In the News, On the Exam: When the News Sparks a Bar Prep Review (Common Law Arson)

From time to time, real-world headlines offer a natural opportunity to revisit foundational legal principles. This series draws on those moments to help reinforce concepts commonly tested on the bar exam—always with care and respect for the people and circumstances involved.

This week, news broke that a man was arrested for allegedly setting fire to the Pennsylvania governor’s residence while Governor Josh Shapiro, his family, and guests were inside observing the Passover holiday. Fortunately, no one was injured, but the fire caused damage and prompted a swift evacuation.

While the legal consequences of this event will play out in court under Pennsylvania statutes, the facts also align with a classic bar exam topic on the Uniform Bar Exam: arson at common law.

🔥 The Four Elements of Common Law Arson

At common law, arson is defined narrowly and technically. You’ll want to memorize this definition for the bar exam:

Arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another.

Let’s break that down into its four required elements:

1. Maliciously

This doesn’t mean “with ill will.” In legal terms, malice includes intentionally setting a fire—or acting with reckless disregard for the likely result. Lighting a match as a prank and causing a home to burn down? That’s malicious under the law. Accidentally knocking over a candle while dusting? Not arson.

2. Burning

Not all damage qualifies. To meet this element, there must be actual charring—not just smoke damage or blistered paint. The fire must affect the physical structure of the property. Mere scorching or a failed attempt won’t do the trick.

3. Dwelling

At common law, only dwellings—places where people live—counted. That excluded barns, warehouses, and even unoccupied vacation homes. Why? Because arson was viewed as a crime against habitation and personal safety, not just property.

4. Of Another

A person couldn’t be guilty of arson for burning down their own house. Ownership wasn’t the issue—occupancy was. If someone else lived in the dwelling—even if the arsonist owned the title—it was still “of another” for purposes of common law arson.

Modern Statutes Go Further

While modern statutes often expand arson to cover personal property, commercial structures, or forest land—and typically remove the “of another” requirement—the Uniform Bar Exam still often tests the traditional common law rule, especially on MBE and MEE questions.

So, if you see a fact pattern involving a fire, start your analysis by applying the common law definition, unless the call of the question tells you otherwise.

Applying It to the Governor’s Mansion

Here’s how the traditional elements line up with the recent allegations:

Malice? Allegedly intentional. ✔️

Burning? Damage to the structure from flames. ✔️

Dwelling? Used regularly as a residence. ✔️

Of another? Not the suspect’s dwelling. ✔️

This hypothetical fits the common law arson mold nearly perfectly. On an MBE or MEE question, you'd likely find that each element is satisfied.

Takeaway for Bar Takers

Even in moments when the law collides with real tragedy, bar takers can take a steady, principled approach: know the elements, apply them thoughtfully, and stay grounded in the law.

And remember: we study law not just to pass a test—but to understand the world around us, even when it burns.