1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby johansantana21 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:32 pm

For everyone studying torts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icJ_nmFibr8

It helped me.

User avatar
cinephile
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby cinephile » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:32 pm

johansantana21 wrote:
cinephile wrote:So, I did what I knew I shouldn't have done. I talked the exam over with a couple of people today and realized a couple of big things I missed. Now I hate myself. Great motivation for the next exam.


It's ok bro, at Yale you can fail and still get Skadden.


I'm missing the joke somehow. Not at Yale, probably going into a non-law job now. Just need to find out what I should do/drop out. I guess I could wait for grades first.

BlueDiamond
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby BlueDiamond » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:42 pm

cinephile wrote:
johansantana21 wrote:
cinephile wrote:So, I did what I knew I shouldn't have done. I talked the exam over with a couple of people today and realized a couple of big things I missed. Now I hate myself. Great motivation for the next exam.


It's ok bro, at Yale you can fail and still get Skadden.


I'm missing the joke somehow. Not at Yale, probably going into a non-law job now. Just need to find out what I should do/drop out. I guess I could wait for grades first.


I've already told my fiance that if I'm below median I am dropping out and she will have to support me for the rest of my days.. she didnt agree.. but she didnt disagree.. i took it as a yes

User avatar
cinephile
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:50 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby cinephile » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:45 pm

^ If only I had a fiance to support me. That's what I'll do next semester in lieu of trying to bring up grades/search for a job -- just search for a sugar daddy.

User avatar
Eugenie Danglars
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:55 pm

cinephile wrote:^ If only I had a fiance to support me. That's what I'll do next semester in lieu of trying to bring up grades/search for a job -- just search for a sugar daddy.


Lurk around a med school.

User avatar
Arbiter213
Posts: 2249
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Arbiter213 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:57 pm

orm518 wrote:
Eugenie Danglars wrote:a) traditional- P must prove that D's neg deprived P of at least >50% chance of a more favorable outcome. If proved, damages are for entire injury. Problem here is it bars recovery for even super negligent doctors based on the illness, progression, etc.


Oh, yeah went back into my notes and saw basically this. So on Blue Diamond's 60% survival to 20% survival, I was wrong. It wouldn't satisfy the standard "more probable than not" since the doctor only caused a decrease of 40% chance of survival. I think that the 60-->20% would be of the "super negligent" types that the traditional rule wouldn't reach.

I already had torts, someone want to learn me some property?


You're closer, but still wrong. 60-20% WOULD satisfy the traditional analysis. Without negligence, she has >50% chance of survival, and the negligence was a percent decrease of 100% (or 50%). So it'd be borderline, but it'd be satisfied.

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby johansantana21 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:00 pm

Arbiter213 wrote:
orm518 wrote:
Eugenie Danglars wrote:a) traditional- P must prove that D's neg deprived P of at least >50% chance of a more favorable outcome. If proved, damages are for entire injury. Problem here is it bars recovery for even super negligent doctors based on the illness, progression, etc.


Oh, yeah went back into my notes and saw basically this. So on Blue Diamond's 60% survival to 20% survival, I was wrong. It wouldn't satisfy the standard "more probable than not" since the doctor only caused a decrease of 40% chance of survival. I think that the 60-->20% would be of the "super negligent" types that the traditional rule wouldn't reach.

I already had torts, someone want to learn me some property?


You're closer, but still wrong. 60-20% WOULD satisfy the traditional analysis. Without negligence, she has >50% chance of survival, and the negligence was a percent decrease of 100% (or 50%). So it'd be borderline, but it'd be satisfied.


Confused

Is it a flat 50% reduction or would a 51% to a 49% reduction in chance satisfy pure negligence charge?

User avatar
Arbiter213
Posts: 2249
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Arbiter213 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:12 pm

johansantana21 wrote:
Arbiter213 wrote:
orm518 wrote:
Eugenie Danglars wrote:a) traditional- P must prove that D's neg deprived P of at least >50% chance of a more favorable outcome. If proved, damages are for entire injury. Problem here is it bars recovery for even super negligent doctors based on the illness, progression, etc.


Oh, yeah went back into my notes and saw basically this. So on Blue Diamond's 60% survival to 20% survival, I was wrong. It wouldn't satisfy the standard "more probable than not" since the doctor only caused a decrease of 40% chance of survival. I think that the 60-->20% would be of the "super negligent" types that the traditional rule wouldn't reach.

I already had torts, someone want to learn me some property?


You're closer, but still wrong. 60-20% WOULD satisfy the traditional analysis. Without negligence, she has >50% chance of survival, and the negligence was a percent decrease of 100% (or 50%). So it'd be borderline, but it'd be satisfied.


Confused

Is it a flat 50% reduction or would a 51% to a 49% reduction in chance satisfy pure negligence charge?


There's more than one way, but on the TRADITIONAL view, you can never collect if you already had a less than 50% chance of survival, because it was more likely than not that you were going to die anyway (and hence no matter how much the negligence hurt, it's unlikely your death was caused by it). So it's IF p(survival) > 50%, THEN given that you suffer the harm, what percentage of the time will it have caused your death. So if you had a 60% survival rate and they reduce your chance to 20%, then given that you die, there was a total 80% absolute chance of death, 50% of which was attributable to negligence, and 50% to chance. If the % OF THE CHANCE THAT YOU DIED attributable to negligence is >50%, AND you were more likely than not to survive to begin with, then you can collect on the lost chance under traditional analysis.

User avatar
Eugenie Danglars
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:13 pm

Arbiter213 wrote:There's more than one way, but on the TRADITIONAL view, you can never collect if you already had a less than 50% chance of survival, because it was more likely than not that you were going to die anyway (and hence no matter how much the negligence hurt, it's unlikely your death was caused by it). So it's IF p(survival) > 50%, THEN given that you suffer the harm, what percentage of the time will it have caused your death. So if you had a 60% survival rate and they reduce your chance to 20%, then given that you die, there was a total 80% absolute chance of death, 50% of which was attributable to negligence, and 50% to chance. If the % OF THE CHANCE THAT YOU DIED attributable to negligence is >50%, AND you were more likely than not to survive to begin with, then you can collect on the lost chance under traditional analysis.


the number of people who can get screwed by this is the reason that more jurisdictions are opting for loss of chance. :-) Well phrased, arbiter, thanks.

User avatar
alicrimson
Posts: 923
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:27 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby alicrimson » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:16 pm

So my last exam is on Friday. My prof has been teaching since dinosaurs roved the Earth. He has also graciously given us nine practice exams. I have done 6 and noticed that he keeps testing on the same issues. Fact patterns are even similar. The test is a bit of a crunch in terms of looking things up. In the interest of maximum profit, given that we are allowed to bring anything into the exam, would it be really silly to have his major issues pre-written? In terms of rules? What about his old exam rubrics tabbed according to subject? Sometimes he's also been known to re-use old questions word for word. Unfortunately, a clown in my class decided he would ask/inform the teacher that he re-uses answers. Of course, prof decides to say "no I don't." Kid keeps pushing it. Want to strangle. He posed it as a question: "so my outline isn't really long with printed model answers, can you just not re-use exam questions again? Or what should I do?" Want to strangle. Anyways, is it too crazy to bring these old tests into the real thing in case something is similar and I can sort of use these old rubrics as an issue checklist?

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby johansantana21 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:16 pm

Dude 60% to 20%, reduced your chance of living by 40%, so that's not greater than 50%.

I'm pretty sure it has to be greater than 50% loss of chance in a strict % way. Not a % of the % chance of dying.

If I had a 99% chance of living, you reduced it by .6%, that's >50% of the chance you had of dying, so I can sue under traditional negligence standard. This won't fly I believe.

User avatar
Arbiter213
Posts: 2249
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Arbiter213 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:25 pm

Eugenie Danglars wrote:
Arbiter213 wrote:There's more than one way, but on the TRADITIONAL view, you can never collect if you already had a less than 50% chance of survival, because it was more likely than not that you were going to die anyway (and hence no matter how much the negligence hurt, it's unlikely your death was caused by it). So it's IF p(survival) > 50%, THEN given that you suffer the harm, what percentage of the time will it have caused your death. So if you had a 60% survival rate and they reduce your chance to 20%, then given that you die, there was a total 80% absolute chance of death, 50% of which was attributable to negligence, and 50% to chance. If the % OF THE CHANCE THAT YOU DIED attributable to negligence is >50%, AND you were more likely than not to survive to begin with, then you can collect on the lost chance under traditional analysis.


the number of people who can get screwed by this is the reason that more jurisdictions are opting for loss of chance. :-) Well phrased, arbiter, thanks.


Yah, it's amazing how for so long the courts were just basically doing cause in fact for EVERYTHING wrong by not doing conditional probabilities right. Res Ipsa Analysis too.

Pro-tip for Res Ipsa: It's not if there's negligence, what are the odds of the accident (high? negligent!). It's if the accident happens, what're the odds it was caused by negligence.

User avatar
Arbiter213
Posts: 2249
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Arbiter213 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:27 pm

johansantana21 wrote:Dude 60% to 20%, reduced your chance of living by 40%, so that's not greater than 50%.

I'm pretty sure it has to be greater than 50% loss of chance in a strict % way. Not a % of the % chance of dying.

If I had a 99% chance of living, you reduced it by .6%, that's >50% of the chance you had of dying, so I can sue under traditional negligence standard. This won't fly I believe.


No you could definitely collect for that on the new view.

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby johansantana21 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:35 pm

Arbiter213 wrote:
johansantana21 wrote:Dude 60% to 20%, reduced your chance of living by 40%, so that's not greater than 50%.

I'm pretty sure it has to be greater than 50% loss of chance in a strict % way. Not a % of the % chance of dying.

If I had a 99% chance of living, you reduced it by .6%, that's >50% of the chance you had of dying, so I can sue under traditional negligence standard. This won't fly I believe.


No you could definitely collect for that on the new view.


You're wrong

"The SJC offered the following illustration “suppose in a wrongful death case that a jury found, based on expert testimony and the facts of the case, that full wrongful death damages would be $600,000 (step 1), that the patient had a 45% chance of survival prior to the medical malpractice (step 2), and that the physician's tortious acts reduced the chances of survival to 15% (step 3). The patient's chances of survival were reduced 30% (i.e., 45% minus 15%) due to the physician's malpractice (step 4), and the patient's loss of chance damages would be $600,000 multiplied by 30%, for a total of $180,000 (step 5).” (References omitted.) Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, 890 N.E.2d 819 (Mass. 2008)"

So it would be the pure % chance lost, not % of chance dying created with the new % taken as a % of that %.

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby johansantana21 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:38 pm

Arbiter213 wrote:
johansantana21 wrote:How devastating is missing a MAJOR issue?


As was asked, how major? And by missing you mean getting wrong, or not seeing?

If your professor stressed the issue would appear on the exam and you didn't discuss it elsewhere, probably a pretty big deal. Otherwise, that's why there's a curve.


Pretty major. Was on a test where she uses the checklist format.

BlueDiamond
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby BlueDiamond » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:39 pm

Sorry I started a fight.. if it makes anyone feel any better I'm still not completely confident on any of the loss of chance stuff and have moved on to the defendant's defenses

ocplaytime
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ocplaytime » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:41 pm

finally ending this disaster with a Torts final tomorrow. Prof knows we have all had a week off since our last final so pretty sure he is going to put it in our asses pretttttttyyy welll.....not to mention he ended our last review session 30 minutes early because students weren't prepared and basically stormed out of the class.

ocplaytime
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ocplaytime » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:42 pm

I want this dude in my section

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1wsoqRZTPM

paulinaporizkova
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby paulinaporizkova » Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:02 pm

so. fucking.miserable.

User avatar
Arbiter213
Posts: 2249
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Arbiter213 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:19 pm

johansantana21 wrote:
Arbiter213 wrote:
johansantana21 wrote:Dude 60% to 20%, reduced your chance of living by 40%, so that's not greater than 50%.

I'm pretty sure it has to be greater than 50% loss of chance in a strict % way. Not a % of the % chance of dying.

If I had a 99% chance of living, you reduced it by .6%, that's >50% of the chance you had of dying, so I can sue under traditional negligence standard. This won't fly I believe.


No you could definitely collect for that on the new view.


You're wrong

"The SJC offered the following illustration “suppose in a wrongful death case that a jury found, based on expert testimony and the facts of the case, that full wrongful death damages would be $600,000 (step 1), that the patient had a 45% chance of survival prior to the medical malpractice (step 2), and that the physician's tortious acts reduced the chances of survival to 15% (step 3). The patient's chances of survival were reduced 30% (i.e., 45% minus 15%) due to the physician's malpractice (step 4), and the patient's loss of chance damages would be $600,000 multiplied by 30%, for a total of $180,000 (step 5).” (References omitted.) Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, 890 N.E.2d 819 (Mass. 2008)"

So it would be the pure % chance lost, not % of chance dying created with the new % taken as a % of that %.


Ok 2 things. One, looking at the original thing I said, you couldn't collect there EVER because .6% increase from 1% is only about 1/3 increase of the total chance of death.

1. It depends entirely on jurisdiction- this is still a very controversial area of law. Compare: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/new-york-grimstad.html

rawrab
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:28 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby rawrab » Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:29 pm

how are you all staying motivated? I have two more tests (already finished three) over the course of the next week and I'm feeling like I'm ready to die of exhaustion.

User avatar
Eugenie Danglars
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:32 pm

rawrab wrote:how are you all staying motivated? I have two more tests (already finished three) over the course of the next week and I'm feeling like I'm ready to die of exhaustion.


Take time off. I took a whole day off between 2/4 and 3/4, and it helped immeasurably.

User avatar
crossarmant
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:01 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby crossarmant » Wed Dec 14, 2011 8:50 pm

I just am so done with this semester... I want my 3 weeks of break already... this is absurd.

I am just completely out of steam for my last exam. After 16 weeks of going hard everyday, I just... can't muster the strength for these last two days.

User avatar
bostonlawchick
Posts: 439
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:09 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby bostonlawchick » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:05 pm

crossarmant wrote:I just am so done with this semester... I want my 3 weeks of break already... this is absurd.

I am just completely out of steam for my last exam. After 16 weeks of going hard everyday doing absolutely nothing, I just... can't muster the strength for these last two days.


FTFM

User avatar
Gecko of Doom
Posts: 415
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:32 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Gecko of Doom » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:29 pm

The bad: Torts practice exams make me want to drink a fifth of vodka and jump off a bridge.
The good: I will be done with Torts forever after 11:30 tomorrow.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: StaviTavi1290 and 3 guests