First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11721
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby kalvano » Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:56 pm

ilovesf wrote:
kalvano wrote:Wait, you covered battery, assault, and false imprisonment in a week?

Send your professor over to my school. That was about 7 weeks for us.


I was also confused by that, we're spending a bit more than a week on battery.



You should be able to reasonably cover all the intentional torts in a couple of weeks.

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby Tanicius » Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:03 pm

kalvano wrote:
ilovesf wrote:
kalvano wrote:Wait, you covered battery, assault, and false imprisonment in a week?

Send your professor over to my school. That was about 7 weeks for us.


I was also confused by that, we're spending a bit more than a week on battery.



You should be able to reasonably cover all the intentional torts in a couple of weeks.


Our prof said we cover intentional torts in 2 days at the very end of class and that he designed it that way on purpose. Different profs, different styles and opinions on what's important, I guess. Well, no, obviously.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11721
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby kalvano » Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:07 pm

Tanicius wrote:Our prof said we cover intentional torts in 2 days at the very end of class and that he designed it that way on purpose. Different profs, different styles and opinions on what's important, I guess. Well, no, obviously.



Sure. But I guess my point is that they are not difficult and should not take a large amount of class time.

User avatar
YourCaptain
Posts: 719
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:26 pm

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby YourCaptain » Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:44 pm

i do not know what leews or pls do for you people.

There are ambiguities and exceptions, deal with it. When you get to an exam, concisely write out what you're struggling with, why you're struggling with it, maybe a distinction from a case you read in class if there's a similar issue present, make your conclusion and explain why you did so.

it's not that hard.

User avatar
spleenworship
Posts: 4421
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 11:08 pm

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby spleenworship » Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:17 pm

FeelTheHeat wrote:
shoeshine wrote:It it good or bad that I have done the same if not more prep than the op and feel the exact opposite after my first couple days?

No confidence here. Just fear and self-loathing.


I flip flop by the hour between the two extremes

reverendt
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:56 am

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby reverendt » Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:26 pm

More than any other class, torts is ALL about the elements. Just stick to the black letter law and don't get bogged down by the details of the cases you're reading.

User avatar
introversional
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:59 am

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby introversional » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:02 pm

beach_terror wrote:
blendpose wrote: BUT, what I was trying to say-which I will attempt more clearly- is that exam time the teacher doesn't want a basic definition of something, right? The P may have very will hit D, but don't we need to exam all of the nuances in order to accumulate more points? That was my focus.

There aren't a lot of nuances when someone gets hit.


Sure there are. For example, if the OP, in his hometown state of New Jersey, went out one evening and proceeded to fist pump to his favorite techno song, and another individual (who was drunk) stumbled into the dancing OP and injured his head on the OP's fist, there's plenty of important nuance there...

In fact, if OP injured his fist on the negligent(?) D's head, the OP might have a battery claim against D.

User avatar
kswiss
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:58 am

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby kswiss » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:25 pm

introversional wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
blendpose wrote:

In fact, if OP injured his fist on the negligent(?) D's head, the OP might have a battery claim against D.


Battery is an intentional tort.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7241
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby beach_terror » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:36 pm

introversional wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
blendpose wrote: BUT, what I was trying to say-which I will attempt more clearly- is that exam time the teacher doesn't want a basic definition of something, right? The P may have very will hit D, but don't we need to exam all of the nuances in order to accumulate more points? That was my focus.

There aren't a lot of nuances when someone gets hit.


Sure there are. For example, if the OP, in his hometown state of New Jersey, went out one evening and proceeded to fist pump to his favorite techno song, and another individual (who was drunk) stumbled into the dancing OP and injured his head on the OP's fist, there's plenty of important nuance there...

In fact, if OP injured his fist on the negligent(?) D's head, the OP might have a battery claim against D.

There's no intent there, the discussion was about intentional torts. So no, your hypo fails.

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby kaiser » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:38 pm

Lol these 1L's gotta study a bit more...

User avatar
Naked Dude
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby Naked Dude » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:40 pm

beach_terror wrote:
introversional wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
blendpose wrote: BUT, what I was trying to say-which I will attempt more clearly- is that exam time the teacher doesn't want a basic definition of something, right? The P may have very will hit D, but don't we need to exam all of the nuances in order to accumulate more points? That was my focus.

There aren't a lot of nuances when someone gets hit.


Sure there are. For example, if the OP, in his hometown state of New Jersey, went out one evening and proceeded to fist pump to his favorite techno song, and another individual (who was drunk) stumbled into the dancing OP and injured his head on the OP's fist, there's plenty of important nuance there...

In fact, if OP injured his fist on the negligent(?) D's head, the OP might have a battery claim against D.

There's no intent there, the discussion was about intentional torts. So no, your hypo fails.


I guess it depends on how narrowly you read intent. You might argue fault to give you intent but, I doubt there would be a battery claim because that sort of shit is par for the course at a club.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7241
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby beach_terror » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:42 pm

Naked Dude wrote:I guess it depends on how narrowly you read intent. You might argue fault to give you intent but, I doubt there would be a battery claim because that sort of shit is par for the course at a club.

No, hit the books. Even thinking intentional torts there is a bad sign.

User avatar
introversional
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:59 am

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby introversional » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:43 pm

beach_terror wrote:
introversional wrote:
beach_terror wrote:
blendpose wrote: BUT, what I was trying to say-which I will attempt more clearly- is that exam time the teacher doesn't want a basic definition of something, right? The P may have very will hit D, but don't we need to exam all of the nuances in order to accumulate more points? That was my focus.

There aren't a lot of nuances when someone gets hit.


Sure there are. For example, if the OP, in his hometown state of New Jersey, went out one evening and proceeded to fist pump to his favorite techno song, and another individual (who was drunk) stumbled into the dancing OP and injured his head on the OP's fist, there's plenty of important nuance there...

In fact, if OP injured his fist on the negligent(?) D's head, the OP might have a battery claim against D.

There's no intent there, the discussion was about intentional torts. So no, your hypo fails.


You can be negligently wrongful, not only intentionally wrongful.

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby 071816 » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:43 pm

LOL at the Jersey Shore hypo. That definitely fails as an example of an intentional tort.

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby kaiser » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:44 pm

Naked Dude wrote:
I guess it depends on how narrowly you read intent. You might argue fault to give you intent but, I doubt there would be a battery claim because that sort of shit is par for the course at a club.


No. This is wasted discussion on an exam since its so blatantly and clearly not an intentional tort. Wasting a moment discussing it would just show an inability to say "it is X, not Y", which is a valuable skill. On torts exams (and exams in general in law school), being able to say "well, it isn't so and so, thus I don't need to analyze it as such" is just as valuable as identifying what the situation actually is.
Last edited by kaiser on Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Naked Dude
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby Naked Dude » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:44 pm

How can you categorically state that there is no intent? Maybe the guy is really pissed off and decides he wants to hit someone.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7241
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby beach_terror » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:45 pm

Naked Dude wrote:How can you categorically state that there is no intent? Maybe the guy is really pissed off and decides he wants to hit someone.

Yes, making up facts that aren't there is a great idea when trying to solve an exam problem.

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby 071816 » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:45 pm

Naked Dude wrote:How can you categorically state that there is no intent? Maybe the guy is really pissed off and decides he wants to hit someone.


Because he was dancing, not fighting...

shoeshine
Posts: 1241
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 10:58 pm

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby shoeshine » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:47 pm

Naked Dude you are kind of embarrassing yourself.

User avatar
FeelTheHeat
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:32 am

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby FeelTheHeat » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:47 pm

beach_terror wrote:
Naked Dude wrote:How can you categorically state that there is no intent? Maybe the guy is really pissed off and decides he wants to hit someone.

Yes, making up facts that aren't there is a great idea when trying to solve an exam problem.


Arguendo!

But seriously, this might be the most annoying topic I've seen on TLS in months.

User avatar
D'Angelo
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 10:29 am

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby D'Angelo » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:48 pm

my torts isn't until spring...hopefully that means less craziness like this... :shock:

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby kaiser » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:49 pm

shoeshine wrote:Naked Dude you are kind of embarrassing yourself.


In all fairness, he is a week or 2 into school, so cut him some slack. I'm sure I tried making some flimsy arguments at first, yet I turned it around and did very well in torts.

User avatar
introversional
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:59 am

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby introversional » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:50 pm

chimp wrote:
Naked Dude wrote:How can you categorically state that there is no intent? Maybe the guy is really pissed off and decides he wants to hit someone.


Because he was dancing, not fighting...


We're getting off point here... The dancing guy wanted to hit the air above his head, that's all. The drunken heathen that ran into the dancer's first with his head is the potential tortfeasor here. If we show fault/negligence (say he was on E along with his bottle of jager) and stumbled into the innocent dancer thereby hurting dancer's first with his sweaty head... we have a case, no?

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby Grizz » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:50 pm

LOL

User avatar
Naked Dude
Posts: 746
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof)

Postby Naked Dude » Sun Aug 28, 2011 1:53 pm

introversional wrote:
chimp wrote:
Naked Dude wrote:How can you categorically state that there is no intent? Maybe the guy is really pissed off and decides he wants to hit someone.


Because he was dancing, not fighting...


We're getting off point here... The dancing guy wanted to hit the air above his head, that's all. The drunken heathen that ran into the dancer's first with his head is the potential tortfeasor here. If we show fault/negligence (say he was on E along with his bottle of jager) and stumbled into the innocent dancer thereby hurting dancer's first with his sweaty head... we have a case, no?


but what about the whole substantial certainty bit? the nightclub location covers that i guess. whatever man i'm giving legal advice or nothing, feel free to correct me and all. enjoy it if you must, no need to be hostile.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Downstairs_Mixup, flashyguy21, manuel390, marmarmv, narddawg, pd_1023, pvnyc, sr1986, Trippel, weneedahealer and 30 guests