MBE Question: Tiger King-Themed
Try out our most recent Tiger King-themed MBE question! Read the question and the answer choices below. For more MBE tips (and questions like this) sign up for our JD Advising Early Bar Prep campaign.
A woman visited a tiger rescue zoo with her family. While she was there, she tripped over a tiger’s tail and injured her arm.
Who should the woman sue and what is her best theory of liability?
(A) The owner of the zoo, for negligence.
(B) The owner of the zoo, for strict liability.
(C) The owner of the zoo, since a tiger zoo is considered an abnormally dangerous activity.
(D) Carole Baskin.
Looking for the written answer explanation?
You can find the answer to the MBE question below. Just click “SHOW ANSWER”
(A) is the correct answer. The woman would be considered an invitee because she was on the property to confer an economic benefit or was entering land open to the public at large (a zoo). A premises possessor owes the following duty of care to an invitee: to warn of or make safe all dangers that it knows or should know of. This also requires the premises possessor to make reasonable inspections.
Thus, the woman’s best theory of liability would be that the premises possessor (here, the owner of the zoo) did not make reasonable inspections of the land and thus, failed to adequately warn her of the tiger’s tail or make the premises safe.
(B) is incorrect. Ordinarily, strict liability is imposed when a plaintiff is injured by a wild animal. A tiger is a wild animal. However, strict liability only applies to an injury caused by a wild animal if the injury is the foreseeable result of having a wild animal. If the tiger bit the woman’s arm off, for example, she would have a good claim under a theory of strict liability. In this case, tripping over a tiger’s tail is not the harm the law seeks to avoid. Thus, strict liability would not be the woman’s best theory of liability.
(C) is incorrect. Even if keeping a tiger zoo is considered an abnormally dangerous activity (because it arguably creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised and it is not a matter of common usage in the community), the harm that occurred in this case was not the harm that the law was seeking to avoid, as answer choice (B) explains.
(D) is incorrect. Even though Joe Exotic likes to blame Carole Baskin for everything, it would not necessarily be her fault ;)
Looking for more questions like this?
Sign up for our JD Advising Early Bar Prep campaign. We go over early bar prep tips in five minutes a day! It is a great way to get ahead while practicing social distancing and we also include more two-minute MBE questions like this one!
Looking to Pass the Uniform Bar Exam?
Free or discounted resources
- A five-star UBE course (on sale for as low as $999.99!) that provides you with the best instruction, outlines, and questions. Preview our course for free here!
- Free popular bar exam guides (on the MBE, MEE, how to pass the bar exam, and what to do if you failed the bar exam) written by bar exam experts!
- A free early bar prep course for law students
- Free bar exam webinars taught by top bar exam experts
Our most POPULAR and highly rated bar exam resources are:
- Our On Demand and Premium Bar Exam Courses (on sale now!)
- Bar Exam Private Tutoring by bar exam experts
- MBE One-Sheets and MEE One-Sheets—rated five stars! Our customers love these supplements!
- Real MBE questions—the best practice questions available!