Thoughts on Sample Hypo Response

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
FrankieFlye
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:16 pm

Thoughts on Sample Hypo Response

Postby FrankieFlye » Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:05 pm

I'm a dumb 0L doing sample responses for hypo's after doing LEEWS. Oooooh gunner, shame on me, don't do any 0L study, you fool it won't help you, stupid gunner. Yeah I get it, but I figured at the minimum i'd learn how to properly approach an exam unlike any that I've faced before.

Anyways your help with the prelim critique of my response to this hypo would be greatly appreciated. Being the dumb 0L i am, without all the facts, I'm going off the basic LEEWS tort hypo with an outline for relevant torts black letter laws.

PS:
If anyone has done LEEWS in the past and would like to share insight on some of their hypos, I'd appreciate it.


I haven't fully explored the hypo, heck haven't even gone past this first sentence, so I know I don't have the other half of this argument, DHD's side, nor do I have the argument for his bloody nose....working on all that after I clear up my obstacles with PN's argument and learn how to do this analysis quicker (or less in depth, not sure if I'm going too much into details...took me 30 mins to crank this out)
------------------------

 DHD, he of great but unrequited love, chancing upon the object of his passion, PN, asleep in a meadow, awakened her with a kiss. She reacted by bloodying his nose.

Action: Kiss

DHD seeking - none
PN seeking -
$ - DAMAGES (ASSAULT)
$ - DAMAGES (BATTERY)
$-DAMAGES (IIED)
-ASSAULT
-BATTERY
-IIED



 DHD, he of great but unrequited love, chancing upon the object of his passion, PN, asleep in a meadow, awakened her with a kiss. She reacted by bloodying his nose.
• Unrequited = unreturned, 1 sided
• Chancing = indicates by accident, unplanned
• Passion = indicates more then like, possible lust, desire , attachment
• Asleep = indicates unaware, vulnerable
• Awakened = indicates surprise, strong enough action to awaken
• Reacted = indicates response

 PN’s Argument
• PN was taken by surprise as DH suddenly kissed her, awakening her and (probably) shocking her.
• PN’s Argument for Assault (Battery built in)
o An Assault is 1) a intentional act that 2)creates apprehension of 3) battery.
 On intent; Most people would agree that kisses are not unintentional; if a kiss is delivered, most often it is delivered with intent. DHD kissed PN. By it’s nature, a kiss is intentional. Therefore DHD had intent.
 On apprehension; PN being awakened, was suddenly confronted by DHD’s lips in contact with her own. This sudden image of someone who was not desired created apprehension and fear for safety.
 On battery;
• Battery is defined as 1) an intentional act resulting in 2) an offensive, 3) unprivileged (unrequested) 4) contact.
o May also be satisfied where an unusual sensitivity of the victim, known to the defendant, is acted upon.
• On intent; we have already established that a kiss by its nature is intentional.
• On offensive; most people who are approached while sleeping, and kissed by an unknown, would find it offensive.
• On unprivileged; PN reacted in a negative fashion to this kiss, therefore leading us to believe it was unrequested.
• On contact; a kiss by its nature requires contact.
 Therefore, PN’s claim of battery is satisfied. By satisfying the Battery claim, PN also satisfies the third and final requirement of Assault.

 PN’s Argument for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)
• IIED is defined as 1)conduct is 2)calculated to cause 3)severe emotional distress.
 On conduct; must be intentional or reckless, shocking or extreme, and outrageous, and result in emotional injury to plaintiff. There needn’t be physical contact, only emotional/mental disturbance.
• Limitations; to be actionable, emotional or mental distress MUST be severe. In other words, must be of such intensity and duration that no reasonable person should be expected to endure it.
• Mere hurt feelings, humiliation, insult, and the like will not be basis for recovery.
o We have already defined the conduct (a kiss) as intentional and PN being awakened suggests shock, while the response suggests outrage and outrage is a result of emotional injury, or a sense of one’s feelings being harmed.
o The calculated part of the conduct can be seen in the probable events leading up to this kiss; we are told that PN was asleep in the meadow. She was probably lying asleep, as this is more likely then standing or sitting and sleeping; most people are lying when they sleep. So with this being the probable scenario, DH would then have to make a conscious effort to kneel down or initiate contact in order for the kiss to take place, therefore satisfying the calculated to cause requirement.
o However, can this conduct be colorable for the “severe” test? Should a reasonable person be expected to endure a rude awakening by a strange, unrequested kiss? Most people would not be expected too and probably would not endure such behavior.

User avatar
weee
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:34 pm

Re: Thoughts on Sample Hypo Response

Postby weee » Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:00 pm

He goes into a pretty in depth analysis of this Hypo on the audio, save your work and compare it as you keep listening.

FrankieFlye
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:16 pm

Re: Thoughts on Sample Hypo Response

Postby FrankieFlye » Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:24 pm

Thanks for the response weee, i've been trying to do that but I've also kept it in perspective, since I've been tryin to read a variety of sources, TLS, XOXOHTH, LSD, etc and glean advice/tips. Some have said that the LEEWS method is good enough for a B but won't make A unless you factor in prof's personal leanings/interests/concentrations.

I just want to make sure I'm at least thinking about things and analyzing them on the fly the correct way, and building the proper set of "lawyerlike" thinking skills. I'm not worried about learning the substantive material yet, I just want to build my ability to analyze and write concise on point responses for exams.

helfer snooterbagon
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:04 pm

Re: Thoughts on Sample Hypo Response

Postby helfer snooterbagon » Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:44 pm

I'm not worried about learning the substantive material yet, I just want to build my ability to analyze and write concise on point responses for exams.


Not to be an asshole, but it is pretty hard to analyze something if you do not know the substantive material.

FrankieFlye
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:16 pm

Re: Thoughts on Sample Hypo Response

Postby FrankieFlye » Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:50 pm

helfer snooterbagon wrote:
I'm not worried about learning the substantive material yet, I just want to build my ability to analyze and write concise on point responses for exams.


Not to be an asshole, but it is pretty hard to analyze something if you do not know the substantive material.


Maybe I should've clarified; I'm not worried about learning all of the substantive material just yet. I've read numerous arguments for/against 0L prep, and I've picked up E&Es on Torts and Civ Pro just to get an idea of whats goin on. Not gonna obsess over them, just get a gist of legalese and applications of certain laws via hypos/examples in the E&Es.

On the LEEWS hypos, I'm basically working off of the black letter laws provided as relevant to the specific hypo; there is a list of relevant torts laws in the LEEWS primer book, which is what I'm using to apply law to facts. Just looking for opinions on clarity in writing, in depth analysis, and if i'm off to the right start. I'm also reading GTM to supplement the LEEWS experience, and have been reading all of the TLS 0L threads and guides. I'd love any thoughts, input. Thanks!




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kensey, LawHammer and 5 guests