Barbri paced program question? Forum

[jd20132013]

why, does that seem low? i don't remember where i read it, but i have read it several times. it is also consonant with Barbri's explanation of the score on the simulated MBE

[Stringer6]

why, does that seem low? i don't remember where i read it, but i have read it several times. it is also consonant with Barbri's explanation of the score on the simulated MBE

seemed high

but i don't know

[jd20132013]

in fact on the simulated MBE explanation they said that last year a raw 126 was scaled 143.

you get less scaled points the higher your raw is, though.

[Stringer6]

in fact on the simulated MBE explanation they said that last year a raw 126 was scaled 143.

you get less scaled points the higher your raw is, though.

thanks for this

this is awesome

[mvpforme]

in fact on the simulated MBE explanation they said that last year a raw 126 was scaled 143.

you get less scaled points the higher your raw is, though.

thanks for this

this is awesome

So what are we talking for somebody scoring around ~143-147 on Barbri's exams (simulated, sfe (x2), full day, etc.)?

[At the Drive-In]

How much of a "bump" do we get from scaling on the MBE? Anybody what approximately is necessary for a 155? 160?

The actual numbers are going to depend on your state (MBE's are scaled state-to-state rather than nationwide, with certain states like New York being pretty hard) as well as the general difficulty of this year's MBE.

Some states don't really release their MBE scales with as much frequency either.

But, a 155 scaled is about a 141 raw. a 160 scaled is probably about 147ish. That's using approximation from California's MBE's, which are slightly tougher than what BarBri claims is the national average, but the higher your score off of average, the less deviation there is between states.

Anything higher than that and you're probably only going to scale 9-10 points.

[At the Drive-In]

in fact on the simulated MBE explanation they said that last year a raw 126 was scaled 143.

you get less scaled points the higher your raw is, though.

thanks for this

this is awesome

So what are we talking for somebody scoring around ~143-147 on Barbri's exams (simulated, sfe (x2), full day, etc.)?

Again, depends on your state, the difficulty of this particular MBE, etc, but assuming you hold steady at 143/190 for the actual MBE, you're probably looking at ~156ish scaled.

[pizzasodafries]

For Wild Animals, there is strict liability imposed. I know for a Vicious Dog you get an exception if it bites a trespasser, does that trespasser exception apply to Wild Animals as well? Say your snake or pet tiger bit the trespasser seriously, would you be strictly liable?

[Law-So-Hard]

For Wild Animals, there is strict liability imposed. I know for a Vicious Dog you get an exception if it bites a trespasser, does that trespasser exception apply to Wild Animals as well? Say your snake or pet tiger bit the trespasser seriously, would you be strictly liable?

Strict liability applies to wild animals. The landowner is strictly liable despite whatever precautions have been taken to protect others from the wild animal (declawing a bob cat, keeping animal in a high tech cage, posting numerous warnings).

[pizzasodafries]

For Wild Animals, there is strict liability imposed. I know for a Vicious Dog you get an exception if it bites a trespasser, does that trespasser exception apply to Wild Animals as well? Say your snake or pet tiger bit the trespasser seriously, would you be strictly liable?

Strict liability applies to wild animals. The landowner is strictly liable despite whatever precautions have been taken to protect others from the wild animal (declawing a bob cat, keeping animal in a high tech cage, posting numerous warnings).

yep, that's what I thought but one of the Tort questions in the problem sets (i think 5th one) had a case where there was a drunken driver and he smashed into residential property, knocked into a snake cage and the snake bit him seriously and the answer was there was no liability since he was a trespasser.

My notes only had the trespasser exception applying to the Vicious Dog, for Wild Animals it seemed like Strict Liability all the way around but that question seriously confused me.

[Law-So-Hard]

For Wild Animals, there is strict liability imposed. I know for a Vicious Dog you get an exception if it bites a trespasser, does that trespasser exception apply to Wild Animals as well? Say your snake or pet tiger bit the trespasser seriously, would you be strictly liable?

Strict liability applies to wild animals. The landowner is strictly liable despite whatever precautions have been taken to protect others from the wild animal (declawing a bob cat, keeping animal in a high tech cage, posting numerous warnings).

yep, that's what I thought but one of the Tort questions in the problem sets (i think 5th one) had a case where there was a drunken driver and he smashed into residential property, knocked into a snake cage and the snake bit him seriously and the answer was there was no liability since he was a trespasser.

My notes only had the trespasser exception applying to the Vicious Dog, for Wild Animals it seemed like Strict Liability all the way around but that question seriously confused me.

I'm looking at the question now. And looked around on Google a bit too. Apparently there's an exception: trespassers may generally not recover under strict liability. LO is strictly liable only when the individual on the land is an invitee/licensee. What I'm reading now says trespassers could recover under strict liability when the LO has a vicious watchdog (b/c it's kept to protect the property and LO knows dog is likely to cause serious bodily harm).

What if it's a known trespasser? Presumably the known trespasser could recover?

[Law-So-Hard]

For Wild Animals, there is strict liability imposed. I know for a Vicious Dog you get an exception if it bites a trespasser, does that trespasser exception apply to Wild Animals as well? Say your snake or pet tiger bit the trespasser seriously, would you be strictly liable?

Strict liability applies to wild animals. The landowner is strictly liable despite whatever precautions have been taken to protect others from the wild animal (declawing a bob cat, keeping animal in a high tech cage, posting numerous warnings).

yep, that's what I thought but one of the Tort questions in the problem sets (i think 5th one) had a case where there was a drunken driver and he smashed into residential property, knocked into a snake cage and the snake bit him seriously and the answer was there was no liability since he was a trespasser.

My notes only had the trespasser exception applying to the Vicious Dog, for Wild Animals it seemed like Strict Liability all the way around but that question seriously confused me.

I'm looking at the question now. And looked around on Google a bit too. Apparently there's an exception: trespassers may generally not recover under strict liability. LO is strictly liable only when the individual on the land is an invitee/licensee. What I'm reading now says trespassers could recover under strict liability when the LO has a vicious watchdog (b/c it's kept to protect the property and LO knows dog is likely to cause serious bodily harm).

What if it's a known trespasser? Presumably the known trespasser could recover?

and, LO is strictly liable for the "trespass" of his own wild animals.

[pizzasodafries]

For Wild Animals, there is strict liability imposed. I know for a Vicious Dog you get an exception if it bites a trespasser, does that trespasser exception apply to Wild Animals as well? Say your snake or pet tiger bit the trespasser seriously, would you be strictly liable?

Strict liability applies to wild animals. The landowner is strictly liable despite whatever precautions have been taken to protect others from the wild animal (declawing a bob cat, keeping animal in a high tech cage, posting numerous warnings).

yep, that's what I thought but one of the Tort questions in the problem sets (i think 5th one) had a case where there was a drunken driver and he smashed into residential property, knocked into a snake cage and the snake bit him seriously and the answer was there was no liability since he was a trespasser.

My notes only had the trespasser exception applying to the Vicious Dog, for Wild Animals it seemed like Strict Liability all the way around but that question seriously confused me.

I'm looking at the question now. And looked around on Google a bit too. Apparently there's an exception: trespassers may generally not recover under strict liability. LO is strictly liable only when the individual on the land is an invitee/licensee. What I'm reading now says trespassers could recover under strict liability when the LO has a vicious watchdog (b/c it's kept to protect the property and LO knows dog is likely to cause serious bodily harm).

What if it's a known trespasser? Presumably the known trespasser could recover?

I really don't think we have to go this deep into the law, pretty sure they gonna test us on whether strict liability applies or if the victim was a trespasser. Having us also distinguish if the trespasser was a known trespasser or garden variety one is a bit too much for me to think about!

Yeah the vicious dog with the defense of property question was a load of shit. How were we supposed to come up with that in under 2 mins, there were like 7 different factors to consider in that question.

We had a child playing, ball went into neighbors yard, there was a sign that said "Warning Dog", the dog was a "watchdog", child trespassed, was seriously injured and the most annoying part of it was, we never found out if the kid found his ball or not!

[dudnaito]

Not a BarBri taker but that snake cage one is, I'm pretty sure, an actual MBE question, and the distinction between an anticipated/unanticipated trespasser is a commonly tested concept.

[pizzasodafries]

Not a BarBri taker but that snake cage one is, I'm pretty sure, an actual MBE question, and the distinction between an anticipated/unanticipated trespasser is a commonly tested concept.

Ok I stand corrected. So in that case, the driver was reckless and trespassed into the snake pit. Probably can't be anticipated trespasser given those facts so Strict Liability cant apply to him. If for whatever reason trespassers ALWAYS went through the snake pit owners property, then would Strict Liability be applied to the known trespasser?

[northwood]

Not a BarBri taker but that snake cage one is, I'm pretty sure, an actual MBE question, and the distinction between an anticipated/unanticipated trespasser is a commonly tested concept.

Ok I stand corrected. So in that case, the driver was reckless and trespassed into the snake pit. Probably can't be anticipated trespasser given those facts so Strict Liability cant apply to him. If for whatever reason trespassers ALWAYS went through the snake pit owners property, then would Strict Liability be applied to the known trespasser?

if the owner knows that trespassers come onto his property he has a duty to prevent harming those trespassers from the dangerous object.. If trespassing is known to occur to the owner, and the landowner knows or should have known there is a dangerous object on his land, then he has a duty to prevent the known harm from occurring. So if the reckless driver trespassed onto his land ( an act that the owner was on notice could occur) and was injured from the snake pit ( dangerous object) then the landowner would be strictly liable.


but lets say for intances that there was an old civil war land mind but its of the non explosive variety) on the landowners's beet farm, and the trespassing driver drove over the landmind and managed somehow to get injured from this unknown object that until the trespasser was injured the landowern was unaware of and had no reason to be aware of it. here the landowner would NOT be liable because he was unaware of the latent danger and thus he has no duty to prevent this harm. Note that hthis rule may be changed depending on your state distinction.

[july14bar]

Question: Distinguishing between anticipated and unanticipated trespassers

So trespassers would probably qualify as "anticipated" if the landowner lives next to a park with trails, has seen trespassers in the past, etc.

Alternatively, if the exam mentions living in the middle of nowhere or something to that effect, trespassers would probably be "unanticipated."

But what if the landowner lives in a suburban area and has never seen trespassers? Or lives in the middle of nowhere and saw a trespasser once three years ago?

[At the Drive-In]

Question: Distinguishing between anticipated and unanticipated trespassers

So trespassers would probably qualify as "anticipated" if the landowner lives next to a park with trails, has seen trespassers in the past, etc.

Alternatively, if the exam mentions living in the middle of nowhere or something to that effect, trespassers would probably be "unanticipated."

But what if the landowner lives in a suburban area and has never seen trespassers? Or lives in the middle of nowhere and saw a trespasser once three years ago?

If the owner knows or has reason to know that a section of his land is frequented by trespassers, those trespassers are "anticipated." However, there is no duty to inspect for undiscovered trespassers - so the facts would probably tell you something like "the landowner sees people crossing through his property via a hiking trail" or something of the sort.

Because there is no duty to inspect, if it's a situation where a landowner owes like 1000 acres of land, and someone uses it for camping, there is no duty for the landowner to make sure that no one is using the land for camping. But he somehow comes to find out that people are using it for camping, they will be converted to anticipated trespassers. But it's probably a matter of the smaller the amount of land/the use of the land, the more likely there is a "reason to know" that it is being used for trespassing.

Things like no trespassing signs, physical barriers to entry, etc, probably put it in the realm of "unanticipated trespassers." But actually watching people use land for trespassing will probably trump the "intent" to keep trespassers out. I think the facts will make it clear if the trespassers are anticipated - I remember either an example or an MBE question where a landowner built some kind of vendor stand on the path along his property because he knew that people used it to walk to school or something, which of course he can't claim they were unanticipated trespassers because he knew about them.


I think what you asked (suburban area/rural area) really is too fact-specific to be an MBE question, and if it's an essay it's easy to argue either way.

[The Egyptian]

Question: Distinguishing between anticipated and unanticipated trespassers

So trespassers would probably qualify as "anticipated" if the landowner lives next to a park with trails, has seen trespassers in the past, etc.

Alternatively, if the exam mentions living in the middle of nowhere or something to that effect, trespassers would probably be "unanticipated."

But what if the landowner lives in a suburban area and has never seen trespassers? Or lives in the middle of nowhere and saw a trespasser once three years ago?

If the owner knows or has reason to know that a section of his land is frequented by trespassers, those trespassers are "anticipated." However, there is no duty to inspect for undiscovered trespassers - so the facts would probably tell you something like "the landowner sees people crossing through his property via a hiking trail" or something of the sort.

Because there is no duty to inspect, if it's a situation where a landowner owes like 1000 acres of land, and someone uses it for camping, there is no duty for the landowner to make sure that no one is using the land for camping. But he somehow comes to find out that people are using it for camping, they will be converted to anticipated trespassers. But it's probably a matter of the smaller the amount of land/the use of the land, the more likely there is a "reason to know" that it is being used for trespassing.

Things like no trespassing signs, physical barriers to entry, etc, probably put it in the realm of "unanticipated trespassers." But actually watching people use land for trespassing will probably trump the "intent" to keep trespassers out. I think the facts will make it clear if the trespassers are anticipated - I remember either an example or an MBE question where a landowner built some kind of vendor stand on the path along his property because he knew that people used it to walk to school or something, which of course he can't claim they were unanticipated trespassers because he knew about them.


I think what you asked (suburban area/rural area) really is too fact-specific to be an MBE question, and if it's an essay it's easy to argue either way.

Please correct me if I am wrong,

-The dog's exception refers to all domesticated animals in general. Dog, cats, horses, etc. Not only dogs as an exception to the rule.
-The possessor, will be strictly liable, if he has scienter, or knowledge of the the propensity of of that animal to bite.

So, simply, a domesticated animal, will be treated as a wild animal if he bites ONCE and the possessor is aware of its propensity.

Don't want to confuse anyone, but the possessor is the one will be liable regardless of being an LO. So for example, a PD will be vicariously liable if a K-9 bites someone.

Again, please correct me if I am wrong.

[At the Drive-In]

Please correct me if I am wrong,

-The dog's exception refers to all domesticated animals in general. Dog, cats, horses, etc. Not only dogs as an exception to the rule.
-The possessor, will be strictly liable, if he has scienter, or knowledge of the the propensity of of that animal to bite.

So, simply, a domesticated animal, will be treated as a wild animal if he bites ONCE and the possessor is aware of its propensity.

Don't want to confuse anyone, but the possessor is the one will be liable regardless of being an LO. So for example, a PD will be vicariously liable if a K-9 bites someone.

Again, please correct me if I am wrong.

That's pretty close to spot-on.

If it is a DOMESTIC animal, the owner is only strictly liable if the owner has KNOWLEDGE of the animal's dangerous propensity ABNORMAL to the species. However, this can apply even if the animal has not actually injured anyone else before, if the owner somehow knows that it is more dangerous than a common member of that species.

That can be a dog that is particularly vicious, or a horse that attempts to kick people to death, etc.

But that propensity has to be abnormal to the species. Getting stung by a beekeeper's bees will not trigger strict liability, because that sort of danger isn't ABNORMAL to the species.

I am not sure what "LO" and "PD" mean in this situation - but for landowner's the general rule is an abnormally dangerous animal (as discussed above) or a wild animal will trigger strict liability if it injures a licensee or an invitee on a piece of property. (unless it is a zoo, then negligence has to be proven)

It generally will NOT trigger if it is a trespasser on the land unless there was some sort of negligence (as the BarBri book says, not warning a discovered trespasser.)

However, the landowner might be strictly liable even to trespassers if there is an abnormally vicious watchdog guarding property, the reason for that being it is the same as protecting property with deadly force.

Lastly, SOME states, but not all states, have dog bite statutes that impose strict liability for personal injury actions caused by dog bites EVEN WITHOUT knowledge of that dog's dangerous propensity. That may be the "dog exception"

[beachbum]

^ Money in the bank. A+ summary, my friend.

[pizzasodafries]

Not a BarBri taker but that snake cage one is, I'm pretty sure, an actual MBE question, and the distinction between an anticipated/unanticipated trespasser is a commonly tested concept.

Ok I stand corrected. So in that case, the driver was reckless and trespassed into the snake pit. Probably can't be anticipated trespasser given those facts so Strict Liability cant apply to him. If for whatever reason trespassers ALWAYS went through the snake pit owners property, then would Strict Liability be applied to the known trespasser?

if the owner knows that trespassers come onto his property he has a duty to prevent harming those trespassers from the dangerous object.. If trespassing is known to occur to the owner, and the landowner knows or should have known there is a dangerous object on his land, then he has a duty to prevent the known harm from occurring. So if the reckless driver trespassed onto his land ( an act that the owner was on notice could occur) and was injured from the snake pit ( dangerous object) then the landowner would be strictly liable.


but lets say for intances that there was an old civil war land mind but its of the non explosive variety) on the landowners's beet farm, and the trespassing driver drove over the landmind and managed somehow to get injured from this unknown object that until the trespasser was injured the landowern was unaware of and had no reason to be aware of it. here the landowner would NOT be liable because he was unaware of the latent danger and thus he has no duty to prevent this harm. Note that hthis rule may be changed depending on your state distinction.

Thanks for that. We were discussing though the effects of the "Trespasser Exception" to strict liability with Wild Animals though.

[The Egyptian]

Please correct me if I am wrong,

-The dog's exception refers to all domesticated animals in general. Dog, cats, horses, etc. Not only dogs as an exception to the rule.
-The possessor, will be strictly liable, if he has scienter, or knowledge of the the propensity of of that animal to bite.

So, simply, a domesticated animal, will be treated as a wild animal if he bites ONCE and the possessor is aware of its propensity.

Don't want to confuse anyone, but the possessor is the one will be liable regardless of being an LO. So for example, a PD will be vicariously liable if a K-9 bites someone.

Again, please correct me if I am wrong.

That's pretty close to spot-on.

If it is a DOMESTIC animal, the owner is only strictly liable if the owner has KNOWLEDGE of the animal's dangerous propensity ABNORMAL to the species. However, this can apply even if the animal has not actually injured anyone else before, if the owner somehow knows that it is more dangerous than a common member of that species.

That can be a dog that is particularly vicious, or a horse that attempts to kick people to death, etc.

But that propensity has to be abnormal to the species. Getting stung by a beekeeper's bees will not trigger strict liability, because that sort of danger isn't ABNORMAL to the species.

I am not sure what "LO" and "PD" mean in this situation - but for landowner's the general rule is an abnormally dangerous animal (as discussed above) or a wild animal will trigger strict liability if it injures a licensee or an invitee on a piece of property. (unless it is a zoo, then negligence has to be proven)

It generally will NOT trigger if it is a trespasser on the land unless there was some sort of negligence (as the BarBri book says, not warning a discovered trespasser.)

However, the landowner might be strictly liable even to trespassers if there is an abnormally vicious watchdog guarding property, the reason for that being it is the same as protecting property with deadly force.

Lastly, SOME states, but not all states, have dog bite statutes that impose strict liability for personal injury actions caused by dog bites EVEN WITHOUT knowledge of that dog's dangerous propensity. That may be the "dog exception"

Thank you Sir,

LO is the land owner. PD is the police department. From here, I want to add the it is the "Possessor" not the landowner who will be liable, regardless of the the status as a landowner.

If you take your dog, or cat to the house of the neighbors (And you are aware it turns into a wild animals sometimes) and your pet injures somebody, will be strictly liable. And, if your pet injures a trespasser there, you are strictly liable too, not the land owner.

I am a landowner, and I got two weeks worth of dishes in my kitchen sink. Ain't nobody got time for that!

I guess that your analysis closes the loop between duties to unanticipated trespassers, and attractive nuisance

[jd20132013]

so anyone else still feel like they don't know this state law enough?

just need one person to say yes please

[The Egyptian]

so anyone else still feel like they don't know this state law enough?

just need one person to say yes please

I am still scoring in the 50s both on Smart-study and NCBE test and struggling with time. Time/pacing sux!

How is everybody else doing?