Top Law Schools

Anyone know if there are outlines or some other kind of guide that sorts out some of the major rules in torts in terms of jurisdiction? Things like comparative negligence/privity/etc? Maybe this is one of those things you just figure out when you're preparing for exams, but at the moment all these different rules by jurisdiction just feel overwhelming...

wat

jurisdiction in torts?

I have no clue what OP is talking about. What does comparative negligence or privity have to do with jurisdiction? And what does jurisdiction have to do with the study of torts?

Edit: Or are you asking about which states (i.e. which jurisdictions) have specific comparative negligence statutes?

If I understand your question - and it's very possible that I don't because of how incoherent it is - your final exam isn't going to say "Al is driving while texting and hits Bob who is reading a book while crossing the street. This happens in California, by the way, so I hope you remember how they handle shit."

It's more likely that your professor will either write something along the lines of "Fakelandia has enacted the attached statutes regarding contributory/comparative negligence" and you'll have to read the statute quickly, or "Fakelandia uses a pure comparative negligence regime."

Unless your professor has specifically told you that you need to know how each state applies those doctrines, don't worry about it.

kaiser wrote:
Edit: Or are you asking about which states (i.e. which jurisdictions) have specific comparative negligence statutes?

Ohhh. That is probably what OP was talking about.

But why does OP want to know this...?

I think the OP is asking if anyone has an outline of the majority and minority jurisdiction rules for various torts elements. This would be important on an exam where your professor doesn't specify the 'Fakelandia' rule, and instead expects you to discuss the different possible rules and policy rationales for Fakelandia's adoption of any particular rule.

hdivschool wrote:I think the OP is asking if anyone has an outline of the majority and minority jurisdiction rules for various torts elements. This would be important on an exam where your professor doesn't specify the 'Fakelandia' rule, and instead expects you to discuss the different possible rules and policy rationales for Fakelandia's adoption of any particular rule.

Every single 1L class discusses the different or alternative possible approaches. You're expected to argue both sides on an exam, and also argue what outcome under different/alternative approaches. For instance, in torts, you learn that contributory negligence is eliminated in most jurisdictions. But on an exam, when you have a hypo that contributory negligence might apply to, you should state the outcome under that approach, but that also most states have some form of comparative negligence and the outcomes under those approaches. Similarly, there are differing approaches to certain issues in all the other 1L classes that you need to do the same thing with. So, OP's professors should be teaching this stuff as it is, and if it still isn't clear, then any existing supplement or hornbook will go through all these diverging approaches.

highviolet wrote:Anyone know if there are outlines or some other kind of guide that sorts out some of the major rules in torts in terms of jurisdiction? Things like comparative negligence/privity/etc? Maybe this is one of those things you just figure out when you're preparing for exams, but at the moment all these different rules by jurisdiction just feel overwhelming...

Unfortunately in my class we need to know how the law is different in specific states - at least when there is a major difference in treatment. My prof doesn't do the fakelandia thing...last years exam was a fact pattern set in NY and the midterm was set in California... Just wondered if there was anything that organized some of the major issues by state. Guess not.