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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

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

Kabuo wrote:
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?


It doesn't include all of the biases the federal courts have, but it's probably like 80% of everything you need to know.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kalvano » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:20 pm

RPK34 wrote: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?



Duty to exercise due care when operating an automobile on a public roadway.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby RPK34 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:30 pm

kalvano wrote:
RPK34 wrote: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?



Duty to exercise due care when operating an automobile on a public roadway.


But what is the specific act that shows they failed to show due care?

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 4:31 pm

Nevermind
Last edited by Extension_Cord on Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:33 pm

ph14 wrote:
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.


I thought that in nearly all jurisdiction have replaced contrib. neg. with comparative neg.?

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 4:35 pm

RPK34 wrote:
kalvano wrote:
RPK34 wrote: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?



Duty to exercise due care when operating an automobile on a public roadway.


But what is the specific act that shows they failed to show due care?


Engage in the Hand Formula.

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 4:35 pm

RPK34 wrote:
kalvano wrote:
RPK34 wrote: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?



Duty to exercise due care when operating an automobile on a public roadway.


But what is the specific act that shows they failed to show due care?


Engage in the Hand Formula.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kalvano » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:41 pm

RPK34 wrote:
kalvano wrote:
RPK34 wrote: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?



Duty to exercise due care when operating an automobile on a public roadway.


But what is the specific act that shows they failed to show due care?


Crashing into another person.


Not paying attention to the road.



Drinking coffee while driving.



Failure to not be a bitch about billboards.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby RPK34 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:43 pm

kalvano wrote:
RPK34 wrote:
kalvano wrote:
RPK34 wrote: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?



Duty to exercise due care when operating an automobile on a public roadway.


But what is the specific act that shows they failed to show due care?


Crashing into another person.
Not paying attention to the road.
Drinking coffee while driving.
Failure to not be a bitch about billboards.


It just seemed like there was a few things that were close to showing a breach of duty, but none that quite reached it. I suppose not paying attention to the road would work for sure.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kalvano » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:45 pm

When you start driving, part of your duty is to pay attention to the road in front of you. The billboard is not part of the road, and by focusing on that instead of the road and other drivers, he failed.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11742
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ilovesf » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:48 pm

Gettingstarted1928 wrote:
ph14 wrote:
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.


I thought that in nearly all jurisdiction have replaced contrib. neg. with comparative neg.?

That's true, but you should still mention it because it is used, and say that it isn't applied in most jurisdictions.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:49 pm

RPK34 wrote: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?


Not sure, there seem to be multiple theories of breach. Perhaps not putting a lid on the coffee when you knew you were going to be driving with it was unreasonable.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby RPK34 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:53 pm

ph14 wrote:
RPK34 wrote: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?


Not sure, there seem to be multiple theories of breach. Perhaps not putting a lid on the coffee when you knew you were going to be driving with it was unreasonable.


Prof asked about liability for Dunkin Donuts. I assume she wanted us to bring up that Dunkin Donuts might have been negligent in not providing a lid to the coffee since it can reasonably anticipate that most consumers would be drinking it while driving it to work.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:57 pm

RPK34 wrote:
ph14 wrote:
RPK34 wrote: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?


Not sure, there seem to be multiple theories of breach. Perhaps not putting a lid on the coffee when you knew you were going to be driving with it was unreasonable.


Prof asked about liability for Dunkin Donuts. I assume she wanted us to bring up that Dunkin Donuts might have been negligent in not providing a lid to the coffee since it can reasonably anticipate that most consumers would be drinking it while driving it to work.


Or perhaps they had a duty to ask at least whether they were planning on driving and recommending a lid, at which point the P had assumed the risk if they didn't choose to put one on? Dunno, just throwing it out there.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby crossarmant » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:02 pm

Gettingstarted1928 wrote:I thought that in nearly all jurisdiction have replaced contrib. neg. with comparative neg.?


Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, District of Columbia, and Alabama still retain Contributory Negligence. Though, Contributory Negligence seems like mostly an antiquated piece of history to all other Jurisdictions.

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 5:04 pm

kalvano wrote:
RPK34 wrote:
kalvano wrote:
RPK34 wrote: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?



Duty to exercise due care when operating an automobile on a public roadway.


But what is the specific act that shows they failed to show due care?


Crashing into another person.


Not paying attention to the road.



Drinking coffee while driving.



Failure to not be a bitch about billboards.


Might also consider failure to act reasonably in reacting to the "emergency" (hot coffee spill)

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12324
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby gdane » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:33 pm

How do we know when we're"ready" for an exam?

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:58 pm

crossarmant wrote:
Gettingstarted1928 wrote:I thought that in nearly all jurisdiction have replaced contrib. neg. with comparative neg.?


Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, District of Columbia, and Alabama still retain Contributory Negligence. Though, Contributory Negligence seems like mostly an antiquated piece of history to all other Jurisdictions.


Thanks. I actually thought there were fewer jurisdiction that still use it.

It really is a stupid doctrine. I mean if D is 1% negligent and P 99%.....

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby bostonlawchick » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:03 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:
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.


You can have double transferred intent. If you intend to assault someone and instead batter someone else, transferred intent is still present.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby northwood » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:07 pm

as per the driving hypo you have a duty to exercise care when driving. A reasonable person would pay attention to the road aahead of them, or if they saw something that made them scream outrageous, they would have safely pulled off the road and not gone any further until they calmed down. Question would be where did the guy get the coffee? if it was at home, then he has a duty to not drink coffee and drive, if it was from mcdonalds, then perhaps the resturaunt breached their duty ( strict liability for coffee being too hot, by their designs, which but for the spilling of by the driver was a but for cause for the accident ( its a reach, but maybe bring it up anyways).

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:10 pm

northwood wrote:as per the driving hypo you have a duty to exercise care when driving. A reasonable person would pay attention to the road aahead of them, or if they saw something that made them scream outrageous, they would have safely pulled off the road and not gone any further until they calmed down. Question would be where did the guy get the coffee? if it was at home, then he has a duty to not drink coffee and drive, if it was from mcdonalds, then perhaps the resturaunt breached their duty ( strict liability for coffee being too hot, by their designs, which but for the spilling of by the driver was a but for cause for the accident ( its a reach, but maybe bring it up anyways).


The strict liability for coffee would depend right, since real SL is only for manufacturing defect (and abnormally dangerous activities which serving coffee is not). It may be that the temperature of the coffee or not designing the cup with a lid would be design defects, which is more of a reasonable test (either consumer expectations or risk utility-- probably consumer expectations in this scenario?). Or it may be a failure to warn claim which is also a reasonable standard I think.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby bostonlawchick » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:17 pm

RPK34 wrote: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?


I actually had this happen to me, thankfully I didn't hit anyone. It wasn't a billboard though, it was a guy that had a trailer with extremely offensive pictures blown up all over it. I actually wondered at the time if I would be able to sue him if I did get in an accident.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby shock259 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:21 pm

Does anyone have any leg reg or admin law model answers? I can't find a damn thing. RAWWRR

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:23 pm

shock259 wrote:Does anyone have any leg reg or admin law model answers? I can't find a damn thing. RAWWRR


Me either, I would like to get some as well.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11720
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kalvano » Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:28 pm

shock259 wrote:Does anyone have any leg reg or admin law model answers? I can't find a damn thing. RAWWRR



http://www.crocko.com/F8921DF076CF45AE8 ... in_Law.zip


Admin Law. The (a) are questions, the (b) are the answers.

I don't remember what school they are from, but Admin Law is Admin Law, so it should work for the most part.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], landshoes, lawschool55, tedofsandimas, vorely and 8 guests