Multistate Bar (MBE) OPE 1 Practice Exam

This question tests the use of res ipsa loquitur and whether the plaintiff can get the case to a jury based on the facts given. For res ipsa to work, three things must be shown: the injury-causing condition is of a type that ordinarily wouldn’t occur without negligence, the instrumentality causing the injury is under the defendant’s exclusive control, and the plaintiff’s evidence permits an inference that the defendant knew or should have known about the danger (i.e., there’s no other reasonable explanation). In this scenario, the banana peel on the floor is the dangerous condition, but the facts don’t establish exclusive control by the grocer or a duty to have known about the peel. The peel is described as fresh and unblemished except for a mark from the customer’s heel, which suggests the peel may have been left by a shopper or could have been walked on by the same or another shopper. There’s no evidence the grocer knew of the peel, nor that the grocer’s agents had exclusive control over it at a time when it would ordinarily be avoided or noticed. Without showing the grocer’s knowledge or a reliable basis to infer negligent maintenance, res ipsa loquitur cannot properly be invoked, so the case shouldn’t be sent to the jury on that theory. The other options rely on theories or duties that aren’t supported by the facts: assuming an inspection-duty or implying knowledge of a dangerous condition without evidence of notice would be speculative, and simply asserting a general duty to maintain premises isn’t enough without showing breach or notice.