Top Law Schools

I remember a Barbri lecturer saying, "you'll know it when you see it" in regards to what constitutes an "ultra hazardous" activity. But that crap is not true.

For example, on Adapti bar, this constitutes an ultra hazardous activity: "A gas company owns a storage facility where flammable gases are stored in liquified form under high pressure in large spherical tanks." Explanation: "The operation of a storage facility that contains pressurized hazardous chemicals is considered an abnormally dangerous activity."

That means the local Home Depot that sells propane BBQ gas tanks is conducting an ultra hazardous activity? What about the corner automobile gas station? That's supposed to be an ultra hazardous activity too? I guess for MBE purposes, I will just include all that as ultra hazardous. Just so frustrated that the MBE examiners would test this issue using such a subjective example. If instead they used a "nuclear power plant" or "radioactive waste site" as examples, it would more clearly test knowledge of the law.

I think you're thinking too many whatifs. Don't try to compare it to what you know in real life, just look at the question.

A gas company owns a storage facility where flammable gases are stored in liquified form under high pressure in large spherical tanks." Explanation: "The operation of a storage facility that contains pressurized hazardous chemicals is considered an abnormally dangerous activity."

Words like flammable and high pressure are generally perceived to be abnormally dangerous. Ergo it is. Also, don't forget that for strict liability purposes, it only extends to harms directly related to the hazardous activity.

If I remember correctly, the bar prep teachers were saying, when you see it ON THE BAR EXAM you will know they are getting at it. Like the poster above said, don't analyze it it in relation to what you know in real life. During the bar exam it is like you are living in their world, not our world.

Best of luck! I don't ever want to take another bar exam. I'll just wait out reciprocity.

Also, I think by large spherical tanks they mean more like

and


than like

you made me laugh

I always viewed "ultra-hazardous" meant something just so crazy and abnormal dangerous. But yeah, for the MBE it's better to just to accept that gas + flammable + high pressure = ultra hazardous.

Now it's confirmed that for the MBE, any activity involving a chemical that can cause death to any animal is necessarily an "ultra hazardous" activity.

For the question below, I selected choice B, even though going by my gut instinct I wanted to chose D. Turns out I was right and B was the correct answer.

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.

It may help you to take a trip back to Rylands v. Fletcher to see the root of the doctrine.

I thought this was going to be about taking advantage of devotchkas