1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Geist13
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Geist13 » Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:54 am

ReesesPieces15 wrote:If there is a contract for goods and services but predominantly services (ie: catering services) does the statute of frauds dictate there must be a writing if the entire thing is well over 500$?


Figure out which law governs, then apply the relevant law. Or even better, figure out which law governs, apply the relevant law, but then argue it the other way.

User avatar
goosey
Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:48 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby goosey » Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:56 am

Stanford4Me wrote:
kxz wrote:Why am I studying on a Saturday night? Fml

Same question I asked myself . . . I'm going to be studying until about 3, then I'm waking up at 8 to continue. I'm beginning to realize the implications of my success (or failure) on these exams.


I understand the implications and yet I cant stop sleeping. I slept at 1ish, woke up at 1030.

I don't know why I cant live without sleep!!!!

User avatar
uwb09
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:09 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby uwb09 » Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:57 am

ReesesPieces15 wrote:If there is a contract for goods and services but predominantly services (ie: catering services) does the statute of frauds dictate there must be a writing if the entire thing is well over 500$?

catering is a service, so UCC wouldn't govern, aka the $500 stipulation doesn't apply

however for bonus points throw in a quick sentence about how if the UCC did apply, and it was over $500, it would need a writing

rejectmaster
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:20 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby rejectmaster » Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:13 pm

goosey wrote:
Stanford4Me wrote:
kxz wrote:Why am I studying on a Saturday night? Fml

Same question I asked myself . . . I'm going to be studying until about 3, then I'm waking up at 8 to continue. I'm beginning to realize the implications of my success (or failure) on these exams.


I understand the implications and yet I cant stop sleeping. I slept at 1ish, woke up at 1030.

I don't know why I cant live without sleep!!!!


likely because you are a human

User avatar
goosey
Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:48 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby goosey » Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:55 pm

rejectmaster wrote:
goosey wrote:
Stanford4Me wrote:
kxz wrote:Why am I studying on a Saturday night? Fml

Same question I asked myself . . . I'm going to be studying until about 3, then I'm waking up at 8 to continue. I'm beginning to realize the implications of my success (or failure) on these exams.


I understand the implications and yet I cant stop sleeping. I slept at 1ish, woke up at 1030.

I don't know why I cant live without sleep!!!!


likely because you are a human


well..I don't know about humans requiring 9.5 hours of sleep a nigh during finals wk =p
I think its just cuz I'm an old lady, or at least I feel like one

joshlyman
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby joshlyman » Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:02 pm

uwb09 wrote:
ReesesPieces15 wrote:If there is a contract for goods and services but predominantly services (ie: catering services) does the statute of frauds dictate there must be a writing if the entire thing is well over 500$?

catering is a service, so UCC wouldn't govern, aka the $500 stipulation doesn't apply

however for bonus points throw in a quick sentence about how if the UCC did apply, and it was over $500, it would need a writing


we were taught to do a sort of "predominant factor" test to determine which part of the deal (the goods or the services) should govern which law to use.
Your best bet is to do both. If anything this is one big juicy issue fork to borrow from GTM.
"The analysis of this issue hinges on whether or not one considers the services or the goods to be the more predominant
factor of the contract....yadda yadda i can here the coin noises from mario in my head as im writing because im getting all
the points i can get.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Helmholtz » Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:12 pm

goosey wrote:well..I don't know about humans requiring 9.5 hours of sleep a nigh during finals wk =p
I think its just cuz I'm an old lady, or at least I feel like one


I've gotten at least 9 hours of sleep each night for the past couple days. My first reaction was to beat myself up over it, but then I realized how absolutely retarded that is. I've been working hard this entire semester, I have the material down, and I think the biggest thing that could trip me up right now is hating life/law school due to sleep deprivation and walk into the test feeling burnt out. And besides, I feel so much sharper and more efficient while studying so there's that too.

User avatar
goosey
Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:48 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby goosey » Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:18 pm

Helmholtz wrote:
goosey wrote:well..I don't know about humans requiring 9.5 hours of sleep a nigh during finals wk =p
I think its just cuz I'm an old lady, or at least I feel like one


I've gotten at least 9 hours of sleep each night for the past couple days. My first reaction was to beat myself up over it, but then I realized how absolutely retarded that is. I've been working hard this entire semester, I have the material down, and I think the biggest thing that could trip me up right now is hating life/law school due to sleep deprivation and walk into the test feeling burnt out. And besides, I feel so much sharper and more efficient while studying so there's that too.


excellent point.
I dont know if this is typical of Civ Pro--I feel like I *know* it but that I don't know it at all...like there some internal part of me that understands all things civ pro, but if somebody says "hickman case" I have no idea what theyre talking about and have to look it up...I get the statutes for venue and subject matter jdx mixed up [the numbers, although I know what each says]...I feel like I know it all, but not well enough to never look at my notes. and thats what makes me feel like I am sleeping too much

User avatar
los blancos
Posts: 7119
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:18 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby los blancos » Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:29 pm

beach_terror wrote:Civ Pro tomorrow, I think I'm just going to review my outlines and make sure I like them, but otherwise relax and read Getting to Maybe some more. I've made a GTM outline on things to be sure to do on the exam, the tips in the back are gold.


Good luck man. CivPro is a bitch... I didn't feel after the exam that I had gotten stumped on anything but then you think about it and imagine all of ways you could've dropped points... :mrgreen: That said, I'm pretty sure you know a lot more CivPro than I do, you'll kill it.

rejectmaster wrote:i hope los blancos and jcougar are not on the east coast

that is way too late to be up studying


very much on the east coast. wasn't even studying (one final left [con law] and it's on thursday) :mrgreen:

fwiw some people do work their best late at night

User avatar
Stanford4Me
Posts: 6049
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:23 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Stanford4Me » Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:00 pm

goosey wrote:
Stanford4Me wrote:
kxz wrote:Why am I studying on a Saturday night? Fml

Same question I asked myself . . . I'm going to be studying until about 3, then I'm waking up at 8 to continue. I'm beginning to realize the implications of my success (or failure) on these exams.


I understand the implications and yet I cant stop sleeping. I slept at 1ish, woke up at 1030.

I don't know why I cant live without sleep!!!!

I woke up and began studying, I was unable to focus because I was tired. I went back to sleep expecting to wake up around 10, but I didn't wake up until now. I'm probably going to take melatonin tonight so I don't stay up until 3. I'd rather go to bed early and wake up early than go to bed late and wake up late.

User avatar
traehekat
Posts: 3195
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:00 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby traehekat » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:49 pm

How have you guys gone about answering contracts questions? I'm struggling with organization a little. Does it make sense to just start analyzing any problem basically like this:

Was there a contract? (offer, acceptance, consideration)
If not, is there a reason to impose a contract anyway? (estoppel, unjust enrichment)
Is there a reason not to enforce the contract? (indefinite, SOF, mistake, unconscionable, etc.)
What are the terms of the contract?
Was there a breach of the contract? (conditions, material breach, etc.)
What are the remedies?

Does this seem right? Then as you are going through each one, use facts that point one way or another for each part (one side says contract, other side says no; one side says no justification for reliance, other says no; these are the terms, these aren't the terms; breach was immaterial/material, damages not foreseeable/foreseeable, etc.)? This seems the intuitive way for me to go about it, but I was curious to see if anyone has any other suggestions/strategies.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kalvano » Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:19 pm

traehekat wrote:How have you guys gone about answering contracts questions? I'm struggling with organization a little. Does it make sense to just start analyzing any problem basically like this:

Was there a contract? (offer, acceptance, consideration)
If not, is there a reason to impose a contract anyway? (estoppel, unjust enrichment)
Is there a reason not to enforce the contract? (indefinite, SOF, mistake, unconscionable, etc.)
What are the terms of the contract?
Was there a breach of the contract? (conditions, material breach, etc.)
What are the remedies?

Does this seem right? Then as you are going through each one, use facts that point one way or another for each part (one side says contract, other side says no; one side says no justification for reliance, other says no; these are the terms, these aren't the terms; breach was immaterial/material, damages not foreseeable/foreseeable, etc.)? This seems the intuitive way for me to go about it, but I was curious to see if anyone has any other suggestions/strategies.



1) Is this a sale of goods? If so, then off to UCC wonderland in (2). If not, skip straight to (3), do not pass go.

2) Sale of good is governed by the UCC. The UCC is silent on contract formation. Section 1-103 says that any matter not covered by the UCC should be resolved using the common law.

3) Common law states that there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration, mutual assent.

4) Was there an offer? ---> "Clear, promissory, definite"? ---> RS 33 - if you can't tell what the deal is, no contract. Is there a "home office approval clause" If so, not an offer as it cannot be accepted.
4a) Is it an advertisement? --> generally not offers (invitation for offers) ---> might be if it is very clear and has words of limitation ("first come, first serve" ---> "clear definite, explicit" and promissory and definite? Solicited or unsolicited?

5) If no offer, sad pandas. If it was an offer, on to (6)

6) Was there acceptance? Offers die easily. Under classical contracts, acceptance must "mirror image" the terms of the offer. How do you accept? Is the offer explicit about how to? If so, then must accept on offeror's terms. If not, any reasonable means will work.
6a) Acceptance by performance? Under classical contracts, performance must be completed to accept. Under modern contracts, offers that could reasonably induce performance, and the offeree begins performance ---> option contract to not revoke offer for reasonable amount of time until offeree completes performance.



And so on, and so forth.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7250
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby beach_terror » Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:25 pm

los blancos wrote:Good luck man. CivPro is a bitch... I didn't feel after the exam that I had gotten stumped on anything but then you think about it and imagine all of ways you could've dropped points... :mrgreen: That said, I'm pretty sure you know a lot more CivPro than I do, you'll kill it.

I've come out with a few tips from GTM on how to be sure not to drop points. My habit during PT's was not to embrace the ambiguities, and instead try to come out with a logical conclusion (which I'm sure everyone does). After a few meetings with my professor, I feel pretty good on tackling the question exactly how she wants, so hopefully I don't lose too many :|

"Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet, only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved"
Last edited by beach_terror on Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kalvano » Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:28 pm

beach_terror wrote:
los blancos wrote:Good luck man. CivPro is a bitch... I didn't feel after the exam that I had gotten stumped on anything but then you think about it and imagine all of ways you could've dropped points... :mrgreen: That said, I'm pretty sure you know a lot more CivPro than I do, you'll kill it.

I've come out with a few tips from GTM on how to be sure not to drop points. My habit during PT's was not to embrace the ambiguities, and instead try to come out with a logical conclusion (which I'm sure everyone does). After a few meetings with my professor, I feel pretty good on tackling the question exactly how she wants, so hopefully I don't lose too many :|



One thing I noticed on my Civ Pro exam was ambiguity about Discovery. There were a few places where, in addition to making a normal discovery argument, you could also make an argument for mandatory initial discovery under 26(a)(1).

Obviously, different professors and all that, but something to watch out for, maybe gain an extra couple of points.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7250
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby beach_terror » Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:56 pm

kalvano wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
los blancos wrote:Good luck man. CivPro is a bitch... I didn't feel after the exam that I had gotten stumped on anything but then you think about it and imagine all of ways you could've dropped points... :mrgreen: That said, I'm pretty sure you know a lot more CivPro than I do, you'll kill it.

I've come out with a few tips from GTM on how to be sure not to drop points. My habit during PT's was not to embrace the ambiguities, and instead try to come out with a logical conclusion (which I'm sure everyone does). After a few meetings with my professor, I feel pretty good on tackling the question exactly how she wants, so hopefully I don't lose too many :|



One thing I noticed on my Civ Pro exam was ambiguity about Discovery. There were a few places where, in addition to making a normal discovery argument, you could also make an argument for mandatory initial discovery under 26(a)(1). Obviously, different professors and all that, but something to watch out for, maybe gain an extra couple of points.

Thanks for the tip, but I'm tunnel visioning the FRCP based on what we covered in class and what she showed my study group about her grading rubric for it. For discovery, all we need to go through is relevance, if its privileged in someway, whether there are any limitations, and if sanctions apply if the hypothetical party doesn't hand over the document. Hopefully the tunnel vision pays off though, I figure being a master of the specifics she focused on rather than of civ pro generally will be beneficial.

User avatar
grrrstick
Posts: 137
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:58 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby grrrstick » Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:59 pm

Torts question --

P was driving down the road but discovered it blocked by a fallen tree. She pulled into D's driveway to turn around. At precisely this time, D was backing out of her driveway in her Hummer, without looking in her mirrors and at a relatively high speed for driving backwards. Upon puling into the driveway P saw this and sought to reverse but could not do so in time. D crashed into the front of P's car, causing herself no damage, but P suffered material property damage and personal injury. P sues D for negligence. What is the key dispositive issue and how would you resolve it?

Thanks in advance.

User avatar
stratocophic
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby stratocophic » Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:02 pm

grrrstick wrote:Torts question --

P was driving down the road but discovered it blocked by a fallen tree. She pulled into D's driveway to turn around. At precisely this time, D was backing out of her driveway in her Hummer, without looking in her mirrors and at a relatively high speed for driving backwards. Upon puling into the driveway P saw this and sought to reverse but could not do so in time. D crashed into the front of P's car, causing herself no damage, but P suffered material property damage and personal injury. P sues D for negligence. What is the key dispositive issue and how would you resolve it?

Thanks in advance.
Trespass? I don't know what your question is asking for.

savagecheater
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby savagecheater » Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:03 pm

grrrstick wrote:Torts question --

P was driving down the road but discovered it blocked by a fallen tree. She pulled into D's driveway to turn around. At precisely this time, D was backing out of her driveway in her Hummer, without looking in her mirrors and at a relatively high speed for driving backwards. Upon puling into the driveway P saw this and sought to reverse but could not do so in time. D crashed into the front of P's car, causing herself no damage, but P suffered material property damage and personal injury. P sues D for negligence. What is the key dispositive issue and how would you resolve it?

Thanks in advance.


Trespasser -

Do you apply traditional CL rules? (no duty to trespasser) Or, do you apply Rowland?

Make an argument for either, and extrapolate both - the CL rule might make this out to be a no duty, in which case, no case b/c no duty = no negligence, so the question probably wants some argument for Rowland here, otherwise that's just too easy.

Ambiguity as to driveway counting for property and pulling into it for trespass, etc. Maybe necessity for the tree as well, but then explain why necessity doesn't really apply.

User avatar
mths
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby mths » Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:08 pm

savagecheater wrote:
grrrstick wrote:Torts question --

P was driving down the road but discovered it blocked by a fallen tree. She pulled into D's driveway to turn around. At precisely this time, D was backing out of her driveway in her Hummer, without looking in her mirrors and at a relatively high speed for driving backwards. Upon puling into the driveway P saw this and sought to reverse but could not do so in time. D crashed into the front of P's car, causing herself no damage, but P suffered material property damage and personal injury. P sues D for negligence. What is the key dispositive issue and how would you resolve it?

Thanks in advance.


Trespasser -

Do you apply traditional CL rules? (no duty to trespasser) Or, do you apply Rowland?

Make an argument for either, and extrapolate both - the CL rule might make this out to be a no duty, in which case, no case b/c no duty = no negligence, so the question probably wants some argument for Rowland here, otherwise that's just too easy.

Ambiguity as to driveway counting for property and pulling into it for trespass, etc. Maybe necessity for the tree as well, but then explain why necessity doesn't really apply.

I'd do a CB of looking back when you're backing up

Kretzy
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Kretzy » Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:09 pm

stratocophic wrote:
grrrstick wrote:Torts question --

P was driving down the road but discovered it blocked by a fallen tree. She pulled into D's driveway to turn around. At precisely this time, D was backing out of her driveway in her Hummer, without looking in her mirrors and at a relatively high speed for driving backwards. Upon puling into the driveway P saw this and sought to reverse but could not do so in time. D crashed into the front of P's car, causing herself no damage, but P suffered material property damage and personal injury. P sues D for negligence. What is the key dispositive issue and how would you resolve it?

Thanks in advance.
Trespass? I don't know what your question is asking for.


Trespass seems right, since it doesn't seem like the backing up is a "creation of wanton danger." But I guess you could make that argument, which the prof could consider dispositive.

I would guess the issue is how the jurisdiction treats trespassers, but the wanton danger argument also seems possible.

User avatar
kcg171
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:54 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kcg171 » Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:14 pm

grrrstick wrote:Torts question --

P was driving down the road but discovered it blocked by a fallen tree. She pulled into D's driveway to turn around. At precisely this time, D was backing out of her driveway in her Hummer, without looking in her mirrors and at a relatively high speed for driving backwards. Upon puling into the driveway P saw this and sought to reverse but could not do so in time. D crashed into the front of P's car, causing herself no damage, but P suffered material property damage and personal injury. P sues D for negligence. What is the key dispositive issue and how would you resolve it?

Thanks in advance.


In addition to what other posters have said, D might have had reason to know that people avoiding the tree would end up in her driveway, leading to a duty of reasonable care to trespassers.

User avatar
mths
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby mths » Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:16 pm

kcg171 wrote:
grrrstick wrote:Torts question --

P was driving down the road but discovered it blocked by a fallen tree. She pulled into D's driveway to turn around. At precisely this time, D was backing out of her driveway in her Hummer, without looking in her mirrors and at a relatively high speed for driving backwards. Upon puling into the driveway P saw this and sought to reverse but could not do so in time. D crashed into the front of P's car, causing herself no damage, but P suffered material property damage and personal injury. P sues D for negligence. What is the key dispositive issue and how would you resolve it?

Thanks in advance.


In addition to what other posters have said, D might have had reason to know that people avoiding the tree would end up in her driveway, leading to a duty of reasonable care to trespassers.

only duty to trespassers is to not be wilful or wanton - could make the argument that it would be wilful and wanton infliction of harm if you knew about the tree but that's a stretch. I think a lot of it has to do with the cost/benefit of checking your mirrors when you're backing up, so even though you don't owe a duty to trespassers, you're still the least cost avoider.

savagecheater
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby savagecheater » Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:20 pm

mths wrote:
savagecheater wrote:
grrrstick wrote:Torts question --

P was driving down the road but discovered it blocked by a fallen tree. She pulled into D's driveway to turn around. At precisely this time, D was backing out of her driveway in her Hummer, without looking in her mirrors and at a relatively high speed for driving backwards. Upon puling into the driveway P saw this and sought to reverse but could not do so in time. D crashed into the front of P's car, causing herself no damage, but P suffered material property damage and personal injury. P sues D for negligence. What is the key dispositive issue and how would you resolve it?

Thanks in advance.


Trespasser -

Do you apply traditional CL rules? (no duty to trespasser) Or, do you apply Rowland?

Make an argument for either, and extrapolate both - the CL rule might make this out to be a no duty, in which case, no case b/c no duty = no negligence, so the question probably wants some argument for Rowland here, otherwise that's just too easy.

Ambiguity as to driveway counting for property and pulling into it for trespass, etc. Maybe necessity for the tree as well, but then explain why necessity doesn't really apply.

I'd do a CB of looking back when you're backing up


CB?

User avatar
mths
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby mths » Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:22 pm

savagecheater wrote:
mths wrote:
savagecheater wrote:
grrrstick wrote:Torts question --

P was driving down the road but discovered it blocked by a fallen tree. She pulled into D's driveway to turn around. At precisely this time, D was backing out of her driveway in her Hummer, without looking in her mirrors and at a relatively high speed for driving backwards. Upon puling into the driveway P saw this and sought to reverse but could not do so in time. D crashed into the front of P's car, causing herself no damage, but P suffered material property damage and personal injury. P sues D for negligence. What is the key dispositive issue and how would you resolve it?

Thanks in advance.


Trespasser -

Do you apply traditional CL rules? (no duty to trespasser) Or, do you apply Rowland?

Make an argument for either, and extrapolate both - the CL rule might make this out to be a no duty, in which case, no case b/c no duty = no negligence, so the question probably wants some argument for Rowland here, otherwise that's just too easy.

Ambiguity as to driveway counting for property and pulling into it for trespass, etc. Maybe necessity for the tree as well, but then explain why necessity doesn't really apply.

I'd do a CB of looking back when you're backing up


CB?


Sorry

The Learned Hand Formula
i) B = burden (cost of preventing the harm)
ii) P = probability of harm
iii) L = loss or harm
c) If B < P X L, then negligent – burden less than probability of harm x actual harm
d) If B > P X L, then not negligent – burden is more than probability of harm x actual harm

User avatar
stratocophic
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby stratocophic » Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:26 pm

mths wrote:
kcg171 wrote:
grrrstick wrote:Torts question --

P was driving down the road but discovered it blocked by a fallen tree. She pulled into D's driveway to turn around. At precisely this time, D was backing out of her driveway in her Hummer, without looking in her mirrors and at a relatively high speed for driving backwards. Upon puling into the driveway P saw this and sought to reverse but could not do so in time. D crashed into the front of P's car, causing herself no damage, but P suffered material property damage and personal injury. P sues D for negligence. What is the key dispositive issue and how would you resolve it?

Thanks in advance.


In addition to what other posters have said, D might have had reason to know that people avoiding the tree would end up in her driveway, leading to a duty of reasonable care to trespassers.

only duty to trespassers is to not be wilful or wanton - could make the argument that it would be wilful and wanton infliction of harm if you knew about the tree but that's a stretch. I think a lot of it has to do with the cost/benefit of checking your mirrors when you're backing up, so even though you don't owe a duty to trespassers, you're still the least cost avoider.
Can take a stroll through being required to anticipate and plan for negligent conduct by others, but this is distinguished by the fact that it's an intentional tort. OTOH, people using driveways to turn around is entirely foreseeable, but at the same time the fact that custom goes against the law is no excuse. Mmmmm torts. I need tomorrow to come and go quickly 'cause I'm sick of contracts.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests