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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:03 am

A goes to punch B, B braces for the blow, A makes contact.

Is this a assualt and a battery or only a battery? If its both, should I mention both on exam?

If its just a battery, what if B misses, then backs up and trys again and this time makes contact. First attempt an assault and second a battery (and assault?)?

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:06 am

Extension_Cord wrote:A goes to punch B, B braces for the blow, A makes contact.

Is this a assualt and a battery or only a battery? If its both, should I mention both on exam?

If its just a battery, what if B misses, then backs up and trys again and this time makes contact. First attempt an assault and second a battery (and assault?)?


Yes this is an assault since A was put in reasonable apprehension of an imminent contact. Don't you have any other classes besides torts?

User avatar
piccolittle
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:16 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby piccolittle » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:14 am

Wouldn't the assault be merged into the commission of the battery? Our profs might think differently but mine confirmed for me that where there is an assault during the chain of events leading to the contact (e.g. threatening gesture which then connects with no significant pause), the assault is subsumed within the battery cause of action, and for remedy purposes it makes no practical difference. My $0.02.

thegrayman
Posts: 498
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 5:56 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby thegrayman » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:16 am

assault and battery are different causes of action. you can knock out the assault claim quick then use the elements of assault to attack battery.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:16 am

piccolittle wrote:Wouldn't the assault be merged into the commission of the battery? Our profs might think differently but mine confirmed for me that where there is an assault during the chain of events leading to the contact (e.g. threatening gesture which then connects with no significant pause), the assault is subsumed within the battery cause of action, and for remedy purposes it makes no practical difference. My $0.02.


Well functionally it's probably the same, since you can only recover compensatory damages generally, and you can't get compensated more than your damages. So the battery claim enough in real life would get you your award. But definitely bring up assault on the exam.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ilovesf » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:17 am

ph14 wrote:
piccolittle wrote:Wouldn't the assault be merged into the commission of the battery? Our profs might think differently but mine confirmed for me that where there is an assault during the chain of events leading to the contact (e.g. threatening gesture which then connects with no significant pause), the assault is subsumed within the battery cause of action, and for remedy purposes it makes no practical difference. My $0.02.


Well functionally it's probably the same, since you can only recover compensatory damages generally, and you can't get compensated more than your damages. So the battery claim enough in real life would get you your award. But definitely bring up assault on the exam.

still has a claim for assault. it happened before the battery commenced, not during. if you don't mention assault on the exam in this situation, you're definitely missing an issue.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Gettingstarted1928 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:19 am

ph14 wrote:
piccolittle wrote:Wouldn't the assault be merged into the commission of the battery? Our profs might think differently but mine confirmed for me that where there is an assault during the chain of events leading to the contact (e.g. threatening gesture which then connects with no significant pause), the assault is subsumed within the battery cause of action, and for remedy purposes it makes no practical difference. My $0.02.


Well functionally it's probably the same, since you can only recover compensatory damages generally, and you can't get compensated more than your damages. So the battery claim enough in real life would get you your award. But definitely bring up assault on the exam.


You can get punitive damages for intentional torts.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby theavrock » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:10 am

$peppercorn wrote:
Gettingstarted1928 wrote:
RPK34 wrote:As far as contracts, I made a flow chart, and it got rid of all of the issue spotting issues I had.


Care to share it?


+1


+100?

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby theavrock » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:12 am

Gettingstarted1928 wrote:
ph14 wrote:
piccolittle wrote:Wouldn't the assault be merged into the commission of the battery? Our profs might think differently but mine confirmed for me that where there is an assault during the chain of events leading to the contact (e.g. threatening gesture which then connects with no significant pause), the assault is subsumed within the battery cause of action, and for remedy purposes it makes no practical difference. My $0.02.


Well functionally it's probably the same, since you can only recover compensatory damages generally, and you can't get compensated more than your damages. So the battery claim enough in real life would get you your award. But definitely bring up assault on the exam.


You can get punitive damages for intentional torts.


I believe the point was the damages (puni's included) would be the same whether it was assault and battery or just assault.

Agreed though, it you are not mentioning it on the exam you are missing points. If the fact pattern says he is bracing for a blow lights should be going off in your head for assault. Seems like easy points to me.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby $peppercorn » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:17 am

theavrock wrote:
Gettingstarted1928 wrote:
ph14 wrote:
piccolittle wrote:Wouldn't the assault be merged into the commission of the battery? Our profs might think differently but mine confirmed for me that where there is an assault during the chain of events leading to the contact (e.g. threatening gesture which then connects with no significant pause), the assault is subsumed within the battery cause of action, and for remedy purposes it makes no practical difference. My $0.02.


Well functionally it's probably the same, since you can only recover compensatory damages generally, and you can't get compensated more than your damages. So the battery claim enough in real life would get you your award. But definitely bring up assault on the exam.


You can get punitive damages for intentional torts.


I believe the point was the damages (puni's included) would be the same whether it was assault and battery or just assault.

Agreed though, it you are not mentioning it on the exam you are missing points. If the fact pattern says he is bracing for a blow lights should be going off in your head for assault. Seems like easy points to me.


+1. But if you're really feeling lucky you can say if he had time to brace for the blow then it may not have been apprehension of imminent harm because he could have sought another remedy. But that argument should be killed dead fairly quickly.

Peg
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:32 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Peg » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:25 am

Negligence questions.

- Do you have to prove both cause in fact and proximate cause? I thought I knew this, but I swear everything, EVERYTHING, has flown out of my brain.

- Products liability comes under strict liability, which means you shouldn't have to prove negligence and yet...it seems you have to prove negligence when you're pointing out a manufacturing or design defect. So with products liability, does it go like this:
1. Prove duty to manufacture correctly/design at low risk/warn
2. Prove breach of duty to manufacture correctly/design at low risk/warn
3. Prove that breach caused (either but-for or proximate - or both?) injury
4. Prove injury

Is that what you basically do every time a faulty product hypo appears?

FordhamBrah
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:51 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby FordhamBrah » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:35 am

Peg wrote:Negligence questions.

- Do you have to prove both cause in fact and proximate cause? I thought I knew this, but I swear everything, EVERYTHING, has flown out of my brain.

- Products liability comes under strict liability, which means you shouldn't have to prove negligence and yet...it seems you have to prove negligence when you're pointing out a manufacturing or design defect. So with products liability, does it go like this:
1. Prove duty to manufacture correctly/design at low risk/warn
2. Prove breach of duty to manufacture correctly/design at low risk/warn
3. Prove that breach caused (either but-for or proximate - or both?) injury
4. Prove injury

Is that what you basically do every time a faulty product hypo appears?


1. Yes you have to prove both, they're the two parts to causation.

2. Products liability is like negligence, but it is not negligence. Imagine having the 4 negligence elements of Duty, Breach, But For/Proximate, Damages.

For products liability: think of it this way

Instead of duty/breach: 1) A sold a product 2) A is a seller of such products 3) the product was defective at the time A sold it

As a result, B must show that defect was a but for/proximate cause of his injury.

Products liability is "strict liability" because it is irrelevant how the manufacturer acted, unlike negligence. As long as you prove there was a defect (one of the 3) you are golden if you can prove causation as well. The only thing the manufacturer can argue about is whether it was a "defect", and that's where the battle may ensue.

Manufacturing defects are closer to true "strict liability", whereas as when you get down to design defects and failure to warn it feels much more like negligence because it was something more in control of the manufacturer. However, in the end that still doesn't matter. You just have to show there was a defect.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby crossarmant » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:40 am

Peg wrote:Negligence questions.

- Do you have to prove both cause in fact and proximate cause? I thought I knew this, but I swear everything, EVERYTHING, has flown out of my brain.

- Products liability comes under strict liability, which means you shouldn't have to prove negligence and yet...it seems you have to prove negligence when you're pointing out a manufacturing or design defect. So with products liability, does it go like this:
1. Prove duty to manufacture correctly/design at low risk/warn
2. Prove breach of duty to manufacture correctly/design at low risk/warn
3. Prove that breach caused (either but-for or proximate - or both?) injury
4. Prove injury

Is that what you basically do every time a faulty product hypo appears?


You do have to prove both Cause-in-Fact and Proximate Cause for Negligence. The five steps are: [1] Duty, [2] Breach of that duty/Negligence, [3] Cause in Fact, [4] Proximate Cause, [5] Damage resulting from negligence.

As my professor put it, Strict Products Liability, when first instituted was just that, strict liability. Over time, the courts have cut away at it so that it's really only strict liability for manufacturing defects where Res Ipsa Loquitur may also apply as well, but loosens the evidentiary proof required. Design and Warning defects now are little more than mere negligence.

Peg
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:32 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Peg » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:41 am

FordhamBrah wrote:
Peg wrote:Negligence questions.

- Do you have to prove both cause in fact and proximate cause? I thought I knew this, but I swear everything, EVERYTHING, has flown out of my brain.

- Products liability comes under strict liability, which means you shouldn't have to prove negligence and yet...it seems you have to prove negligence when you're pointing out a manufacturing or design defect. So with products liability, does it go like this:
1. Prove duty to manufacture correctly/design at low risk/warn
2. Prove breach of duty to manufacture correctly/design at low risk/warn
3. Prove that breach caused (either but-for or proximate - or both?) injury
4. Prove injury

Is that what you basically do every time a faulty product hypo appears?


1. Yes you have to prove both, they're the two parts to causation.

2. Products liability is like negligence, but it is not negligence. Imagine having the 4 negligence elements of Duty, Breach, But For/Proximate, Damages.

For products liability: think of it this way

Instead of duty/breach: 1) A sold a product 2) A is a seller of such products 3) the product was defective at the time A sold it

As a result, B must show that defect was a but for/proximate cause of his injury.

Products liability is "strict liability" because it is irrelevant how the manufacturer acted, unlike negligence. As long as you prove there was a defect (one of the 3) you are golden if you can prove causation as well. The only thing the manufacturer can argue about is whether it was a "defect", and that's where the battle may ensue.

Manufacturing defects are closer to true "strict liability", whereas as when you get down to design defects and failure to warn it feels much more like negligence because it was something more in control of the manufacturer. However, in the end that still doesn't matter. You just have to show there was a defect.


This was beautiful. Thank you.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Kabuo » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:56 am

Peg wrote:This was beautiful. Thank you.


+1. Pretty much the way my torts prof said it.

Peg
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:32 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Peg » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:08 am

Yeah, my torts professor spends most of the class talking about things that are totally unrelated to the BLL, and then remembers to rush through it before time ends.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby brickman » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:01 pm

alright.

motivational videos.

go.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby lifestooquick » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:06 pm

brickman wrote:alright.

motivational videos.

go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4tIrjBDkk

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby crossarmant » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:39 pm

Gotta love professors who make thing way more confusing than they need to be...

My CivPro professor will ramble on for hours and just make the entirety of the class far more confused than the material warrants. From studying supplements and going to the BarBri class, I understand the subject matter and know what he's getting out, but his delivery is just so awful! All of his philosophical musing about the subject matter without giving any of us a direct attack approach just makes me begin to second guess my understanding and leads to this quasi-anxiety attack... fucking a.

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby bartleby » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:40 pm

Drafting out b.l.l. phrases in torts and full policy questions in K's

come at me

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby alicrimson » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:41 pm

lifestooquick wrote:
brickman wrote:alright.

motivational videos.

go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4tIrjBDkk


Brings me back to UG. lol. That was the clip my team was obsessed with and it went out prior to every race.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:48 pm

Torts exam on Friday, ****.

Then Contracts on Wednesday, double ****.

Need to find some multiple choice contracts questions.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby $peppercorn » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:00 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:Torts exam on Friday, ****.

Then Contracts on Wednesday, double ****.

Need to find some multiple choice contracts questions.

Same except a civ pro exam on the Monday in between. Less than 48 hour until go-time. I've used seigels for multiple choice contract questions. They are pretty good.

thegrayman
Posts: 498
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 5:56 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby thegrayman » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:08 pm

anyone have civ pro seem to make sense until you step away from it for a day or two and come back to it?

I swear I knew this shit yesterday :oops:

arghhhh

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby lifestooquick » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:10 pm

Good luck to everyone starting Friday!

Mine are on Dec 12 (torts), 16 (crim law) and 20 (civ pro).




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pandapops, Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests