MO Bar Torts

Question 1

A plaintiff sues a defendant for negligence after slipping on a wet floor in a store. To establish a prima facie case, which element does the plaintiff NOT need to prove?

Accepted Answer

Defendant's intent to cause harm

Answer

Negligence does not require proof of intent; the plaintiff must only show duty, breach, causation, and damages.

Question 2

Under the 'but-for' test of actual causation, a defendant's conduct is the cause-in-fact of plaintiff's injury when:

Accepted Answer

The injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent conduct

Answer

The but-for test asks whether the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent act.

Question 3

Which of the following best describes the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur?

Accepted Answer

Negligence may be inferred when the injury is of a type that ordinarily does not occur without negligence

Answer

Res ipsa loquitur allows negligence to be inferred when the harm is of a type that would not ordinarily occur absent negligence and the instrumentality was in the defendant's control.

Question 4

A battery claim requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant:

Accepted Answer

Intended to cause harmful or offensive contact and contact resulted

Answer

Battery requires intentional harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff's person.

Question 5

Under pure comparative fault, a plaintiff who is 60% at fault for their own injury and suffered $100,000 in damages would recover:

Accepted Answer

$40,000

Answer

Under pure comparative fault, a plaintiff recovers damages reduced by their own percentage of fault regardless of how large that percentage is, so $100,000 × (1 − 0.60) = $40,000.

MO Bar - Missouri Bar Exam Practice Test

MO Bar - Missouri Bar Exam Practice Test

MO Bar Torts