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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby FeelTheHeat » Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:29 pm

Quality, not quantity...prefer to absolutely ensure I'm doing it right...3 each sounds about right

User avatar
$peppercorn
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:49 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby $peppercorn » Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:01 pm

Checking in. First final in 11 days.

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Sandro » Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:13 pm

Kinda wish I had read my supplements a lot more before class. I've got good notes but none of this stuff was put into my long term memory because the textbooks arent that great at conveying the info in a nice way.

User avatar
brickman
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:59 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby brickman » Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:33 pm

well. 2000 words of BLL to memorize for crim. guess i'll get started.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11741
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ilovesf » Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:38 pm

done with my outlines!!! onwards to solely studying property until my dec 1st exam and devouring the e&e

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:40 pm

ilovesf wrote:done with my outlines!!! onwards to solely studying property until my dec 1st exam and devouring the e&e


Grats! good luck!!! I'm looking to finish up my outlines over the break.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby shock259 » Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:50 pm

Tests tests more tests here. I'm tired of writing them out fully (and I don't get much from it any more, except cramped wrists), so I just outline them nowadays. Helps for issue spotting and analysis, I think.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11741
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ilovesf » Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:54 pm

ph14 wrote:
ilovesf wrote:done with my outlines!!! onwards to solely studying property until my dec 1st exam and devouring the e&e


Grats! good luck!!! I'm looking to finish up my outlines over the break.

thanks!! :D good luck getting yours done between turkey and more turkey!

User avatar
BackToTheOldHouse
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:03 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby BackToTheOldHouse » Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:58 pm

Sandro wrote:Kinda wish I had read my supplements a lot more before class. I've got good notes but none of this stuff was put into my long term memory because the textbooks arent that great at conveying the info in a nice way.

I agree with this.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:01 pm

shock259 wrote:Tests tests more tests here. I'm tired of writing them out fully (and I don't get much from it any more, except cramped wrists), so I just outline them nowadays. Helps for issue spotting and analysis, I think.


How many have you taken? I haven't started yet, I need to finish up my outlines + checklists and really learn the material. Hopefully I can start taking lots of practice exams starting next week.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby alicrimson » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:30 am

So today was a very good day. I didn't get a ton done; however, some light bulbs went on for me today that have been pretty dim all semester. Torts has been a proverbial thorn in my side for the past month or so. I am fairly confident about all the classes I'm taking except torts. Possibly because its closed book? Silly? I hate that everything is reasonable? Whatever. Any who, as obvious as this sounds I was having trouble breaking things down and essentially doing pain by number arguments. Today I went over all of negligence and products liability and tried to look at all of my concepts and how they fit in each box for the big picture and for the first time (many of you probably felt this way in September...lol...but I was excited) I just kind of saw how everything fit. Particularly with negligence. I found it really neat and pretty easy to structure by placing concepts in boxes and then letting one element bleed into the next. Its the little things. Also, the barbri torts lectures are very good. I watched those and well and love the clarity of them. Fantastic. Today might not have been the million hour day but I'm satisfied. Also, the average grade on my torts teacher's test last year was a 45/100. This leads me to believe that if I get say a 58-60/100 that I'm looking at a nice grade. Its less stressful to think that you don't have to know EVERYTHING, you just have to know ENOUGH things...and the more important things. Sorry for the "cool story, bro" but I was just so darn excited. lol.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:33 am

alicrimson wrote:So today was a very good day. I didn't get a ton done; however, some light bulbs went on for me today that have been pretty dim all semester. Torts has been a proverbial thorn in my side for the past month or so. I am fairly confident about all the classes I'm taking except torts. Possibly because its closed book? Silly? I hate that everything is reasonable? Whatever. Any who, as obvious as this sounds I was having trouble breaking things down and essentially doing pain by number arguments. Today I went over all of negligence and products liability and tried to look at all of my concepts and how they fit in each box for the big picture and for the first time (many of you probably felt this way in September...lol...but I was excited) I just kind of saw how everything fit. Particularly with negligence. I found it really neat and pretty easy to structure by placing concepts in boxes and then letting one element bleed into the next. Its the little things. Also, the barbri torts lectures are very good. I watched those and well and love the clarity of them. Fantastic. Today might not have been the million hour day but I'm satisfied. Also, the average grade on my torts teacher's test last year was a 45/100. This leads me to believe that if I get say a 58-60/100 that I'm looking at a nice grade. Its less stressful to think that you don't have to know EVERYTHING, you just have to know ENOUGH things...and the more important things. Sorry for the "cool story, bro" but I was just so darn excited. lol.


Awesome :). I wish I felt as good as you do haha.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby alicrimson » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:41 am

ph14 wrote:
alicrimson wrote:So today was a very good day. I didn't get a ton done; however, some light bulbs went on for me today that have been pretty dim all semester. Torts has been a proverbial thorn in my side for the past month or so. I am fairly confident about all the classes I'm taking except torts. Possibly because its closed book? Silly? I hate that everything is reasonable? Whatever. Any who, as obvious as this sounds I was having trouble breaking things down and essentially doing pain by number arguments. Today I went over all of negligence and products liability and tried to look at all of my concepts and how they fit in each box for the big picture and for the first time (many of you probably felt this way in September...lol...but I was excited) I just kind of saw how everything fit. Particularly with negligence. I found it really neat and pretty easy to structure by placing concepts in boxes and then letting one element bleed into the next. Its the little things. Also, the barbri torts lectures are very good. I watched those and well and love the clarity of them. Fantastic. Today might not have been the million hour day but I'm satisfied. Also, the average grade on my torts teacher's test last year was a 45/100. This leads me to believe that if I get say a 58-60/100 that I'm looking at a nice grade. Its less stressful to think that you don't have to know EVERYTHING, you just have to know ENOUGH things...and the more important things. Sorry for the "cool story, bro" but I was just so darn excited. lol.


Awesome :). I wish I felt as good as you do haha.


Potentially short lived? Over confidence? Also, I'm excited about seeing how negligence fits. I mean, I understood it before but now I'm pretty confident with filling in the little boxes. Plus, being home is fun and like I said, its negligence. Most TLS kids probably could do what I'm doing now before law school started. Taking a Torts PT tomorrow morning before turkey bonanza starts. Then, its on to Ks.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:44 am

alicrimson wrote:
ph14 wrote:
alicrimson wrote:So today was a very good day. I didn't get a ton done; however, some light bulbs went on for me today that have been pretty dim all semester. Torts has been a proverbial thorn in my side for the past month or so. I am fairly confident about all the classes I'm taking except torts. Possibly because its closed book? Silly? I hate that everything is reasonable? Whatever. Any who, as obvious as this sounds I was having trouble breaking things down and essentially doing pain by number arguments. Today I went over all of negligence and products liability and tried to look at all of my concepts and how they fit in each box for the big picture and for the first time (many of you probably felt this way in September...lol...but I was excited) I just kind of saw how everything fit. Particularly with negligence. I found it really neat and pretty easy to structure by placing concepts in boxes and then letting one element bleed into the next. Its the little things. Also, the barbri torts lectures are very good. I watched those and well and love the clarity of them. Fantastic. Today might not have been the million hour day but I'm satisfied. Also, the average grade on my torts teacher's test last year was a 45/100. This leads me to believe that if I get say a 58-60/100 that I'm looking at a nice grade. Its less stressful to think that you don't have to know EVERYTHING, you just have to know ENOUGH things...and the more important things. Sorry for the "cool story, bro" but I was just so darn excited. lol.


Awesome :). I wish I felt as good as you do haha.


Potentially short lived? Over confidence? Also, I'm excited about seeing how negligence fits. I mean, I understood it before but now I'm pretty confident with filling in the little boxes. Plus, being home is fun and like I said, its negligence. Most TLS kids probably could do what I'm doing now before law school started. Taking a Torts PT tomorrow morning before turkey bonanza starts. Then, its on to Ks.


Duty is still killing me. The doctrine doesn't seem to be coherent. I think I will probably just have to memorize all the little exceptions and weird nuances.

User avatar
AlexanderSupertramp
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby AlexanderSupertramp » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:46 am

Ks is killing me. I have a really hard professor, I guess. I can get through the E&E and feel like I'm totally getting it then when I do her practice exam I'm all, "Where is she going with this?" :? I got my one B on her midterm. I need to get this shit! It isn't that hard.

User avatar
Gettingstarted1928
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:47 am

So then maybe you can answer a quick question for me. When determining breach of duty, does B v. PL pretty much only apply to cases that are business related? If yes, do we automatically then look if the harm was foreseeable to determine breach?

For example, if I was mowing my lawn w/o a blade guard and a child was blinded when he got hit by debris that hit the blade, couldn't B v. PL technically apply?

B = Burden for me to go to hardware store and buy a guard.
P = Probability of person getting getting hit by debris
L = Extent of injury (i.e., blindness)

OR would you simply assess whether the incident was foreseeable.
Last edited by Gettingstarted1928 on Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:55 am, edited 3 times in total.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby alicrimson » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:50 am

ph14 wrote:
alicrimson wrote:
ph14 wrote:
alicrimson wrote:So today was a very good day. I didn't get a ton done; however, some light bulbs went on for me today that have been pretty dim all semester. Torts has been a proverbial thorn in my side for the past month or so. I am fairly confident about all the classes I'm taking except torts. Possibly because its closed book? Silly? I hate that everything is reasonable? Whatever. Any who, as obvious as this sounds I was having trouble breaking things down and essentially doing pain by number arguments. Today I went over all of negligence and products liability and tried to look at all of my concepts and how they fit in each box for the big picture and for the first time (many of you probably felt this way in September...lol...but I was excited) I just kind of saw how everything fit. Particularly with negligence. I found it really neat and pretty easy to structure by placing concepts in boxes and then letting one element bleed into the next. Its the little things. Also, the barbri torts lectures are very good. I watched those and well and love the clarity of them. Fantastic. Today might not have been the million hour day but I'm satisfied. Also, the average grade on my torts teacher's test last year was a 45/100. This leads me to believe that if I get say a 58-60/100 that I'm looking at a nice grade. Its less stressful to think that you don't have to know EVERYTHING, you just have to know ENOUGH things...and the more important things. Sorry for the "cool story, bro" but I was just so darn excited. lol.


Awesome :). I wish I felt as good as you do haha.


Potentially short lived? Over confidence? Also, I'm excited about seeing how negligence fits. I mean, I understood it before but now I'm pretty confident with filling in the little boxes. Plus, being home is fun and like I said, its negligence. Most TLS kids probably could do what I'm doing now before law school started. Taking a Torts PT tomorrow morning before turkey bonanza starts. Then, its on to Ks.


Duty is still killing me. The doctrine doesn't seem to be coherent. I think I will probably just have to memorize all the little exceptions and weird nuances.

Duty was weird to me. I'm looking at it like this. Absent any particular duty rules (statutory-neg per se, duty to act affirmatively, land owners-even then, attractive nuisance, doctor standard with reasonable dr vs. informed reasonable patient, etc.) D owes society the duty to act as a reasonable person would in D circumstances then you try to knock it down by saying D was or wasn't reasonable-breach because x and a that the reasonable person would y because z unless there are nuances. This seems like a really oversimplified way of thinking about this but it makes breaking elements apart and listing/going through counter arguments based on the facts so much darn easier. I also feel clarity increases as well. Idk...it helped me but like I said, most people don't have problems with this stuff. lol.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby alicrimson » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:55 am

Gettingstarted1928 wrote:So then maybe you can answer a quick question for me. When determining duty, does B v. PL pretty much only apply to cases that are business related? If yes, do we automatically then look if the harm was foreseeable to determine duty?

For example, if I was mowing my lawn w/o a blade guard and a child was blinded when he got hit by debris that hit the blade, couldn't B v. PL technically apply?

B = Burden for me to go to hardware store and buy a guard.
P = Probability of person getting getting hit by debris
L = Extent of injury (i.e., blindness)

OR would you simply assess whether the incident was foreseeable.


Learned hand? I think this speaks to breach in the negligence category though I could be wrong. I think this could go to negligence, though we don't have a ton of information from the hypo as to what exactly happened in terms of a breach. That being said, I don't believe it strong enough to be Res Ipsa. My teacher likes us to go through each element of the tort and quickly discuss what's there. If there's no problem, great. State it and move on. Where there's problems, go back and forth. I think the learned hand formula is more or less to show that a breach occurred and is used to show that D acted unreasonably. I mean, P would say its not too big of a deal for you to go buy a guard compared to my risk. Because this isn't a big deal, you were unreasonable in not buying a guard. Is this anymore clear or am I spinning wheels? I could attempt a mini outline of the neg with your hypo but I think there are other smarter people than me here who can also add insight. I took learned hand formula to be a tool for proving breach.

User avatar
Gettingstarted1928
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:56 am

alicrimson wrote:
Gettingstarted1928 wrote:So then maybe you can answer a quick question for me. When determining duty, does B v. PL pretty much only apply to cases that are business related? If yes, do we automatically then look if the harm was foreseeable to determine duty?

For example, if I was mowing my lawn w/o a blade guard and a child was blinded when he got hit by debris that hit the blade, couldn't B v. PL technically apply?

B = Burden for me to go to hardware store and buy a guard.
P = Probability of person getting getting hit by debris
L = Extent of injury (i.e., blindness)

OR would you simply assess whether the incident was foreseeable.


Learned hand? I think this speaks to breach in the negligence category though I could be wrong. I think this could go to negligence, though we don't have a ton of information from the hypo as to what exactly happened in terms of a breach. That being said, I don't believe it strong enough to be Res Ipsa. My teacher likes us to go through each element of the tort and quickly discuss what's there. If there's no problem, great. State it and move on. Where there's problems, go back and forth. I think the learned hand formula is more or less to show that a breach occurred and is used to show that D acted unreasonably. I mean, P would say its not too big of a deal for you to go buy a guard compared to my risk. Because this isn't a big deal, you were unreasonable in not buying a guard. Is this anymore clear or am I spinning wheels? I could attempt a mini outline of the neg with your hypo but I think there are other smarter people than me here who can also add insight. I took learned hand formula to be a tool for proving breach.


LOL. Just switched it to breach right before you posted. I'm tired.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:57 am

Gettingstarted1928 wrote:So then maybe you can answer a quick question for me. When determining duty, does B v. PL pretty much only apply to cases that are business related? If yes, do we automatically then look if the harm was foreseeable to determine duty?

For example, if I was mowing my lawn w/o a blade guard and a child was blinded when he got hit by debris that hit the blade, couldn't B v. PL technically apply?

B = Burden for me to go to hardware store and buy a guard.
P = Probability of person getting getting hit by debris
L = Extent of injury (i.e., blindness)

OR would you simply assess whether the incident was foreseeable.


B<PL is used to determine the reasonable standard of care (ie, the "breach" element of negligence). It is a persuasive but not dispositive guide to determining whether a person behaved reasonably. It does not just apply to business related cases, but has been applied in a wide variety of negligence cases.

Duty is a bit more complicated and fact specific. You have a duty to behave reasonably when you act. Here you could use B<PL I suppose, but this seems like a situation where you could almost apply a negligent per se type standard to it (although to be clear, there is probably no law or regulation governing operating lawnmowers so probably not negligence per se). If you don't operate the machinery properly-- as the manufacturer suggests-- then you are pretty much not exercising reasonable care. Custom can also help in determining the standard of care, although it's probably not a lot of help in this situation unless the person is a lawn care professional of some sort.

Edit: Foreseeable harm, (ie proximate cause), does seem to have a duty aspect to it though if that's what you are getting at. Cardozo (majority) in Palsgraf actually frames his opinion in terms of duty and not proximate cause-- because the negligent track workers didn't have a duty to Palsgraf because the fireworks exploding and scale tipping wasn't a foreseeable consequence of their negligence.

Did that help? I'm not quite sure if I answered your question.
Last edited by ph14 on Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:01 am, edited 3 times in total.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby alicrimson » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:58 am

Gettingstarted1928 wrote:
alicrimson wrote:
Gettingstarted1928 wrote:So then maybe you can answer a quick question for me. When determining duty, does B v. PL pretty much only apply to cases that are business related? If yes, do we automatically then look if the harm was foreseeable to determine duty?

For example, if I was mowing my lawn w/o a blade guard and a child was blinded when he got hit by debris that hit the blade, couldn't B v. PL technically apply?

B = Burden for me to go to hardware store and buy a guard.
P = Probability of person getting getting hit by debris
L = Extent of injury (i.e., blindness)

OR would you simply assess whether the incident was foreseeable.


Learned hand? I think this speaks to breach in the negligence category though I could be wrong. I think this could go to negligence, though we don't have a ton of information from the hypo as to what exactly happened in terms of a breach. That being said, I don't believe it strong enough to be Res Ipsa. My teacher likes us to go through each element of the tort and quickly discuss what's there. If there's no problem, great. State it and move on. Where there's problems, go back and forth. I think the learned hand formula is more or less to show that a breach occurred and is used to show that D acted unreasonably. I mean, P would say its not too big of a deal for you to go buy a guard compared to my risk. Because this isn't a big deal, you were unreasonable in not buying a guard. Is this anymore clear or am I spinning wheels? I could attempt a mini outline of the neg with your hypo but I think there are other smarter people than me here who can also add insight. I took learned hand formula to be a tool for proving breach.


LOL. Just switched it to breach right before you posted. I'm tired.


Believe me, I know how you feel :D

User avatar
Gettingstarted1928
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 11:45 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:02 am

ph14 wrote:
Gettingstarted1928 wrote:So then maybe you can answer a quick question for me. When determining duty, does B v. PL pretty much only apply to cases that are business related? If yes, do we automatically then look if the harm was foreseeable to determine duty?

For example, if I was mowing my lawn w/o a blade guard and a child was blinded when he got hit by debris that hit the blade, couldn't B v. PL technically apply?

B = Burden for me to go to hardware store and buy a guard.
P = Probability of person getting getting hit by debris
L = Extent of injury (i.e., blindness)

OR would you simply assess whether the incident was foreseeable.


B<PL is used to determine the reasonable standard of care (ie, the "breach" element of negligence). It is a persuasive but not dispositive guide to determining whether a person behaved reasonably. It does not just apply to business related cases, but has been applied in a wide variety of negligence cases.

Duty is a bit more complicated and fact specific. You have a duty to behave reasonably when you act. Here you could use B<PL I suppose, but this seems like a situation where you could almost apply a negligent per se type standard to it (although to be clear, there is probably no law or regulation governing operating lawnmowers so probably not negligence per se). If you don't operate the machinery properly-- as the manufacturer suggests-- then you are pretty much not exercising reasonable care.


It seems like there are three ways to show breach (this is assuming it is a general negligence case that doesn't involve possessors of land, negligence per se, etc.).

1. B v. PL
2. Rick/utility (similar to B v. PL)
3. Foreseeability

Is this right?

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby alicrimson » Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:04 am

Gettingstarted1928 wrote:
ph14 wrote:
Gettingstarted1928 wrote:So then maybe you can answer a quick question for me. When determining duty, does B v. PL pretty much only apply to cases that are business related? If yes, do we automatically then look if the harm was foreseeable to determine duty?

For example, if I was mowing my lawn w/o a blade guard and a child was blinded when he got hit by debris that hit the blade, couldn't B v. PL technically apply?

B = Burden for me to go to hardware store and buy a guard.
P = Probability of person getting getting hit by debris
L = Extent of injury (i.e., blindness)

OR would you simply assess whether the incident was foreseeable.


B<PL is used to determine the reasonable standard of care (ie, the "breach" element of negligence). It is a persuasive but not dispositive guide to determining whether a person behaved reasonably. It does not just apply to business related cases, but has been applied in a wide variety of negligence cases.

Duty is a bit more complicated and fact specific. You have a duty to behave reasonably when you act. Here you could use B<PL I suppose, but this seems like a situation where you could almost apply a negligent per se type standard to it (although to be clear, there is probably no law or regulation governing operating lawnmowers so probably not negligence per se). If you don't operate the machinery properly-- as the manufacturer suggests-- then you are pretty much not exercising reasonable care.


It seems like there are three ways to show breach (this is assuming it is a general negligence case that doesn't involve possessors of land, negligence per se, etc.).

1. B v. PL
2. Rick/utility (similar to B v. PL)
3. Foreseeability

Is this right?


Foreseeability I thought spoke to proximate cause which was part of causation for negligence. I also put negligence per se into the duty box because essentially you are asking a crim law statute to come stand in and serve as the standard of reasonable care.

Again, I could be wrong. Sometimes silly things happen in my thought processes. lol. Some of this stuff seems to bleed together. I just like to think of them like that because it makes arguing each element much easier. Plus, my prof typically says spot the issue and will d get s.j. or does a jury get to do their thang?

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:07 am

Gettingstarted1928 wrote:
ph14 wrote:
Gettingstarted1928 wrote:So then maybe you can answer a quick question for me. When determining duty, does B v. PL pretty much only apply to cases that are business related? If yes, do we automatically then look if the harm was foreseeable to determine duty?

For example, if I was mowing my lawn w/o a blade guard and a child was blinded when he got hit by debris that hit the blade, couldn't B v. PL technically apply?

B = Burden for me to go to hardware store and buy a guard.
P = Probability of person getting getting hit by debris
L = Extent of injury (i.e., blindness)

OR would you simply assess whether the incident was foreseeable.


B<PL is used to determine the reasonable standard of care (ie, the "breach" element of negligence). It is a persuasive but not dispositive guide to determining whether a person behaved reasonably. It does not just apply to business related cases, but has been applied in a wide variety of negligence cases.

Duty is a bit more complicated and fact specific. You have a duty to behave reasonably when you act. Here you could use B<PL I suppose, but this seems like a situation where you could almost apply a negligent per se type standard to it (although to be clear, there is probably no law or regulation governing operating lawnmowers so probably not negligence per se). If you don't operate the machinery properly-- as the manufacturer suggests-- then you are pretty much not exercising reasonable care.


It seems like there are three ways to show breach (this is assuming it is a general negligence case that doesn't involve possessors of land, negligence per se, etc.).

1. B v. PL
2. Rick/utility (similar to B v. PL)
3. Foreseeability

Is this right?


Well, B<PL is the big one. Reasonableness is often times a question of fact for the jury, and it's hard to express it in a mathematical formula (although Judge Hand certainly tried). There are lots of little things that go into the calculus, such as physical standard, mental standard, context, dangerous instrumentality?, etc. Foreseeability goes more to duty or proximate cause.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:08 am

alicrimson wrote:
Gettingstarted1928 wrote:
ph14 wrote:
Gettingstarted1928 wrote:So then maybe you can answer a quick question for me. When determining duty, does B v. PL pretty much only apply to cases that are business related? If yes, do we automatically then look if the harm was foreseeable to determine duty?

For example, if I was mowing my lawn w/o a blade guard and a child was blinded when he got hit by debris that hit the blade, couldn't B v. PL technically apply?

B = Burden for me to go to hardware store and buy a guard.
P = Probability of person getting getting hit by debris
L = Extent of injury (i.e., blindness)

OR would you simply assess whether the incident was foreseeable.


B<PL is used to determine the reasonable standard of care (ie, the "breach" element of negligence). It is a persuasive but not dispositive guide to determining whether a person behaved reasonably. It does not just apply to business related cases, but has been applied in a wide variety of negligence cases.

Duty is a bit more complicated and fact specific. You have a duty to behave reasonably when you act. Here you could use B<PL I suppose, but this seems like a situation where you could almost apply a negligent per se type standard to it (although to be clear, there is probably no law or regulation governing operating lawnmowers so probably not negligence per se). If you don't operate the machinery properly-- as the manufacturer suggests-- then you are pretty much not exercising reasonable care.


It seems like there are three ways to show breach (this is assuming it is a general negligence case that doesn't involve possessors of land, negligence per se, etc.).

1. B v. PL
2. Rick/utility (similar to B v. PL)
3. Foreseeability

Is this right?


Foreseeability I thought spoke to proximate cause which was part of causation for negligence. I also put negligence per se into the duty box because essentially you are asking a crim law statute to come stand in and serve as the standard of reasonable care.

Again, I could be wrong. Sometimes silly things happen in my thought processes. lol. Some of this stuff seems to bleed together. I just like to think of them like that because it makes arguing each element much easier. Plus, my prof typically says spot the issue and will d get s.j. or does a jury get to do their thang?


Negligence per se goes into the breach box I believe.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: retaking23 and 5 guests