Top Law Schools

Thanks to the weird grading system this school uses, I won't realize just how badly I failed my exams until long after grade are released. Sweet blissful ignorance.

FeelTheHeat wrote:Don't want to learn contracts. Can I just use reliance for every answer?

This. So much this.

Gecko of Doom wrote:

FeelTheHeat wrote:Don't want to learn contracts. Can I just use reliance for every answer?

This. So much this.

contracts is always making me duress

FeelTheHeat wrote:Don't want to learn contracts. Can I just use reliance for every answer?

Agreed. I'm so burnt out after CivPro... I do not want to do another exam.

Just did a Ks practice exam, then looked at the model answer and holy shit. I hope that nobody could actually write that shit.

The first grades for my school are already being posted (I have not got 1 yet) they split our contracts class into 2 parts 3a and 3b and the other part got their grade already. Can someone start a grade waiting thread that is better at it then I so I can bitch and moan one grade at a time?

Or has someone already?

Waiting on grades? Lordy, please start a thread and GTFO; no offense, but those of us still doing exams don't want to hear from folks getting pwned just yet.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=173905


GTFO'd

Gamecock227 wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=173905


GTFO'd

Danke, seriously.

Got a negligence per se question. When considering limited statutory purpose in the absence of legislative history, is the sole consideration whether the harm that occurred is the type of harm that the statute is meant to prevent? Or is it also whether the manner of the injury that occurred is what the statute is meant to prevent?

sundance95 wrote:Got a negligence per se question. When considering limited statutory purpose in the absence of legislative history, is the sole consideration whether the harm that occurred is the type of harm that the statute is meant to prevent? Or is it also whether the manner of the injury that occurred is what the statute is meant to prevent?

Could you go a little more in depth?

Type vs manner?

johansantana21 wrote:

sundance95 wrote:Got a negligence per se question. When considering limited statutory purpose in the absence of legislative history, is the sole consideration whether the harm that occurred is the type of harm that the statute is meant to prevent? Or is it also whether the manner of the injury that occurred is what the statute is meant to prevent?

Could you go a little more in depth?

Type vs manner?

Type only. Manner is immaterial, same as proximate cause.

proximate cause example: boat unmoors, hits another boat, together hit bridge, flood river, damaging property along the river. Damage to property along the river is the type that is bound by the duty to moor the boat properly, so the unforeseeable means by which it happened are immaterial.

Another example: making someone clean a machine with gasoline in a closed space with an open flame (pilot light) is negligent because it's likely to cause an explosion. The fact that the explosion is caused by a rat catching fire and running into the gasoline is immaterial.

Sure. D is a driver who has a learner's permit but no license yet. D drives alone to school in violation of the licensing statute, which requires those with learner's permit to drive only when accompanied by a licensed driver. Suppose while driving the rear axle breaks, and D hits P, a pedestrian, as a result. P sues in negligence. Assume no prox. cause problem or any other issue besides whether the violation is within the statutory purpose.

Clearly the type of harm is that which the statute sought to prevent: injury resulting from car accidents. But the manner in which the accident and harm occurred doesn't appear to match with the statute's purpose; it seems it is trying to keep inexperienced drivers from hurting others due to their inexperience.

Arbiter213 wrote:Type only. Manner is immaterial, same as proximate cause.

proximate cause example: boat unmoors, hits another boat, together hit bridge, flood river, damaging property along the river. Damage to property along the river is the type that is bound by the duty to moor the boat properly, so the unforeseeable means by which it happened are immaterial.

Another example: making someone clean a machine with gasoline in a closed space with an open flame (pilot light) is negligent because it's likely to cause an explosion. The fact that the explosion is caused by a rat catching fire and running into the gasoline is immaterial.

Yeah I definitely agree, but those are all proximate cause problems. Are you aware of any cases regarding limited statutory purpose?

Arbiter213 wrote:

johansantana21 wrote:

sundance95 wrote:Got a negligence per se question. When considering limited statutory purpose in the absence of legislative history, is the sole consideration whether the harm that occurred is the type of harm that the statute is meant to prevent? Or is it also whether the manner of the injury that occurred is what the statute is meant to prevent?

Could you go a little more in depth?

Type vs manner?

Type only. Manner is immaterial, same as proximate cause.

proximate cause example: boat unmoors, hits another boat, together hit bridge, flood river, damaging property along the river. Damage to property along the river is the type that is bound by the duty to moor the boat properly, so the unforeseeable means by which it happened are immaterial.

Another example: making someone clean a machine with gasoline in a closed space with an open flame (pilot light) is negligent because it's likely to cause an explosion. The fact that the explosion is caused by a rat catching fire and running into the gasoline is immaterial.

What cases were these?

I'd like to look it up.

Yeesh thats a toughie that I think you could argue either way.

My gut is that it is not N per se. Would the accident have happened with an experienced driver? If yes then probably no negligence per se. Like you said the staute is likely designed to cover accidents caused by drivers inexperience. This isn't that so it's not what the statute was designed to cover.

johansantana21 wrote:What cases were these?

I'd like to look it up.

The boat case is Petition of Kinsman Transit Co., 338 F.2d 708.

theavrock wrote:Yeesh thats a toughie that I think you could argue either way.

My gut is that it is not N per se. Would the accident have happened with an experienced driver? If yes then probably no negligence per se. Like you said the staute is likely designed to cover accidents caused by drivers inexperience. This isn't that so it's not what the statute was designed to cover.

I think you're right; I need to focus less on getting a right answer and more on presenting the arguments for each and then choosing one.

Disclaimer: this is not an exam question.

this is a miserable, soul-crushing experience

No one in my civ. pro class finished the exam. It was apparently designed so you don't finish. Kind of absurd, and seemingly unnecessary/stupid, but hey- i guess that's sort of the law school way.

BlueDiamond wrote:this is a miserable, soul-crushing experience

* hugs * You'll get through it.

the good things about tough exams is that when you're done, it is one of the best feelings in the world! you guys will make it

So pretty much all I know about torts is: "don't be negligent." I'll be good for the exam tomorrow, right?

Eugenie Danglars wrote:So pretty much all I know about torts is: "don't be negligent." I'll be good for the exam tomorrow, right?

This is all I know about Torts too, and I have a policy essay for my Torts exam on Friday. You'll be fine.

How good are the sample problems in Acing Contracts? I read through the book/used the checklists to spruce up my outline just now. Is it worth coming back to the library to run through the sample questions with the analysis? I've already done 4 practice exams and the E&E.