an accident in which she was injured. That customer told the manufacturer that she was not going to sue him, but that he should really think about changing the welding process. The manufacturer immediately improved the welding process that day, and began the process of trying to track down his previous customers to bring their electric scooters back in to be re-welded. Several days later, a man who had bought one of his electric scooters several weeks before sustained injuries when his electric scooter malfunctioned as a result of the welding process. He sues the manufacturer for his injuries and now seeks to introduce evidence of the manufacturer's improved welding process to show that his electric scooter had been improperly assembled. Should the court allow into evidence of the improved welding process?

No, because a reasonably prudent person could not foresee injury to the neighbor as a result of the driver's action

A city ordinance makes it unlawful to park a motor vehicle on a city street within ten feet of a fire hydrant. At 1:55 p.m. a driver, realizing he must be in his bank before it closed at 2:00 p.m., and finding no other space available, parked his automobile in front of a fire hydrant on a city street. The driver then hurried into the bank, leaving his aged neighbor as a passenger in the rear seat of the car. About five minutes later, and while the driver was still in the bank, a trucker was driving his tractor-trailer down the street. The trucker swerved to avoid what he mistakenly thought was a hole in the street and sideswiped the driver's car. The driver's car was turned over on top of the hydrant, breaking the hydrant and causing a small flood of water. The driver's car was severely damaged and the neighbor was badly injured. There is no applicable guest statute. If the neighbor asserts a claim against the driver, will the neighbor recover?

No, because the employee lacks the required mental state for murder

A common law jurisdiction defines first-degree murder as any murder that is (1) committed by means of poison or (2) premeditated. All other murder is second-degree murder, and manslaughter is defined as at common law. An employee was angry with her boss for denying her a raise. Intending to cause her boss discomfort, the employee secretly dropped into his coffee three over-the-counter laxative pills. The boss drank the coffee containing the pills. Although the pills would not have been dangerous to an ordinary person, because the boss was already taking other medication, he suffered a seizure and died. If the employee is charged with murder in the first degree, should she be convicted?

Yes, because the company did not have any purposeful contact with State B

A company sold a motorcycle to a man in State A. The man decided after he had bought the motorcycle that he would travel on the motorcycle across the country to State B. The man was seriously injured in an accident when the motorcycle had its front tire blow out while he was riding on a highway in State B. The man sued the company in federal court in state B. Diversity jurisdiction existed. The company filed a timely motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The long-arm statute in State B extended the reach of its courts to the limits of the United States Constitution. The accident in State B was the only contact that the company had with State B. Should the court grant the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction?

Yes, if the construction company could have removed or disassembled the ramps at little cost

A construction company is building a two-story plaza in town. The construction company has built a series of ramps that the carpenters and masons use to move materials from one level to another. These ramps remain set up even when the workers are not on-site. The teenage son of the site manager advises his father that many of his friends are using the ramps to jump into the air on their bicycles and skateboards. The next day, the site manager posts a sign at the site which states, "No Trespassing. Keep Off Ramps. Authorized Persons Only. No Skateboards or Bicycles." However, the site manager continued to find evidence that children had been riding bikes and skateboards on the property even after posting the signs. One week later, a 12-year-old boy rides his skateboard over one of the ramps, falls and suffers serious injuries. Is the construction company liable for the 12-year-old's injuries?

Denied because the dealer has no standing to object to the search

A dealer sold heroin to an addict. The addict was later stopped by two police officers for speeding 25 miles per hour over the speed limit. The officers required the addict to get out of the car. One of the officers told the addict he was arresting him pursuant to department policy of arresting all persons stopped for going more than 25 mph over the speed limit; that officer put the addict in handcuffs, escorted him to the patrol car, and kept watch over him there. The other officer searched the passenger compartment of the addict's car and found the heroin concealed under the rear seat. The dealer has now been charged with illegally selling the heroin found in the addict's car. The dealer's motion to prevent introduction of the heroin into evidence will most probably be

No, unless the driver was negligent

A driver was driving his car near a house when the homeowner's child darted into the street in front of the driver's car. As the driver swerved and braked his car to avoid hitting the child, the car skidded up into the homeowner's driveway and stopped just short of the homeowner, who was standing in the driveway and had witnessed the entire incident. The homeowner suffered serious emotional distress from witnessing the danger to his child and to himself. Neither the homeowner nor his property was physically harmed. If the homeowner asserts a claim for damages against the driver, will the homeowner prevail?

No, because compliance with the speed limit is merely evidence on the issue of negligence

A driver was driving through a school zone when a child ran into the street in front of the driver's truck. The driver slammed on his brakes but could not stop quickly enough and struck the child with his truck. In a negligence claim against the driver, the driver contended the claim must fail because he was driving below the 25 mph speed limit when the accident occurred. Is the driver correct?

The niece is entitled to receive a conveyance of the farm, because the letter and her services created a valid contract between her and her uncle

A fifty-year-old uncle wrote to his adult, unemployed niece and said: ''If you come and live with me and take care of me and my farm for the rest of my life, I will leave the farm to you in my will.'' The niece immediately moved in with her uncle and took care of him and the farm until the uncle was killed instantly in an automobile accident two weeks later. By his will, the uncle left his entire estate, including the farm, to his unmarried sister. The farm was reasonably worth $75,000. Which of the following best states the rights of the niece and the uncle's estate (or sister)?

No, because an elevator usually does not plunge five floors in the absence of negligence, and a reasonable jury could find that the elevator company was more likely than not responsible.

A hotel patron entered the hotel elevator on the tenth floor. The elevator plunged five floors and came to an abrupt halt. The incident was investigated, and it could not be determined what went wrong with the elevator. The patron brought a negligence suit against the elevator company, which installed and maintained the elevator. The elevator company filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the hotel patron had no evidence that the elevator company was negligent. Should the court grant the elevator company's motion for summary judgment?

No, because federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over divorce cases

A husband and wife were domiciled in State A. The couple had marital assets (net of all liabilities) that were valued at $250,000. One of the significant assets was an account that contained United States Savings Bonds. The husband decided that he wanted a divorce and moved to State B, with the intent to remain there indefinitely. The wife did not move. The wife sued the husband for divorce in the United States District Court for State A and alleged that she was entitled to one-half of the marital estate, $125,000. The husband moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion. Was the court correct to deny the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?

The fisher, because it was foreseeable that someone would try to rescue the kayaker

A kayaker was eager to get his craft in the water after a long winter. There had been significant snowfall over the winter, a very late thaw, and heavy rains in April. That meant that the water was high and moving very fast in the river where the kayaker liked to paddle. Aware of the danger, but tired of waiting for the water to recede, the kayaker put his craft in the river one warm May day and started to paddle downstream. He had traveled only a few hundred yards when his kayak was swamped, he lost his oar, and he went careening toward a section of dangerous rapids with no way to control the kayak. As he neared a bridge, a woman fishing off the bridge saw that the kayaker was floating without an oar. She tied herself to the bridge and dove into the river in an attempt to grab the kayak. The fisher successfully rescued the kayaker, but in the process suffered some injuries herself, for which she required hospitalization. The fisher sued the kayaker for the injuries she sustained in the rescue. Who will prevail?

The pedestrian loses, because the law firm is not responsible for the law clerk's negligence in these circumstances

A law clerk normally worked from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each day, or an average of 40 hours per week. One morning, the law clerk came to the office at 9:00 a.m. and started preparing a brief for an upcoming trial. After completing his work at 5:00 p.m. that afternoon, he was about to leave the office when the senior partner of the law firm summoned him. The senior partner told the law clerk that the law firm was representing an important client on an urgent matter that needed immediate research. The law clerk was advised that he would be required to stay at the law office that night and prepare a memorandum. When the law clerk hemmed and hawed, the senior partner handed him the file and said, "I don't care if you stay all night, but you better have this memo on my desk by 8:00 a.m. tomorrow." Following the senior partner's instructions, the law clerk stayed at the office until 2:00 a.m. preparing the memorandum. By the time he finished, the law clerk was totally exhausted after having worked a total of 17 hours that day. Afterward, the law clerk left the office and started to drive home. Because of his fatigue, he did not see a pedestrian crossing the street. His car struck the pedestrian, seriously injuring her. The pedestrian has asserted a tort action against the law firm to recover damages for her injuries. Which of the following is the most likely result?

Yes, because the doctor can show a connection between the increase in plaque in the patients' blood vessels and their having taken the supplement

A law professor used a new health supplement that purported to reduce the amount of plaque in blood vessels. He suffered a heart attack. His doctor told him that the health supplement had increased, rather than decreased, the amount of plaque in his blood vessels, thereby causing the heart attack. The law professor sued the company. The company defends on the grounds that nothing in the product would have the effect of increasing the amount of plaque in a person's blood vessels. At trial, the law professor calls a doctor to testify that she had treated 12 other patients who all experienced significant increases in plaque levels in blood vessels after beginning to use the supplement. As all other health factors were accounted for in these patients, the doctor concluded that the supplement was the cause of each patient's plaque increase. The company objects to the doctor's testimony. Should the court admit the doctor's testimony?

Yes, the statements are admissible except for the statement, "But I promise I will pay for all of your medical expenses."

A law school Dean was cleaning his office by himself one day, because the janitors were on strike and he had been unable to find a replacement. While taking out the garbage, he accidentally spilled some industrial cleaning solvent on a Man who was going through the law school's trash cans, looking for food to eat. The solvent burned the Man's skin. The Dean felt horrible, and said, "I am so sorry. I've been filling in for the janitors who are on strike, and I wasn't sure how to properly dispose of the cleaning solvent. In fact, I'm not even sure that stuff is safe to use. I really don't know what I'm doing. But I promise I will pay for all of your medical expenses." The Man sued the Dean and the law school in a negligence action to recover for his injuries. The Man seeks to submit the Dean's statements into evidence. Are the Dean's statements admissible?

The evidence should be excluded, because the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice

A law student is arrested and charged with the attempted arson of a local book store. At trial, the prosecution offers evidence that when the law student was arrested shortly after the crime was committed, he had a large amount of heroin hidden in the side pouch of his motorcycle. The law student's attorney objects to the admission of this evidence. How should the court rule?

No, because the contract was silent as to this condition

A local Little League team hires a batting coach. His employment contract reads, "Coach will provide batting coaching to the team once a week for two months at a rate of $100 per session." At the end of the first week, the team tenders the coach a check for a $100. He refuses to accept the check, demanding cash instead. Is the coach entitled to demand cash payment?

A duty to warn of any known dangerous conditions on the premises

A man was out taking a walk one evening when he realized that he needed to use a bathroom. The closest building was a private gymnasium. The man approached the building, and saw a sign on the door that said, "Members only--No restroom facilities available for non-members." The owner of the gym hung up the sign because he knew that people frequently entered the gym just to use the restroom, and he was annoyed by this. However, the owner of the gym knew that the sign was not effective and that people still regularly entered the gym just to use the restroom. The man needed to use the bathroom very urgently, so he entered the building despite the sign. The restrooms were near the front door of the gymnasium. The man walked directly to the restroom as soon as he entered the building. The clerk working at the front desk in the gymnasium was busy and did not notice the man enter the building or the restroom. After making use of the restroom facilities, the man washed his hands and proceeded to turn on the electric blow dryer. The dryer, because of a malfunctioning heating coil, emitted intense heat, which caused severe burns to the man's hands. The man was unaware of the fact that 15 minutes earlier, a gym member had received similar injuries from the malfunctioning dryer and notified the gym's owner. The owner immediately taped a "DO NOT USE" sign to the dryer. However, the sign had fallen to the floor and was lying face down under the bathroom sink when the man was making use of the restroom. Which of the following would best describe the duty of care that the gym owed to the man?

Murder

A man who is an explosives expert and inventor spends a great deal of time perfecting detonating devices that can change the power of a blast from a distance. The inventor regularly tests his inventions in a field next to a grammar school, because it is the only vacant field in the area. Normally, the inventor performs his testing only when children are not in school. However, a representative from a large company has just contacted the inventor and is willing to offer him an extremely lucrative deal if his product performs as promised in its marketing materials. The representative, who lives across the country, is in town only briefly and asks to meet with the inventor immediately to discuss the deal. When they meet, the inventor shows the representative all the data and test films for the product in question, but the representative wants to see the product in action. It is the middle of the day, and the inventor is a bit apprehensive about testing in the lot next to the school; however, he reasons that he has had never before had any mishaps and agrees to give the representative a personal demonstration. The demonstration consists of several explosions with a change in the blast power in the final second before detonation. After hearing several of the blasts, a teacher comes out of the neighboring grammar school to find out what is going on. As she steps onto the field, the largest of the blasts goes off, and she is barraged with debris, including a rock that enters her brain through her eye socket. She dies six months later from complications arising from the brain injury. Of which crime, if any, is the inventor likely to be found guilty?

No, unless the hospital's personnel failed to take reasonable steps to anticipate and prevent the mother's injury

A mother rushed her eight-year-old daughter to the emergency room at the local hospital after her daughter fell off her bicycle and hit her head on a sharp rock. The wound caused by the fall was extensive and bloody. The mother was permitted to remain in the treatment room and held her daughter's hand while the emergency room physician cleaned and sutured the wound. During the procedure, the mother said that she was feeling faint and stood up to leave the room. While leaving the room, the mother fainted and, in falling, struck her head on a metal fixture that protruded from the emergency room wall. She sustained a serious injury as a consequence. If the mother sues the hospital to recover damages for her injury, will she prevail?

Yes, because the defendant consented to jurisdiction in State A when the defendant signed the contract

A plaintiff corporation sued a defendant in federal court in State A. The defendant had no contacts with State A, and the cause of action did not arise out of or relate to any activities in State A. The defendant lived and worked in State B, which was adjacent to State A. The defendant filed timely to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff corporation asserted that personal jurisdiction existed in State A because the claim arose from a contract that contained a clause that permitted suits arising from the contract to be brought in any court in State A. The parties had negotiated over this clause and eventually agreed to it. The court denied the motion to dismiss. Was the court correct to deny the motion to dismiss?

Yes, because the defendant corporation did not have minimum contacts with State A

A plaintiff sued a defendant corporation in federal court in State A for a tort. The plaintiff had the defendant corporation duly served with process in State B, the only state where the defendant corporation was incorporated and where the corporation had its principal place of business. The corporation's tortious actions all occurred in State B. The only connection between the corporation and State A was that the corporation knew that its actions would harm the plaintiff in State A. The corporation filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion. Did the court err when it denied the motion to dismiss?

Yes, because there was a federal question in the case

A plaintiff sued two defendants in state court in State A. The plaintiff alleged a cause of action under federal law against the first defendant and a claim that arose under state law against the second defendant. All parties were citizens of State A. All claims arose from the same events. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of State A. The plaintiff moved to remand the case back to state court. The federal court denied the motion to remand. Was the federal court correct when it denied the motion to remand?

No, the housesitting friend had no reasonable expectation of privacy and the homeowner consent was valid

A police helicopter was searching for a fleeing suspect who had just robbed a convenience store when the officers in that helicopter observed what they thought was growing marijuana plants in the yard of one of the homes in the neighborhood. A tall gate surrounded the home's backyard making it impossible to see inside of the backyard from the ground. The police reported their findings to a detective. The detective called the homeowner and requested consent to search the backyard. The homeowner told the officers that she was currently out of the country, had been for the past six months, and that her friend was house sitting while she was gone. The homeowner then told the detective that the police could search the house. That friend was not in the home at the time the police arrived to search. When police searched the backyard, they found a large quantity of marijuana plants and charged the housesitting friend with growing, manufacturing, and trafficking in marijuana. Can the housesitting friend have the marijuana suppressed before trial?

Yes, because he was aware that he was being confined to the casino against his will

A regular patron at a casino was betting at a roulette table. A new player was also betting at that table. The new player attempted to cheat by placing a late bet after the roulette ball had come to rest. The dealer caught the new player in his attempt to cheat. The new player, however, immediately fled from the casino floor and was not caught. Almost immediately thereafter, casino security personnel surrounded the table where the regular patron had been playing. One of the security guards announced, "Folks, we know none of you were involved, but we need to get statements from all of you, so we can't let you leave." The regular patron, who had not even noticed the new player at the table, told a security officer that he did not see anything and attempted to leave. A large security officer told the patron, "You're not going anywhere until we get all the information you have, so take a seat." Five minutes later, the regular patron was allowed to leave the casino. If the regular patron files suit for false imprisonment, will he succeed?

No, because he will claim a private necessity and will be responsible for the food he ate

A rural community has intense thundershowers every summer that flood the roads leading to the nearby city, thereby stranding travelers. As a result, the rural community has created community shelters to be used by stranded travelers. These community shelters remain closed until the government of the community declares a state of emergency. One evening, a salesman was traveling from the rural community to the city, when his car's front right tire exploded. The salesman did not have a spare tire, and he was unable to get a cell phone signal to contact someone for assistance. As night fell, it began to rain. Desperate for a place to stay for the night, the salesman was able to unlock the door to a community shelter. Once inside, he ate some of the stored food. The next morning, the salesman was discovered by the groundskeeper who maintained the shelter. Will the salesman be liable for trespass for spending the night in the shelter?

The patient is an indigent whose care is paid for by the government

A schizophrenic patient who was institutionalized in a psychiatric facility pushed a nurse down a stairwell at the facility. The nurse, a paid employee of the facility who was trained to care for schizophrenic patients, was injured. The patient is an indigent whose care is paid for by the government. The jurisdiction generally follows the rule that a person with a mental deficiency is held to the standard of a reasonable person. In a negligence action brought by the nurse against the patient, the patient's lawyer will argue that the patient should not be held responsible for the nurse's injury. Which of the following facts will be LEAST helpful to the patient's lawyer's argument?

No, because girl was not a foreseeable plaintiff

An archer was practicing his archery in his backyard, which was part grass and part woods. He was practicing in the grassy area where his target was located and began to get very frustrated with his misses. He became increasingly frustrated, cursed, and shot an arrow into the woods in his yard. An eight year-old girl was looking for her lost rabbit, had gotten lost, and wandered onto the archer's property in the wooded area. The girl was hit square on her head by the arrow. She suffered massive internal bleeding in the skull, resulting in permanent loss of some brain function. The archer is worried he will be sued and contacts a friend who is an attorney. Will the archer be held liable for the girl's injuries?

Yes, because the statute period was tolled during the incompetency of the skier.

A skier purchased a parcel of land from a landowner when she was 30 years old. The skier intended to develop the parcel as a ski resort. The next year, however, the skier suffered a head injury and was declared legally incompetent before she could make any improvements to the land. Five years later, a snowboarder purchased the parcel next to the skier's parcel. The snowboarder built a large ski resort. A few years later, when the injured skier was 40 years old, the snowboarder inadvertently expanded her resort onto the skier's land. The skier never recovered from her head injury and died at age 51. The skier's daughter inherited the skier's estate. Four years after the skier's estate passed to the skier's daughter, the snowboarder was killed by a falling gondola. The snowboarder's children, a brother and a sister, inherited the resort as joint tenants. That same year, the skier's daughter sought to eject the brother and the sister from that part of their resort that was on the daughter's land. The jurisdiction's adverse possession statute states as follows: "An action to recover the title to or possession of real property shall be brought within 10 years after the cause thereof accrued, but if a person entitled to bring such action, at the time the cause thereof accrues, is within the age of minority, of unsound mind, or imprisoned, such person, after the expiration of 10 years from the time the cause of action accrues, may bring such action within 5 years after such disability is removed." Will the daughter prevail in her suit against the brother and the sister?

No, because the trooper properly obtained probable cause to search the back of the van

A state trooper followed a van with a broken taillight, attempting to get a look inside the van. He was not able to see inside the van, so he stopped the van and gave the driver a warning. While the trooper talked to the driver, the trooper's partner led a canine around the perimeter of the van. The canine detected the smell of marijuana from the back of the van. The trooper opened the back of the van and found large amounts of marijuana inside a suitcase. At trial, the driver argued that the trooper's search of the van violated his Fourth Amendment protections. Is he correct?

No, because the probative value of the refusal does not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect.

A store owner owned and operated a store that sold sewing materials and sewing machines. She filed a claim with her insurer for three sewing machines that she said were stolen. An insurance company claims adjuster became suspicious of the claim and wanted more information before paying the store owner's claim. The insurance company asked the store owner to submit to a polygraph test. She refused and filed an action to compel the insurance company to pay her claim. At trial, the insurance company seeks to introduce into evidence the fact that the store owner refused to submit to the polygraph test. Should the store owner's refusal be admitted into evidence?

Yes, because the items were the fruit of an illegal search

A tenant in an apartment building regularly stole decorative items from the lobby of his building. The landlord suspected the tenant of stealing from him, and asked a police officer friend to look into this. The officer came to the tenant's door, and told him that she had just moved in but was locked out, and asked whether she could stay in the tenant's apartment while she waited for a locksmith. The tenant allowed her to come inside. While inside, the police officer looked around and noticed that all the decorative items the landlord had mentioned were prominently on display in the tenant's apartment. The tenant noticed the officer looking at the items and told her she had to leave immediately. The officer returned with a warrant the following week and seized the items. The tenant was arrested for larceny. At trial, the tenant filed a motion to suppress the introduction of the seized items. Will this motion be successful?

No, because the homeowner did not owe a duty to the thief

A thief broke into a homeowner's home in search of valuables to steal. The homeowner had a pitbull dog. This pitbull was usually a gentle dog and had never attacked a person before, but was protective of the home. The pitbull attacked the thief. The thief sustained severe injuries from the dog attack and was in critical care for days. The thief sued the homeowner to recover for the injuries sustained by the pitbull. Will the thief recover?

No, because the neighbor was not at fault

A thief was in the act of siphoning gasoline from his neighbor's car in the neighbor's garage and without his consent when the gasoline exploded and a fire followed. A rescuer, seeing the fire, grabbed a fire extinguisher from his car and put out the fire, saving the thief's life and the neighbor's car and garage. In doing so, the rescuer was badly burned. If the rescuer asserts a claim against the neighbor for personal injuries, will the rescuer prevail?

A voluntary statement made by the woman about the color of a couch inside one of the homes

A woman was suspected in a string of break-ins. After finding her cell phone at the scene of one of the crimes, the woman was arrested and brought to the police station for questioning. Which of the following pieces of information requires a Miranda warning to be admissible?

Yes, because he caused an offensive contact with the woman's hat

A woman wore an expensive new hat to an art gallery opening. While the woman was viewing one of the paintings on display, a man approached and asked what she thought of the painting. The woman responded that the painting was hideous and should not be considered artwork. Unbeknownst to the woman, the man was the artist who had painted the painting. As the woman walked away, the man angrily knocked the hat off the woman's head. The woman did not notice that her hat had been knocked off her head until she walked past a mirror a few minutes later. Has the man committed battery?

No because Moe did not have a valid contract

After a great job interview, Pixer offered his services to Moe, a web site designer, for $50 per hour. Moe replied, "I'll get back to you tomorrow." The next day, just as Moe was about to accept Pixer's offer to work for him, Moe received an e-mail from Pixer that said, "Leaving for New Zealand. I'll call when I get back." In need of immediate services, Moe was forced to hire someone else for $100 per hour. Moe then filed an action for breach of contract against the Pixer seeking to recover the extra expenses he incurred. Will Moe prevail in the breach of contract action?

. Murder in the first degree, because, with premeditation and deliberation, he killed whoever would start the car

An employee decided to kill his boss, after she told him that he would be fired if his work did not improve. The employee knew his boss was scheduled to go on a business trip on Monday morning. On Sunday morning, the employee went to the company parking garage and put a bomb in the company car that his boss usually drove. The bomb was wired to go off when the car engine started. The employee then left town. At 5 a.m. Monday, the employee, after driving all night, was overcome with remorse and had a change of heart. He called the security officer on duty at the company and told him about the bomb. The security officer said he would take care of the matter. An hour later, the officer put a note on the boss' desk telling her of the message. He then looked at the car but could not see any signs of a bomb. He printed a sign saying ''DO NOT USE THIS CAR,'' put it on the windshield, and went to call the police. Before the police arrived, a company vice-president (not the boss) got into the car and started the engine. The bomb went off, killing her. The jurisdiction defines murder in the first degree as any homicide committed with premeditation and deliberation or any murder in the commission of a common-law felony. Second-degree murder is defined as all other murder at common law. Manslaughter is defined by the common law. The employee is guilty of:

No, because marijuana could be found almost anywhere inside a car

An officer pulled a man over for speeding. He asked the man for the man's license and registration, which the man handed over. The officer noticed that the man's eyes were bloodshot and that paper, used to roll marijuana cigarettes, was in a cup holder. The officer asked the man if the officer can look inside the car. The man said, "Yes, but not in the glove box." The officer searched the car, including the glove box and found marijuana in the glove box. Was the marijuana found in violation of the man's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures?

The neighbor can continue swimming the two laps and recover damages for breach of contract

Donald enjoyed humiliating people for his own amusement. He asked his neighbor who had recently lost his job if he wanted to make some extra cash. The neighbor said yes. Donald told the neighbor he would give him $500 if he went to the local Olympic-size swimming pool on Saturday dressed in a one-piece pink swimsuit and swam two full laps. The neighbor went to the store and bought a pink swimsuit. Once he arrived at the swimming pool, he jumped in and began swimming. As he did, Donald suddenly yelled, "I hereby revoke my offer." At this juncture, which of the following best states the legal rights and duties of the respective parties?

Yes, because the statute of limitations has not run

In 1989, Oliver, the owner of an estate, was adjudicated legally incompetent. In 1990, Albert entered adversely on land owned by Oliver. In 1993, Oliver died without regaining legal competence; however, Oliver left a valid will that devised his entire estate to Betty, who was under no disability at the time. The jurisdiction has a statute of limitations for adverse possession, which provides that, in the case of disability, the statutory period expires seven (7) years after the adverse possessor enters or ten (10) years after the owner's disability is removed, whichever date is later. In 1998, Betty sued Albert to quiet title in the estate. Should the court rule for Betty?

Homeowner will prevail against all defendants

In a neighborhood with spacious properties, Homeowner hired a tree surgeon to examine and maintain his trees. Next door, a girl frequently climbed a tall oak tree with branches extending onto Homeowner's property. One day, a branch broke, causing her to fall onto Homeowner's garage, resulting in injuries and damage. The girl's parents sued Homeowner and the tree surgeon, while Homeowner counter-sued the tree surgeon, the girl's parents, and the garage contractor. Discovery revealed the tree surgeon overlooked the high branches, and the contractor's framing was inadequate. Against which defendant, if any, is Homeowner likely to succeed?

Yes, because there was an offer for a unilateral contract that became irrevocable prior to Jerry's attempted revocation

Jerry told his neighbor's kid, "If you will get rid of my leaves, I will pay you $35." The neighbor's kid then purchased gasoline so he could use his leaf blower to blow the leaves into a pile. The neighbor's kid carried his leaf blower to Jerry's yard and started the engine of the leaf blower. At that moment, Jerry suddenly yelled, "I hereby revoke my offer." If the neighbor's kid thereafter blows the leaves out of Jerry's yard, will he recover the $35?

He knew of the great risk of death in the use of the strong cocaine because of his experience with the drug.

Jurisdiction I describes murder as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Such malice can be express or implied. It is expressly shown by a clearly deliberate unlawful taking of a human life. It is implied where there is no provocation or a malignant heart is shown. Manslaughter is defined as an unlawful killing without malice. Voluntary manslaughter is a killing upon the heat of passion or sudden provocation. Involuntary manslaughter is a killing without due caution or circumspection that risks death but is less than a malignant heart or in the course of an unlawful act that is not a dangerous felony. A boyfriend and a girlfriend began dating when they were in college. They had a stormy relationship, and the boyfriend began using various drugs, including meth and cocaine. The girlfriend confronted him about his drug use, and the boyfriend told the girlfriend that she was the one who drove him to using drugs. He insisted that she try some of his drugs in order to help her open up and be able to connect to him on a more personal level. The girlfriend was reluctant, but the boyfriend told her if she did not try cocaine, he would end their relationship. The girlfriend loved him and agreed. He prepared a line of cocaine for her, using the strongest drugs he had, and showed her how to ingest it. The girlfriend was nervous but did it anyway at the boyfriend's insistence. She died from the cocaine. In Jurisdiction I, what is the state's best argument for a murder conviction against the boyfriend?

Yes, because Donald intentionally used force that exceeded Leo's consent

Leo suffered a serious head injury while participating in a professional soccer game. Earlier in the game, Leo had accidently tripped Donald and all throughout the game, Donald was looking for a chance for payback. The injury occurred when Leo and Donald each tried to obtain possession of the ball when it rebounded from the goal after a missed shot at the goal. During that encounter, Leo was struck and injured by Donald's fist aimed at his head. Immediately after the contact, Donald was ejected from the game. Hitting someone in the head is not permitted in the rules of the game and will result in getting kick out of the game. Leo now seeks compensation from Donald. At the trial, evidence was introduced tending to prove that the game had been rough from the beginning, that elbows and knees had frequently been used to discourage interference by opposing players, and that Leo had been one of those making

Marsha, because there was a bargained-for exchange

Marsha, a struggling law student wished to rent an office to start up her own practice in her hometown once she completed her schooling. Her Aunt Vera, a realtor, wanted to help her out and promised to sell Marsha some law treatises for $1,000 when Marsha was ready to set up her practice. The actual retail value of the treatises was about $2,000. Marsha agreed and worked extra jobs in law school to save $1,000. Marsha passed the bar exam and secured a building to set up her practice. She sent a check to Aunt Vera for $1,000 and awaited delivery of the treatises. A few days later, Aunt Vera called and said that the treatises had already been sold and that she was returning Marsha's check. Marsha was furious and threatened to sue Aunt Vera. If Marsha sues Aunt Vera for breach of contract, who will prevail?

No, because Mike was not a foreseeable plaintiff within the "zone of danger."

Mike, aiming for a significant promotion at his law firm, faced a setback when his wife's salon stylist made a disastrous error in coloring her hair before a crucial dinner party where partners and their spouses played a key role. The partners, valuing both legal acumen and social skills, deemed Mike unfit for partnership due to the unfavorable impression created by his wife's hair. Mike, convinced this influenced his missed promotion, sued the salon for negligence, seeking to recover a $100,000 bonus and financial losses. Will he likely prevail in his negligence claim against the salon?

No contract exists because a posted offer has no legal effect

On August 1, Manufacturer of widgets mailed to Retailer of widgets the following written offer: "Will sell 100 widgets at our list price of $50 each. Available for immediate delivery. Please respond by return mail." Unaware of Manufacturer's offer, Retailer, also on August 1, mailed a written letter to Manufacturer containing the identical terms: "Will purchase 100 widgets at your list price of $50 each." Both letters were mailed through the U.S. postal system. Before either party has received the other's correspondence, which of the following accurately states the legal relationship between Manufacturer and Retailer?

The customer's letter was a proper acceptance of the florist's offer, effective upon the customer's mailing of the letter.

On May 15, a florist left a note for one of his customers, offering to pay him $2,000 for his truck, with delivery of the truck to be made to the flower shop before 1:00 p.m. on May 20. On May 16, the customer sent a letter to the florist indicating his acceptance of the florist's offer. However, the letter was delayed by a mix-up at the local post office and did not reach the flower shop until May 19. By then, not having not heard back from his customer, the florist had purchased another used truck for $1,800. On May 20, the customer drove his truck to the florist, arriving at about 12:55 p.m. At that time, the florist rejected the customer's truck, stating that he was no longer in need of a delivery truck. The customer filed suit against the florist for breach of contract. What was the legal effect of the customer's letter of May 16?

Owen will prevail, because his effective revocation terminated the buyer's power of acceptance.

Owen owned 25 lots in a prestigious subdivision e-mailed a potential buyer on September 15, indicating that he would sell any or all of the lots for $10,000 each. He also indicated that more details would be sent by regular mail. Several days later, Owen mailed a follow-up letter containing the necessary sales details regarding mortgages, terms of payment, and title insurance. According to the letter, the offer would remain open until October 15. On September 17, even though she had not yet received the detailed letter from Owen, the buyer mailed her acceptance of the offer—namely, she wished to buy Lot #12, a corner lot on the main road. Owen, however, sold all of the lots to another purchaser on September 21. On September 22, Owen then telephoned the buyer to tell her of the sale of all the lots. The buyer, having finally received Owen's original letter on September 25, then sent Owen another letter accepting his original offer, as e-mailed, and indicated that she would purchase all 25 lots. If the buyer files an action against Owen for breach of contract, what is the likely outcome?

It was improper to allow evidence of the new latches to prove a defect in the crib

Parents were in the process of assembling a crib for their newborn. They followed the instructions contained within the box holding the unassembled pieces of the crib. Once it was completed, the couple was very proud of themselves because this was the first project that they had ever endeavored to complete together. They placed their newborn into the crib for an afternoon nap the next day. An hour later, the couple heard a loud crash and rushed into the nursery to find their baby crying in the midst of a crumbled crib with a deep cut on the baby's arm. The couple wrote numerous letters to the manufacturer of the crib detailing the incident and threatening to sue. The manufacturers sent an email in return in which the manufacturer expressly thanked the couple for bringing the design defect to their attention and offered to pay of the baby's medical expenses. The couple responded by letter in which they offered to settle case for five thousand dollars and admitted that they had been worried that they had made a mistake by not reading all of the instructions in assembling the crib. The manufacturer rejected the settlement offer and subsequently added two new latches to all of the cribs it sold. The couple pursued the case to trial and won. Which of the following would be a proper basis for appeal by the manufacturer?

Yes as habit evidence

Plaintiff was injured when his car struck a utility pole that was negligently placed too close to the road by the electric company. Immediately after the accident, a police officer arrived to give aid to the Plaintiff. She noticed the Plaintiff sitting behind the wheel, and that he was not wearing a seatbelt. Plaintiff later filed a negligence action against the electric company. The electric company defended on a theory that Plaintiff was negligent in not wearing his seatbelt. In support of that defense, the electric company called the police officer to testify that Plaintiff was not wearing his seatbelt. In rebuttal, Plaintiff offered the testimony of his wife, who testified that the Plaintiff invariably wore his seatbelt while driving. The electric company's attorney objected to the wife's testimony. Is the wife's testimony admissible?

The police did not give him the required Miranda warnings

Police, who had probable cause to arrest a man for a series of armed robberies, obtained a warrant to arrest him. At 6 a.m. they surreptitiously entered the man's house and, with guns drawn, went to the man's bedroom, where they awakened him. Startled, the man asked, "What's going on?" and an officer replied, "We've got you now." Another officer immediately asked the man if he had committed a particular robbery, and the man said that he had. The police then informed him that he was under arrest and ordered him to get dressed. Charged with robbery, the man has moved to suppress the use of his statement as evidence. What is the man's best argument for granting his motion?

second degree murder

The State of Madison has enacted a statute providing that (1) first degree murder is "a deliberate and premeditated killing"; (2) second degree murder is "an unlawful killing with malice aforethought"; and (3) manslaughter is "either an unlawful killing committed with adequate provocation or an unlawful killing committed through criminal negligence." A worker, a resident of the State of Madison, is distraught over his recent dismissal from his job, which he had held for 20 years. The day following his dismissal, the worker returns to his former employer's place of business with two loaded handguns. The worker enters the building and confronts the owner of the business. Waving the two handguns around indiscriminately, the worker shouts, "You'd better give me my job back, or I'm going to start shooting!" Concerned for the safety of her employees and customers, the owner dives at the worker in an attempt to disarm him. As the owner tackles the worker, one of the handguns hits the ground and discharges. A customer is shot and killed. The worker is guilty of:

A contractual offer by the faculty, creating a power of acceptance in any offeree

The faculty of a mathematics institute posts a notice on the student bulletin board that states: "To encourage research and learning, the administration hereby offers an incentive of $5,000 cash to any student of this school who researches and writes an article on the topic of practical applications of mathematics for household use that is published in a magazine or newspaper with a circulation of 25,000 or more. All articles for the competition must be submitted to the dean's office prior to December 1." The faculty's posted notice is:

Yes, because the cooking school's notice of conditions to enter the cooking contest constituted a unilateral contract, which the student accepted by entering and winning the contest

The head chef of a prestigious cooking school sponsored a contest. He had all instructors post the following notice: "This cooking institution hereby offers a one-year scholarship for the coming academic year to any student currently enrolled in this institute who enters and wins this year's Healthy Chef competition. This is the annual competition sponsored by Healthy Life magazine. All menus and recipe entries must be submitted to the Head Chef's office by January 10, as well as to Healthy Life magazine." A cooking student saw the notice and decided to enter the contest. He left a note on the main counter of the Head Chef's office which stated, "I accept the Head Chef's offer of a one-year scholarship upon winning this year's Healthy Chef competition." On January 1, the student sent his original menu and recipes to Healthy Life magazine for entry in the competition. He simultaneously submitted copies to the Head Chef's office. On April 15, Healthy Life magazine notified the student that he had won the Healthy Chef contest. The student was delighted, and in reliance upon the promised one-year scholarship, he did not submit his tuition payment for the following year. When he was contacted by the school's bursar's office regarding the unpaid tuition, he told the administrator that his tuition was covered by a one-year scholarship. The administrator informed the student that if he did not submit tuition payment within 15 days, he would be expelled. Is the Head Chef's one-year scholarship offer enforceable?

First-degree murder

The owner of a 23-hour convenience store hired his friend as a sales clerk. However, when the owner noticed that large amounts of merchandise were disappearing during his friend's shift at the store, he fired his friend without offering him any chance to explain. They now play on a softball team together. During the final game of the season, while trying to make a double-play, the former clerk accidentally hit the store owner with the softball. The store owner was furious, convinced that his former clerk had acted intentionally, in retaliation for being fired. After the game, the store owner waited in the parking lot, sipping whisky from his ever-present flask. When he saw his former clerk walking toward his car, the store owner charged at him with a baseball bat, saying, "You just played your last game!" He pummeled his former clerk and left him lying there unconscious. Later, another player on the team called the store owner and told him, "Your friend is dead!" The store owner responded, "Good!" Of what crime is the store owner guilty?

Yes, because none of the exceptions to the warrant requirement apply

While on his evening foot patrol, an officer heard loud music coming from a basement apartment. The curtains were drawn except for a two inch opening. The officer walked into the stairwell leading to the door and observed the renter and her boyfriend inhaling cocaine through a plastic straw. The officer announced his presence and demanded that the renter open up the door. The renter opened the door and was immediately arrested along with her boyfriend on drug charges. At her trial, the renter moves to suppress evidence of the cocaine. Should the court grant the motion?

Denied, because the statement was volunteered

The police had over time, accumulated reliable information that a drug dealer operated a large cocaine distribution network, that he and his accomplices often resorted to violence, and that they kept a small arsenal of weapons in his home. One day, the police received reliable information that a large brown suitcase with leather straps containing a supply of cocaine had been delivered to the drug dealer's home and that it would be moved to a distribution point the next morning. The police obtained a valid search warrant to search for and seize the brown suitcase and the cocaine and went to the drug dealer's house. The police knocked on the drug dealer's door and called out, ''Police. Open up. We have a search warrant.'' After a few seconds with no response, the police forced the door open and entered. Hearing noises in the basement, the police ran down there and found the drug dealer with a large brown suitcase with leather straps. They seized the suitcase and put handcuffs on the drug dealer. A search of his person revealed a switchblade knife and a .45-caliber pistol. The drug dealer cursed the police and said, "You never would have caught me with the stuff if it hadn't been for that lousy snitch!'' In addition to charges relating to the cocaine in the suitcase, the drug dealer is charged with unlawful possession of weapons. The drug dealer moves pretrial to suppress the use as evidence of the weapons seized by the police and of the statement he made. As to the drug dealer's statement, his motion to suppress should be:

Yes, because there was incomplete diversity of citizenship

Two plaintiffs sued a defendant in federal court for a state law tort cause of action for which there was no statutory cap on damages. The plaintiffs each alleged that more than $75,000 was in controversy as to his claim, and demanded a judgment for more than $75,000, but neither pled these damages with particularity. The first plaintiff was domiciled in State B but moved before the suit was filed to State A. This first plaintiff resided in State A at the time the suit was filed but at all times intended to return to State B upon the completion of a temporary work assignment. The second plaintiff was domiciled at all times in State A. The defendant was a corporation incorporated under the laws of State C with its principal place of business in State B. Just before trial, after two years of pleadings, discovery, and a final pretrial conference, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion. Was the trial court correct to grant the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?

Yes, if he suffered severe mental distress

When his wife was ready to deliver their third child, a husband took her to the hospital, where she was admitted to the labor and delivery floor. Prior to the delivery date, the couple had given the hospital all of the necessary information, including the couple's health insurance information. Two months after the birth of the child, the couple began receiving bills from the hospital for services that should have been covered by their insurance. The husband contacted the hospital and his health insurance carrier, both of which assured him that the matter had been resolved and that the husband could disregard the notices. Three months later, a collections agent appeared at the couple's home. The collections agent arrived on an evening when the husband and his wife were entertaining numerous friends and family members. When the husband answered his door, the agent began yelling at the husband about the hospital bills. "Why haven't you paid these bills, you bum?" the agent shouted, loud enough for all of the husband's guests to hear. "Don't you think you're the kid's real father?" The husband became agitated and slammed his front door in the collections agent's face. A large brass knocker on the front of the door swung up and struck the agent, injuring his eye. The husband sued the collections agent for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Will the husband prevail?

The concussion

While doing sit-ups at the gym, a man was struck in the head by a large weight plate that the woman next to him accidentally dropped. The woman was a new member of the gym, and had not taken the informational class the gym offered to new gym members. The man was knocked unconscious and suffered a concussion. An ambulance rushed to take the man to the hospital. On the way, it unexpectedly and suddenly began to storm very heavily. The ambulance driver lost control of the ambulance, and it crashed into a telephone pole. The man, still unconscious, was knocked into some equipment in the ambulance, and suffered a broken leg. What, if anything, is the woman liable for?

No, because the brother's promise was not supported by consideration

While pregnant, a woman and her boyfriend broke up. The woman moved in with her brother, sister-inlaw, and their kids. The brother told the woman she and the baby could live with them rent-free through her maternity leave. When the woman was in the hospital after having her baby, the brother told her that he had changed his mind, and she and the baby could not live at his house. Is the brother contractually obligated to let the woman live at his house through the woman's maternity leave?

Yes, because the bank could not revoke its offer once the customer had commenced performance

While waiting in line to open an account with a bank, a customer read a poster on the bank's wall that said, ''New Customers! $25 FOR 5 MINUTES. If you stand in line for more than five minutes, we will pay you $25! We like happy customers! (This offer may be withdrawn at any time.)'' The customer started timing his wait and just as five minutes was about to pass, the bank manager tore the poster down and announced, ''The $25 stand-in-line promotion is over.'' The customer waited in line for ten more minutes before being served. In the customer's action against the bank for $25, will the customer prevail?