Where I’m at: Chicago (t-minus 44 days)
What I’m doing: getting ripped off by 7/11 (who doesn’t put egg on a breakfast sandwich?!)
Why I’m posting: because you’re smarter than I am (in other words: Quiz yo’self, foo!)
Studying for the bar exam can be tedious, but mostly because it’s so lonely. Even those other folks taking the bar exam at the same time can’t exactly relate because (a) they’re probably freaked out, and (b) there’s a lot of posturing that goes on (e.g. “How’d you do on that practice test yesterday? Yea…I got like 105% or something. I mean, I KNOW evidence law cold.”). So I thought I’d share. Below is an actual practice multiple choice question I did this morning. I think I may post a new one each morning for the next few days, each in a different topic. I’ll randomly choose one I got wrong. See if you’re better than me (I know you already thought you were). I’ll post the answer and a brief explanation in the comments section. No peeking!
And good luck!
A company that owned a tract of land believed to be rich in mineral deposits contracted with a licensed excavator for the removal of soil from the property and delivery of the soil to the company’s lab. While of the excavator’s trucks was on the way to the lab, the rear gate broke loose, dumping three tons of soil onto the highway. A motorist who was driving a short but safe distance behind the truck was unable to stop in time and collided with the soil, causing her serious injury. The rear gate had been negligently secured by one of the excavator’s employees. If the motorist sues the company for his injuries and does not prevail, it will be because:
a) The rear gate was secured by the excavator’s employee
b) The excavator had a license to transport soil on the highway
c) The company’s duty in respect to the movement of its soil on the highway was delegable
d) The transportation of soil on the highways was a common practice in the area where the accident occurred