How to Strategically Approach MBE Questions, with Jonathan Grossman (Webinar Recording)

Practical strategies for approaching MBE questions in preparation for the July 2024 Bar Exam. In this webinar, Jonathan Grossman will work through MBE questions live while offering practical strategies and tips. He offers expert advice gained over his years of teaching and tutoring while helping hundreds of students pass the bar.

[@MoultonSolomon]

Thompson Paul Lopez Matthew Lewis Margaret

[@suzannelove5147]

I learned where I needed to progress in answering questions. I’ve been practicing questions since and the improvement is outstanding!!! Thank you Mr. Grossman!! By the way- your direct approach/responses works for me!!!! Don’t stop!!!

[@Flavor88]

Prof. Grossman, you gave great explanations. I wish I would have gone with AdaptiBar instead of Barbri

[@atrain3793]

Great video but I wish he would have walked through some hard questions. These were fairly easy.

[@sadiemlika5140]

Just not sure if I buy the explanation for question no. 21 because proximate cause applies outside the realm of involuntary manslaughter (and tort actions). I think showing proximate (and actual) causation is still relevant in bringing any murder charge (especially felony murder).

[@kspov8590]

The GOAT comes through again! Thank you, Jon! We appreciate your insights!

[@nataliiagraves]

Best practice for the bar with Adaptibar video’s! #smulaw

[@Giabia2326]

Thanks a bunch. Love your lectures.

[@Naisha_Agrawal]

Ais the correct

[@wyattgerl7171]

I thought strict liability is generally not imposed in favor or trespassers? Trespassers must show negligence

[@bryanandrews7391]

This is correct, at least as far as I can tell from all my outlines and flash cards. Also when he flips to the next slide and you briefly see the explanation it says exactly that. It sounds like he thinks the answer is A but both my gut and the slide he literally shows favors B so now I’m confused

[@renaissancegirl4563]

Hi! Yes a trespasser would have to show negligence but assumption of the risk is a full defense for negligence as well. So the neighbor will prevail not because he was trespassing but because he assumed the risk. While admittedly he focused on strict liability, the good news is that you caught he was a trespasser and if he assumes the risk it’s a complete defense regardless of whether it’s SL or negligence.

[@wyattgerl7171]

@@renaissancegirl4563but why would assumption of risk even matter? If he’s trespassing it does matter whether he knew of the danger not.

[@renaissancegirl4563]

@@wyattgerl7171 assumption of the risk matters because if he’s a trespasser, he still has to show that the owner was negligent. That doesn’t fully resolve the question of why the owner will prevail. The owner prevails not because he’s a trespasser, but because he assumed the risk, because that’s how he wins the negligence actions.

[@Star-i1m]

Thank you!