MBE Tip of the Day: Torts

Answer to the Torts MBE Question

Subject: Torts

Legal Issue: Is the restaurant liable for negligence?

Legal Rule and Analysis:  An invitee is a person that is entering a place held open to the public or is entering the premises with the purpose of conveying an economic or business-related benefit on the premises owner.  Premises possessors must exercise ordinary care to protect invitees from dangers that they either know or should know of.  Premises possessors owe invitees the duty to reasonably inspect the premises for dangerous conditions.

In the question at hand, the customer is clearly an invitee because he entered the property to convey an economic benefit to the owner.  The restaurant, therefore, had the duty to warn or make safe any dangers and to reasonably inspect the property.  However, in this case, there are no facts to indicate the restaurant acted unreasonably.  The spill occurred merely 1 minute prior to the accident and it would not be unreasonable for the spill to remain undiscovered by the restaurant at that time. Further, the facts state that no employees observed the collision.

Conclusion: The restaurant is not liable for negligence as no duty was breached.

Look at the answer choices provided. Choose an answer choice that matches your conclusion. Review the other answer choices provided.  The answer choice (D) is therefore correct. (A) is incorrect because there was no breach of duty. The duty is simply to behave reasonably and inspect the premises. The restaurant is not strictly liable for all harms that occur on the premises. (B) is incorrect because while the restaurant is liable for the torts of its employees in many cases, the restaurant is generally not liable for torts committed by customers (unless the restaurant itself responds inappropriately to those torts, which did not occur here). (C) is incorrect because just because there is a second guilty party does not negate any liability of the restaurant. Indeed, the customer could go after one or both parties (but could not recover twice for the same injury).

MBE Tip: Look for incorrect statements of law that allow you to eliminate an answer choice immediately.  Even if you don’t understand the fact pattern or are confused by how to apply the law in a specific situation, you can still increase your chances of getting the answer right through the process of elimination.  Take the question above. You may be immediately able to eliminate (B) or (C) if you understand the basics of vicarious liability. If so, only two or three possible answers remain.  A one in two or one in three chance of getting the answer right is certainly better than one in four!  By contrast, if you don’t know the law, you might first pick answer choice (D) (the correct one) but then second-guess yourself and choose (B) or (C) instead because they “sound better.” This is why knowing the law by itself is so important!