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
kalvano
Posts: 11724
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kalvano » Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:14 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:Oh man, I had no idea we didn't cover so much. Im just now finding out vicarious liability and strict liability are different things! FFffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu


Check out the E&E. It's gold for Torts. I didn't pay a bit of attention in class and rocked the exam.

You can even use the old one that's like $5 on Half.com.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:16 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:Oh man, I had no idea we didn't cover so much. Im just now finding out vicarious liability and strict liability are different things! FFffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu


Vicarious liability is essentially strict liability in that a master is responsible for their agent. But also remember that strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities only applies for damage that results from the danger that caused the activity to be held in strict liability in the first place. If you are blasting dynamite and you scare some minks and they kill themselves or something then there's no liability, even though blasting dynamite may be a "strict liability" activity.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:19 pm

ph14 wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:Oh man, I had no idea we didn't cover so much. Im just now finding out vicarious liability and strict liability are different things! FFffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu


Vicarious liability is essentially strict liability in that a master is responsible for their agent. But also remember that strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities only applies for damage that results from the danger that caused the activity to be held in strict liability in the first place. If you are blasting dynamite and you scare some minks and they kill themselves or something then there's no liability, even though blasting dynamite may be a "strict liability" activity.


Great tips, thanks.

Im reading Emanuels now. Will check E&E later.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby crossarmant » Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:22 pm

ph14 wrote:Vicarious liability is essentially strict liability in that a master is responsible for their agent. But also remember that strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities only applies for damage that results from the danger that caused the activity to be held in strict liability in the first place. If you are blasting dynamite and you scare some minks and they kill themselves or something then there's no liability, even though blasting dynamite may be a "strict liability" activity.


Same example my professor used.... guessing it's a thing.

Also, for Torts, I found "Mastering Torts" by Vincent R. Johnson VERY helpful. It's much shorter than the E&E and is a great review read, you can find it used on Amazon for like $2.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11724
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kalvano » Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:24 pm

Torts is probably the easiest class to screw off in and then make it up come exam time. It's very linear and rule-based, and lends itself well to exam analysis.

User avatar
lifestooquick
Posts: 1200
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:13 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby lifestooquick » Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:42 pm

I felt so bad for those baby minks :(

Also...I need to kick it into gear. I've put in some significant outlining time over break, but it's taking longer than I thought it would :( Hoping to get through them soon and shift to more working on hypos/practice exams

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:47 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:
ph14 wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:Oh man, I had no idea we didn't cover so much. Im just now finding out vicarious liability and strict liability are different things! FFffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu


Vicarious liability is essentially strict liability in that a master is responsible for their agent. But also remember that strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities only applies for damage that results from the danger that caused the activity to be held in strict liability in the first place. If you are blasting dynamite and you scare some minks and they kill themselves or something then there's no liability, even though blasting dynamite may be a "strict liability" activity.


Great tips, thanks.

Im reading Emanuels now. Will check E&E later.


LOL. Just picturing minks with tiny GI Joe size guns

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:10 am

So in contributory negligence jurisdictions; strict liability won't normally bar P's recovery? But in comparative negligence jurisdictions; damages will be reduced to corresponding liability %?

Is that correct? If so it seems like contributory negligence jurisdiction would award a negligent P more than a comparative negligence jurisdiction. Seems like something tricky to test on.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:17 am

Extension_Cord wrote:So in contributory negligence jurisdictions; strict liability won't normally bar P's recovery? But in comparative negligence jurisdictions; damages will be reduced to corresponding liability %?

Is that correct? If so it seems like contributory negligence jurisdiction would award a negligent P more than a comparative negligence jurisdiction. Seems like something tricky to test on.


That's correct.

User avatar
Lasers
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Lasers » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:26 am

i literally know all the substantive material for my first final...it's spotting all the issues that is killer.

i keep missing 1-2 issues per practice test, some that can be pretty big. frustrating, but i'm learning...slowly.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby $peppercorn » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:27 am

The part at the end of the Torts E&E about exams and structure was actually pretty helpful too.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11776
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ilovesf » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:29 am

Lasers wrote:i literally know all the substantive material for my first final...it's spotting all the issues that is killer.

i keep missing 1-2 issues per practice test, some that can be pretty big. frustrating, but i'm learning...slowly.

Do you have property on thursday too? I think someone told me all the sections have it at the same time.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby FeelTheHeat » Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:02 am

Finished LEEWS on the way back to Gville...I feel like a BAWSE lol

User avatar
Lasers
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Lasers » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:40 am

ilovesf wrote:
Lasers wrote:i literally know all the substantive material for my first final...it's spotting all the issues that is killer.

i keep missing 1-2 issues per practice test, some that can be pretty big. frustrating, but i'm learning...slowly.

Do you have property on thursday too? I think someone told me all the sections have it at the same time.

indeed i do.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:58 pm

Im a little confused on internal and external circumstances on a persons standard of care. Is it that internal circumstances have no effect and they are held to the RPP standard and external may have an effect?

SwampRat88
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:23 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby SwampRat88 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:14 pm

..
Last edited by SwampRat88 on Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby brickman » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:22 pm

Today, all of civil procedure made sense.

except parts of PJ, i'm pretty sure some of that is straight bullshit.

User avatar
lifestooquick
Posts: 1200
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:13 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby lifestooquick » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:24 pm

brickman wrote:Today, all of civil procedure made sense.

except parts of PJ, i'm pretty sure some of that is straight bullshit.

Is there some magical trick for it all to make sense?? :(

The only thing that's helped me so far are the BarBri lectures.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11724
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kalvano » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:24 pm

SwampRat88 wrote:Just did torts exam. Pretty sure I ***** fucked the intentional torts fact pattern. Man and women were fighting, the man pulled out a gun, fired it past her. The bullet went pretty far, ricocheted off another building, and hit a man's car driving on the highway. Stupidly I went into transferred intent for assault and battery (having the guy in the car sue the man in the house). The fact pattern, I believe, did not give any indication the man in the car traced the bullet back to the man in the house.

Am I right that I completely missed Res Ipsa, and that there is no realistic way the man with the gun would be liable for the transferred intent for assault and battery?



It's been a bit since Torts, but he couldn't have assaulted the guy in the car since the guy wasn't afraid before being hit by a bullet out of fucking nowhere, but you should still discuss it. As for battery yeah, he's still on the hook. He intended to fire the gun and is responsible for the consequences. The chain of events is pretty closely connected, and there's not really a break that absolves him.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby brickman » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:28 pm

SwampRat88 wrote:Just did torts exam. Pretty sure I ***** fucked the intentional torts fact pattern. Man and women were fighting, the man pulled out a gun, fired it past her. The bullet went pretty far, ricocheted off another building, and hit a man's car driving on the highway. Stupidly I went into transferred intent for assault and battery (having the guy in the car sue the man in the house). The fact pattern, I believe, did not give any indication the man in the car traced the bullet back to the man in the house.

Am I right that I completely missed Res Ipsa, and that there is no realistic way the man with the gun would be liable for the transferred intent for assault and battery?



he had purpose/kwsc that he would shoot the person, but he missed. doesn't matter that he didn't have purpose/kwsc w/r/t to the other guy, it transfers.

then you get into negligence discussion
this is clearly negligence on the guy who fired the bullet, but there might not be legal causation here.

if you are going to do a polemis test, this is probably a direct result b/c it followed inevitably from the fact that a bullet was fired and someone was harmed.

it gets interesting under a palsgraf analysis. how large is the zone of danger of firing a bullet and is it affect by physical constructions? I'd probably the guy in the car was outside the zone of danger simply because the zone of danger is a bullet traveling in a straight line, but it is arguable.

under just a straight up foreseeability test, the harm that occurred was the type that would be expected, dude got shot. though are there superseding causes? doesn't look like temporal or human action problems (maybe the dude driving), but there is a spatial problem here that might be superseding.

still, I think this is risk still "unfolding in the bosom" of time, the situtation has not stabilized, that bullet is still wizzing through the air and the type of harm that happens is what one might expect.

damage is easy and so is but for. this is a beautiful legal cause question!

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby brickman » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:32 pm

lifestooquick wrote:
brickman wrote:Today, all of civil procedure made sense.

except parts of PJ, i'm pretty sure some of that is straight bullshit.

Is there some magical trick for it all to make sense?? :(

The only thing that's helped me so far are the BarBri lectures.


yes there is a trick.

just think about the federal government as really lazy fucking dude. he has been given responsibilities by the state, but he's like: "fuck that. Congress, limit the shit i have to hear". congress is like, alright, but you still have to hear some shit, and the court is like "yea, fuck it, fine". Congress is like "these citizens have rights, we should probably respect them" courts are like, god damnit okay.

So courts try making a system that is fair, but when shit is all over they want finality, they don't want to deal with the shit anymore so they make sure decisions are F-I-N-A-L. They are also like, "hey look at that constitution FF&C clause, lets fucking make a federal one so we don't have to worry about litigating these shitty judgements". Federal courts are like "slam fucking dunk".

From there it is just arbitrary little limitations on the dollar amounts and time periods and shit like that, but the above is the fundamental stuff.

edit: also the courts are like, plaintiffs are dumb as fuck, lets help them out by giving them tons of time and tons of opportunities to fix all their shitty and stupid mistakes.

except TwIqbal is like, lol, fuck plaintiffs lets get back to drinking.

User avatar
Kabuo
Posts: 1114
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:53 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Kabuo » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:56 pm

brickman wrote:
lifestooquick wrote:
brickman wrote:Today, all of civil procedure made sense.

except parts of PJ, i'm pretty sure some of that is straight bullshit.

Is there some magical trick for it all to make sense?? :(

The only thing that's helped me so far are the BarBri lectures.


yes there is a trick.

just think about the federal government as really lazy fucking dude. he has been given responsibilities by the state, but he's like: "fuck that. Congress, limit the shit i have to hear". congress is like, alright, but you still have to hear some shit, and the court is like "yea, fuck it, fine". Congress is like "these citizens have rights, we should probably respect them" courts are like, god damnit okay.

So courts try making a system that is fair, but when shit is all over they want finality, they don't want to deal with the shit anymore so they make sure decisions are F-I-N-A-L. They are also like, "hey look at that constitution FF&C clause, lets fucking make a federal one so we don't have to worry about litigating these shitty judgements". Federal courts are like "slam fucking dunk".

From there it is just arbitrary little limitations on the dollar amounts and time periods and shit like that, but the above is the fundamental stuff.

edit: also the courts are like, plaintiffs are dumb as fuck, lets help them out by giving them tons of time and tons of opportunities to fix all their shitty and stupid mistakes.

except TwIqbal is like, lol, fuck plaintiffs lets get back to drinking.


Do you mind if I borrow this for my civpro outline next semester?

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby dabomb75 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:03 pm

brickman wrote:
SwampRat88 wrote:Just did torts exam. Pretty sure I ***** fucked the intentional torts fact pattern. Man and women were fighting, the man pulled out a gun, fired it past her. The bullet went pretty far, ricocheted off another building, and hit a man's car driving on the highway. Stupidly I went into transferred intent for assault and battery (having the guy in the car sue the man in the house). The fact pattern, I believe, did not give any indication the man in the car traced the bullet back to the man in the house.

Am I right that I completely missed Res Ipsa, and that there is no realistic way the man with the gun would be liable for the transferred intent for assault and battery?



he had purpose/kwsc that he would shoot the person, but he missed. doesn't matter that he didn't have purpose/kwsc w/r/t to the other guy, it transfers.

then you get into negligence discussion
this is clearly negligence on the guy who fired the bullet, but there might not be legal causation here.

if you are going to do a polemis test, this is probably a direct result b/c it followed inevitably from the fact that a bullet was fired and someone was harmed.

it gets interesting under a palsgraf analysis. how large is the zone of danger of firing a bullet and is it affect by physical constructions? I'd probably the guy in the car was outside the zone of danger simply because the zone of danger is a bullet traveling in a straight line, but it is arguable.

under just a straight up foreseeability test, the harm that occurred was the type that would be expected, dude got shot. though are there superseding causes? doesn't look like temporal or human action problems (maybe the dude driving), but there is a spatial problem here that might be superseding.

still, I think this is risk still "unfolding in the bosom" of time, the situtation has not stabilized, that bullet is still wizzing through the air and the type of harm that happens is what one might expect.

damage is easy and so is but for. this is a beautiful legal cause question!


I'm confused. Isn't the palsgraf analysis and the foreseeability test the same thing? I thought that all of palsgraf was just "whats foreseeable?"


It's funny how big of a different the teacher can make. Civ Pro is a piece of cake to me. It just all makes sense thanks to having an awesome teacher. Whereas torts I've pretty much had to self-learn and so I'm still sorta confused about a lot of things

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:10 pm

brickman wrote:
SwampRat88 wrote:Just did torts exam. Pretty sure I ***** fucked the intentional torts fact pattern. Man and women were fighting, the man pulled out a gun, fired it past her. The bullet went pretty far, ricocheted off another building, and hit a man's car driving on the highway. Stupidly I went into transferred intent for assault and battery (having the guy in the car sue the man in the house). The fact pattern, I believe, did not give any indication the man in the car traced the bullet back to the man in the house.

Am I right that I completely missed Res Ipsa, and that there is no realistic way the man with the gun would be liable for the transferred intent for assault and battery?



he had purpose/kwsc that he would shoot the person, but he missed. doesn't matter that he didn't have purpose/kwsc w/r/t to the other guy, it transfers.

then you get into negligence discussion
this is clearly negligence on the guy who fired the bullet, but there might not be legal causation here.

if you are going to do a polemis test, this is probably a direct result b/c it followed inevitably from the fact that a bullet was fired and someone was harmed.

it gets interesting under a palsgraf analysis. how large is the zone of danger of firing a bullet and is it affect by physical constructions? I'd probably the guy in the car was outside the zone of danger simply because the zone of danger is a bullet traveling in a straight line, but it is arguable.

under just a straight up foreseeability test, the harm that occurred was the type that would be expected, dude got shot. though are there superseding causes? doesn't look like temporal or human action problems (maybe the dude driving), but there is a spatial problem here that might be superseding.

still, I think this is risk still "unfolding in the bosom" of time, the situtation has not stabilized, that bullet is still wizzing through the air and the type of harm that happens is what one might expect.

damage is easy and so is but for. this is a beautiful legal cause question!



I can't tell if its a battery because we need to know more about the intent of the actor. Did he act with the purpose or substantial certainty that he would make indirect contact with his wife? If so its for sure a battery by way of transferred intent.

If he was just arguing with his wife and he picked it up just to asault his wife then it may not be battery because he had no intent to batter her, just assault her; battery cannot be transferred in this scenario. However assault can and the car driver can argue he was in imminent apprehension that someone would come to finish to job.

Regarding negligence I think it would be the proximate cause via Cardozo's sense. A gun is an inheritently dangerous item and it was handled in a dangerous circumstance, and the need for caution increases with the risk. I know this is from a products liability case, but it holds true here because Cardozo stateed the bigger the risk the bigger the zone of danger. The bigger the zone of dager the more likely the plaintiff was foreseeable.

RPK34
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby RPK34 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:18 pm

Can someone help me what the breach of duty would be in this case:

Guy is driving down the road talking on his hand's free cell phone. He looks over and sees a really offensive ad on the side of the road, and shocked, spills his coffee on his leg. After he spills the coffee, he swerves into another lane and hits another passenger.

What would you define as breach of duty? Is it too broad to say driving distracted?




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], deadthrone7, rockosmodernlife, Stubbazubba, TheSpanishMain and 6 guests