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
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 11:32 pm

Gecko of Doom wrote: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.


ME TOO

User avatar
theavrock
Posts: 601
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby theavrock » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:32 pm

I don't get all the Torts hate. Probably the class I feel is the most straightforward.

I have Crim on Saturday and I cannot fucking wait for that shit to be done with. I hate that class with a passion.

Although, I did just get my final memo back from there and ended up with an A- so that gives me some confidence going in to the final.

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 11:33 pm

theavrock wrote:I don't get all the Torts hate. Probably the class I feel is the most straightforward.

I have Crim on Saturday and I cannot fucking wait for that shit to be done with. I hate that class with a passion.

Although, I did just get my final memo back from there and ended up with an A- so that gives me some confidence going in to the final.


I like torts. It is straightforward, even if it involves some number crunching. It's just that it's my last class of five, and I'm so ready to be done. That's all.

shock259
Posts: 1737
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:30 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby shock259 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:36 pm

I'm done tomorrow morning too. CANNOT WAIT.

I wish I could make myself study for my last final more, but I just can't. Thankfully, I studied a lot for this one before. And it's 2/3 MP without a time crunch.

OH MY GOD I'M SO EXCITED TO DRINK

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 11:37 pm

theavrock wrote:I don't get all the Torts hate. Probably the class I feel is the most straightforward.

I have Crim on Saturday and I cannot fucking wait for that shit to be done with. I hate that class with a passion.

Although, I did just get my final memo back from there and ended up with an A- so that gives me some confidence going in to the final.


I loved Torts. I definitely felt like it was the most logical and straightforward. CivPro on the other hand was an evil ball of hatred; though breaking a lot of up into Flowcharts made it a million times easier. Same for Contracts; I sat down with some paper and drew myself out one giant flowchart and it makes answering hypos way easier.

I'm dreading getting my grade back for LRW, it was my red-headed stepchild all semester. I got so caught up in the other 3 classes that I would forget about it (only met once a week early in the morning) and then rush to work on it. But here's where the curve is advantageous, I don't have to have done great, just better than others.

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 11:38 pm

theavrock wrote:I don't get all the Torts hate. Probably the class I feel is the most straightforward.

The class is very straightforward. My professor's exams feel sloppily written.

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Hannibal » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:38 pm

I'm in the "done tomorrow" club too. Test ends at 12:30, and the bar across the street is opening early to serve us. We're gonna fucking flood that place.

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 11:39 pm

Contracts. So doomed. Contracts. :x

User avatar
orm518
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:23 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby orm518 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:54 pm

Arbiter213 wrote: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


I'm with Johan on this. Under the traditional view, you must reduce the P's chance of survival by at least 50% and the chance of survival must be greater than 50% without the negligence. 60% to 20% is not a 66% loss of chance, it's a 40% loss of chance and would not satisfy the traditional test.

Under the loss-of-a-chance problem, you would receive similarly 40% of wrongful death damages, not 66%. This undercompensates Plaintiffs who actually do die from the negligence, the 40% of total patients who die due to negligence (compared to the 40% that would die anyways), but it overcompensates plaintiffs who were treated negligently, but would fall into the other 40% anyways, those that would have died even with proper medical treatment.

I read the cases you cited, I didn't see anything different. The second one is from 1920 and involves railroads, loss-of-a-chance is strictly for Med-mal.

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby northwood » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:05 am

my torts prof just said for loss chance you subtract the starting % chance of survival before DR's negligence from % chance of survival after Drs negligence and mulitply it by the award ( ie 50% chance before- 20% chance after= lost chance of survival of 30%,) multipled by the award amount ( no changes to it)

User avatar
akili
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:21 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby akili » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:05 am

Hannibal wrote:I'm in the "done tomorrow" club too. Test ends at 12:30, and the bar across the street is opening early to serve us. We're gonna fucking flood that place.


Just chiming in to agree that it's going to be awesome.

Can't wait to be done.

User avatar
rocon7383
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby rocon7383 » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:08 am

i know the expression "this makes my head hurt" is thrown around lightly. But my head has ACTUALLY been hurting for the last two days.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby FeelTheHeat » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:09 am

Sounds crazy, but I wish contracts was tomorrow and not Friday morning. Feel like I'm ready. Still studying cause I'm nervous

User avatar
dabomb75
Posts: 376
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:56 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby dabomb75 » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:15 am

alicrimson wrote:Contracts. So doomed. Contracts. :x


:? me too

User avatar
orm518
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:23 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby orm518 » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:17 am

rocon7383 wrote:i know the expression "this makes my head hurt" is thrown around lightly. But my head has ACTUALLY been hurting for the last two days.


I got really dry eyes, to the point of not being able to keep them open, from looking at my computer for far too long for the last two weeks. I can totally see a headache resulting as well, for the same reason.

Two exams and 6 days, then I'll join the "drink your face off" crowd with the rest of you.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Arbiter213 » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:20 am

orm518 wrote:
Arbiter213 wrote: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


I'm with Johan on this. Under the traditional view, you must reduce the P's chance of survival by at least 50% and the chance of survival must be greater than 50% without the negligence. 60% to 20% is not a 66% loss of chance, it's a 40% loss of chance and would not satisfy the traditional test.

Under the loss-of-a-chance problem, you would receive similarly 40% of wrongful death damages, not 66%. This undercompensates Plaintiffs who actually do die from the negligence, the 40% of total patients who die due to negligence (compared to the 40% that would die anyways), but it overcompensates plaintiffs who were treated negligently, but would fall into the other 40% anyways, those that would have died even with proper medical treatment.

I read the cases you cited, I didn't see anything different. The second one is from 1920 and involves railroads, loss-of-a-chance is strictly for Med-mal.


The traditional view doesn't recognize loss of chance as itself actionable. You're doing the math wrong either way there. 60 to 20 is a 100% increase in chance of death. The correct analysis on the traditional view is that GIVEN THAT HE DIED, what are the odds that it was caused by negligence? Here, those would be 50%, which is the percent of the damages from premature death you could collect (assuming here that it was in fact 50.1%).

I went back over this since I had to make sure I got it right. You have the policy considerations correct (for one side) and I know loss of chance is now constrained entirely to medical malpractice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby johansantana21 » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:24 am

Arbiter213 wrote:
orm518 wrote:
Arbiter213 wrote: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


I'm with Johan on this. Under the traditional view, you must reduce the P's chance of survival by at least 50% and the chance of survival must be greater than 50% without the negligence. 60% to 20% is not a 66% loss of chance, it's a 40% loss of chance and would not satisfy the traditional test.

Under the loss-of-a-chance problem, you would receive similarly 40% of wrongful death damages, not 66%. This undercompensates Plaintiffs who actually do die from the negligence, the 40% of total patients who die due to negligence (compared to the 40% that would die anyways), but it overcompensates plaintiffs who were treated negligently, but would fall into the other 40% anyways, those that would have died even with proper medical treatment.

I read the cases you cited, I didn't see anything different. The second one is from 1920 and involves railroads, loss-of-a-chance is strictly for Med-mal.


The traditional view doesn't recognize loss of chance as itself actionable. You're doing the math wrong either way there. 60 to 20 is a 100% increase in chance of death. The correct analysis on the traditional view is that GIVEN THAT HE DIED, what are the odds that it was caused by negligence? Here, those would be 50%, which is the percent of the damages from premature death you could collect (assuming here that it was in fact 50.1%).

I went back over this since I had to make sure I got it right. You have the policy considerations correct (for one side) and I know loss of chance is now constrained entirely to medical malpractice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability


You should cite a case, not wikipedia.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby crossarmant » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:25 am

FeelTheHeat wrote:Sounds crazy, but I wish contracts was tomorrow and not Friday morning. Feel like I'm ready. Still studying cause I'm nervous


Agreed. I'd much rather get it out of the way while I feel confident than after another 30 hours of freaking myself out. That and I want to be done with finals already so I can play the hell out of Skyrim uninterrupted for 3 weeks straight.
Last edited by crossarmant on Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
orm518
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:23 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby orm518 » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:37 am

Arbiter213 wrote:The traditional view doesn't recognize loss of chance as itself actionable. You're doing the math wrong either way there. 60 to 20 is a 100% increase in chance of death. The correct analysis on the traditional view is that GIVEN THAT HE DIED, what are the odds that it was caused by negligence? Here, those would be 50%, which is the percent of the damages from premature death you could collect (assuming here that it was in fact 50.1%).

I went back over this since I had to make sure I got it right. You have the policy considerations correct (for one side) and I know loss of chance is now constrained entirely to medical malpractice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_probability


I know the traditional view doesn't recognize the loss of chance as the injury, that's what makes the loss of chance cases different. The damages in duty/breach/causation/damages is the loss themselves not the death. In the traditional view on the action in wrongful death, you still would need to produce expert testimony on the statistical probability of chance of survival before the negligence and then the probability after to show that the traditional "more probable than not the D's negligence caused the death," so a P would need to show 50% or greater loss of chance and must have a greater than 50% chance of survival without the negligence, if so FULL DAMAGES. Since the traditional view doesn't see the loss of chance as the injury it's full wrongful death damages or 0%, not 50% as you suggest.

Edit: Oh, that wiki article, these cases are written by lawyers not physicists, so I wouldn't put much weight in that. Everyone here took math, we know that in the 60% chance to 20% chance your likelihood of death has doubled from 40% to 80%, a 100% increase as you pointed out, but that's not how courts view it. The previously cited Matsuyama case talks about the traditional view pretty clearly.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Arbiter213 » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:42 am

johansantana21 wrote:You should cite a case, not wikipedia.

Ok, my bad on most of that. But bear with me here:

I'm citing wikipedia so you can actually learn how to do math. Here's a case:

Herkovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, 664 P.2d 474 (Wash. 1983)
Is a 36% (from 39 percent to 25%) reduction in the decent's chance for survival sufficient evidence of causation to allow the jury to consider the possibility that the phsysician's failure to timely diagnose the illness was the proximate cause of his death? We answer in the affirmative.


That case does not use the traditional analysis, and the Pearson concurrence goes into the policy rationale for why you don't want the traditional, all or nothing, approach. These include arbitrariness, subversion of deterrence by letting doctors escape liability for negligence in treating terminal patients, pressures on the courts to manipulate the traditional proximate cause analysis (instead of just granting loss of chance as its own tort), grants a benefit to defendants based on an uncertainty that wouldn't exist but for their own negligence, and because loss of chance is itself worth something on its own.

My casebook goes into the conditional probability analysis of the case in its comments, but that's not a case so you wouldn't believe it was true even if I quoted it out like this:

Suppose the defendant is a doctor performing a risky but important procedure. There is a 5 percent chance that the plaintiff will die even if the doctor is careful in every respect. But the doctor is negligent in some way and this raises the plaintiff's risk of death to 25 percent. The plaintiff dies. We have no way of knowing whether the death resulted from the doctor's negligence or from the original (or "background) 5 percent risk that existed anyway. Should the doctor be held liable?

The answer is "yes" under traditional tort principles. At first this might seem an odd case for liability because the doctor's negligence did not make it more likely than not that the plaintiff would die; the negligence only created a 25 percent chance of death, and obviously 25 percent is less than the seemingly magic 50 percent figure. But that is not the question. The question is: given that the plaintiff did die, how likely is it that the doctor caused the death?... Though the total risk of death was relatively small, most of the risk that did exist (four-firths of it) was due to the doctor's negligence. The thing that was risked came to pass. There is an 80 percent chance that the doctor was to blame.


A lot of courts used to do this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confusion_of_the_inverse More recently courts have caught on (see modern res ipsa analysis vs. old stuff). Posner has helped with that.

User avatar
dabomb75
Posts: 376
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:56 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby dabomb75 » Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:12 am

I'll be happy if I get 5 hours of sleep tonight. Really should have tried to solidify my understanding of contracts more than 48 hours before my exam

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby johansantana21 » Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:22 am

dabomb75 wrote:I'll be happy if I get 5 hours of sleep tonight. Really should have tried to solidify my understanding of contracts more than 48 hours before my exam


You're dabomb, I'm sure you'll be fine.

User avatar
Shammis
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Shammis » Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:39 am

Civ Pro Final Tomorrow. Last final of the Semester. I cant wait to be done but I've totally hit a wall these past 3 days and cannot effectively study. Good news? Section Beer Pong Tournament right afterwards...Good luck to everyone finishing up (or in the middle of it). Blurgle.

User avatar
Gamecock227
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:42 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Gamecock227 » Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:57 am

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


If you don't find this funny, I am sorry. If you do find this funny, you are welcome.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:43 am

Off to take my last final. Underprepared and don't give a damn. Oh well! I'll be done at noon!




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests