Rage mode activated. Sorry for this long whining post. Feel free to not read it -- I just need to bitch and moan.
Getting absolutely slaughtered by Torts MBE #5. The answer options for questions that ask "On which of the following issues does the result hinge," are almost all correct by logical definition. A bunch of the questions also ask you to make inferences about what the reasoning of an answer is, without indication from the answers themselves that that is the explanation at issue.
15. (Question ID#929)
A chemical company manufactured a liquid chemical product known as XRX. Some XRX leaked from a storage tank on the chemical company's property, seeped into the groundwater, flowed to a farmer's adjacent property, and polluted the farmer's well. Several of the farmer's cows drank the polluted well water and died.
If the farmer brings an action against the chemical company to recover the value of the cows that died, the farmer will
A. Prevail, because a manufacturer is strictly liable for harm caused by its products.
B. Prevail, because the XRX escaped from the chemical company's premises.
C. Not prevail, unless the farmer can establish that the storage tank was defective.
D. Not prevail, unless the chemical company failed to exercise reasonable care in storing the XRX. (My answer choice.)
Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. Under the traditional standard for res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff must prove that (i) the accident was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; (ii) it was caused by an agent or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and (iii) it was not due to any action on the part of the plaintiff. Here, absent negligence, the seeping of XRX into the groundwater would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, and the facility and chemical were under the exclusive control of the defendant. Finally, the accident was not due to any action on the part of the farmer. Therefore, the farmer can prevail. Answer choice A is incorrect as there is no evidence that the product, XRX, was unreasonably dangerous. Additionally, the statement is overreaching because a manufacturer is not always strictly liable for harm. Answer choice C is incorrect. It is not necessary that the farmer establish that the storage tank was defective. It is sufficient that he establish that the act of XRX seeping into the well water would not have occurred absent negligence and that storage tank was in the exclusive control of the defendant. Answer choice D is incorrect. Under res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff does not need to establish that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in the storing of its product. It is sufficient that the plaintiff establish that the event is the type that ordinarily would not have occurred absent negligence.
Notice how the correct answer is so because of res ipsa loquitur, which is not actually provided as part of the reasoning in the answer choice itself.
The answer explanation also includes elements for res ipsa that are not present in the correct answer choice either. It then explains that answer choice D is incorrect because the plaintiff doesn't have to prove negligence in a res ipsa claim. But choice D isn't about whether the plaintiff can or has to prove anything; it's simply about the objective fact of whether the defendant was negligent. If the defendant wasn't negligent, then the plaintiff probably isn't winning a res ipsa case even if the chemical did escape because the defendant could just prove that its facility was functioning properly. There's nothing offered in the question to suggest the defendant would have any trouble doing that.
Finally, why is it in fact true that "absent negligence, the seeping of XRX into the groundwater would not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence"? Why could it not just as easily occur because of a defective gas tank manufactured by a gas tank maker? A chemical plant exercising ordinary and prudent care could easily not notice a defective leaking gas tank.
