OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Raiden
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Raiden » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:18 pm

I just checked Arrow's post and he says he had 8000-9000 words per a 3 hour exam. That sounds crazy! Maybe because most people usually only have the essay portion for just 2 hours?

User avatar
Birdnals
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:26 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Birdnals » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:19 pm

Blumpbeef wrote:
SportsFan wrote:
Blumpbeef wrote:I can't believe we didn't learn PC in our torts class.

I accidentally the chapter on it though so I might mention it on the exam to see if he throws anything my way.

How does that even happen?! Lol.


We didn't study damages either.


I mean, I get damages, but Duty/prox cause are both the meat and potatoes of negligence. Everything else can be learned (relatively) easily.

But each prof is different I guess.

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Blumpbeef » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:23 pm

Birdnals wrote:
Blumpbeef wrote:
SportsFan wrote:
Blumpbeef wrote:I can't believe we didn't learn PC in our torts class.

I accidentally the chapter on it though so I might mention it on the exam to see if he throws anything my way.

How does that even happen?! Lol.


We didn't study damages either.


I mean, I get damages, but Duty/prox cause are both the meat and potatoes of negligence. Everything else can be learned (relatively) easily.

But each prof is different I guess.


Lol, we only touched on duty tangentially...

Our negligence portion was pretty much all assumptions of risk and contributory negligence as defenses.

The weird thing though is that he spent at least half the semester on intentional torts but upperclassmen say that he does not test on intentional torts. At all. Sometimes.

SportsFan
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:26 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby SportsFan » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:27 pm

Blumpbeef wrote:
Birdnals wrote:I mean, I get damages, but Duty/prox cause are both the meat and potatoes of negligence. Everything else can be learned (relatively) easily.

But each prof is different I guess.


Lol, we only touched on duty tangentially...

Our negligence portion was pretty much all assumptions of risk and contributory negligence as defenses.

The weird thing though is that he spent at least half the semester on intentional torts but upperclassmen say that he does not test on intentional torts. At all. Sometimes.

I get that torts professors (much more than other classes, at least at my school) like to teach the subject in their own ways and all...

but lol wut. I just... don't even know.

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Blumpbeef » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:30 pm

He used to teach a year-long course, and then the school cut torts down to 1 semester. And he didn't change his syllabus.

User avatar
noleknight16
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:09 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby noleknight16 » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:33 pm

LetsGoLAW wrote:One "but for" cause - Actual cause established
Two "but for" causes, one necessary, one necessary and sufficient - Move to proximate cause
Two "but for" causes, both sufficient to cause the damage - Use substantial factor test
One "but for" cause, but multiple parties - Shift the burden

Correct? Torts is driving me wild. If anyone needs any assistance on Ks, Dressler crim, or Prop, I have anything.


Looks good to me.

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby minnbills » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:43 pm

Took a proctored Civ Pro exam today and then compared it to the best answer and the prof's post-exam comments. Thought I did pretty well. I swung and missed hard on one question tough.

I did a good job analyzing certain issues and really unpacking them. I need to do a better job with organization and marching through the progress of a lawsuit, though. Though my organization was improved compared to my last PE. The best answer was. . . simplistic. I'm not sure if I'm over-analyzing or what. There were a few rules I didn't include that the best answer did, though, so I need to be a bit more exhaustive with that.


Raiden wrote:I just checked Arrow's post and he says he had 8000-9000 words per a 3 hour exam. That sounds crazy! Maybe because most people usually only have the essay portion for just 2 hours?


Idk if I buy the more is better is logic. I guess it depends on the prof.

User avatar
crumpetsandtea
Posts: 7156
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby crumpetsandtea » Sun Dec 02, 2012 8:51 pm

Dude, y'all know that it doesn't matter how much you write, it matters what the quality is, right?

Unless you are an incredibly slow typer, it isn't going to be the # of words that sets you apart from your peers. Focusing on typing speed is a waste of time, IMO. Focus on getting the law down and learning how to use the words you say effectively.

JG7773
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:02 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby JG7773 » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:12 pm

Took a proctored Torts exam today. Our professor does 3 fact patterns and provides three and a half hours for the exam. I felt like I basically ran out of things to say in about 2 hours and 45 minutes. At that point I had spewed nearly 5800 words. Overall, I feel pretty good about it. I need to really hammer the various tests for informed consent and also ensure that that I have the premise liability elements down for known trespassers. It is a closed book exam, so I have a feeling that this is going to end up turning into a brain dump exam.

User avatar
noleknight16
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:09 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby noleknight16 » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:14 pm

Tort Hypo:

A and B are sitting together while C cooks for them at a Hibachi Grill:

1. A's face gets hurt by C's negligence during a cooking trick that he's never tried before, A insists he's fine
2. C continues to cook, notices B is upset and flips a shrimp towards B's plate in an attempt to calm him (NOT the trick done earlier to A)
3. B still has the injury suffered by A in his mind and falls back in his chair to avoid the same injury. Breaks his arm as a result. Shrimp lands on plate harmlessly.

Can B bring up any other claims towards the restaurant and/or chef besides assault (which is an easy shoot down due to no intent on C's part) and negligence, where comparative fault would come into play, with the % of fault distribution depending on how reasonable B was in his thinking

JG7773
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:02 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby JG7773 » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:23 pm

noleknight16 wrote:Tort Hypo:

A and B are sitting together while C cooks for them at a Hibachi Grill:

1. A's face gets hurt by C's negligence during a cooking trick that he's never tried before, A insists he's fine
2. C continues to cook, notices B is upset and flips a shrimp towards B's plate in an attempt to calm him (NOT the trick done earlier to A)
3. B still has the injury suffered by A in his mind and falls back in his chair to avoid the same injury. Breaks his arm as a result. Shrimp lands on plate harmlessly.

Can B bring up any other claims towards the restaurant and/or chef besides assault (which is an easy shoot down due to no intent on C's part) and negligence, where comparative fault would come into play, with the % of fault distribution depending on how reasonable B was in his thinking


That is even a pretty attenuated negligence claim. I don't see any other issues that you could bring. NIED wouldn't apply because the facts don't provide that the have a close familial relationship. If you are able to get through negligence, the defense is ripe for implied assumption of risk. Not too sure how a comparative fault would play out here since it would be tough to show that B was a factor in his own injury, especially in a way to reduce damages. I am sure there is something, but I am certainly not finding it based on the facts provided.

User avatar
Birdnals
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:26 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Birdnals » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:24 pm

noleknight16 wrote:Tort Hypo:

A and B are sitting together while C cooks for them at a Hibachi Grill:

1. A's face gets hurt by C's negligence during a cooking trick that he's never tried before, A insists he's fine
2. C continues to cook, notices B is upset and flips a shrimp towards B's plate in an attempt to calm him (NOT the trick done earlier to A)
3. B still has the injury suffered by A in his mind and falls back in his chair to avoid the same injury. Breaks his arm as a result. Shrimp lands on plate harmlessly.

Can B bring up any other claims towards the restaurant and/or chef besides assault (which is an easy shoot down due to no intent on C's part) and negligence, where comparative fault would come into play, with the % of fault distribution depending on how reasonable B was in his thinking


You also have assumption of risk (Hibachi grills are known to throw food at diners, which can be dangerous but they went anyways, would need to argue if they fully knew the extent of the danger). C might be able to bring a negligent infliction of emotional distress because she was in zone of danger too, but would need physical manifestation of emotional distress. I feel like there are others too but my brain is focused on Civ Pro right now.

User avatar
noleknight16
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:09 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby noleknight16 » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:30 pm

JG7773 wrote:
noleknight16 wrote:Tort Hypo:

A and B are sitting together while C cooks for them at a Hibachi Grill:

1. A's face gets hurt by C's negligence during a cooking trick that he's never tried before, A insists he's fine
2. C continues to cook, notices B is upset and flips a shrimp towards B's plate in an attempt to calm him (NOT the trick done earlier to A)
3. B still has the injury suffered by A in his mind and falls back in his chair to avoid the same injury. Breaks his arm as a result. Shrimp lands on plate harmlessly.

Can B bring up any other claims towards the restaurant and/or chef besides assault (which is an easy shoot down due to no intent on C's part) and negligence, where comparative fault would come into play, with the % of fault distribution depending on how reasonable B was in his thinking


That is even a pretty attenuated negligence claim. I don't see any other issues that you could bring. NIED wouldn't apply because the facts don't provide that the have a close familial relationship. If you are able to get through negligence, the defense is ripe for implied assumption of risk. Not too sure how a comparative fault would play out here since it would be tough to show that B was a factor in his own injury, especially in a way to reduce damages. I am sure there is something, but I am certainly not finding it based on the facts provided.


Sorry left out some facts:

A and B are cousins (probably worth bringing up NIED but relationship likely isn't close enough)

A tells C it's B's first time at a Hibachi Grill and A orders for B.

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Blumpbeef » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:31 pm

strict liability on restaurant owner?

Application of informed consent? (doctors must warn before performing experimental procedures)

I haven't really hit torts yet so please shoot these down if they're off base.

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby minnbills » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:41 pm

Blumpbeef wrote:strict liability on restaurant owner?



For product defects?

User avatar
Birdnals
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:26 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Birdnals » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:43 pm

minnbills wrote:
Blumpbeef wrote:strict liability on restaurant owner?



For product defects?

Probably only for inherently dangerous activity, but it is a huge stretch.

And for informed consent, that is only if there is a duty to inform. So that argument may work, along with warning defect for SPL, but you get into "product vs. service" territory there.

ETA: unless you are saying vicarious liability for restaurant owner, which is available if you prove the employee was negligent.

User avatar
noleknight16
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:09 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby noleknight16 » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:47 pm

The more I think about it the more I think NIED needs to be brought up. By making them cousins the professor is clearly looking for the argument on both sides on whether or not that's close enough of a family member for NIED.

User avatar
laxbrah420
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby laxbrah420 » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:50 pm

Any duty to warn them about the hibachi dangers (invitee) or is it so obvious?

User avatar
LetsGoLAW
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:07 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby LetsGoLAW » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:54 pm

So, typically, I can type ~80-90 WPM, but law school tests make it go slower.

Using the LEEWS method, I read the question at the bottom, outline for ten minutes, write for 20, repeat. But I find myself looking back at the facts sometimes. You guys too? I am trying to retain the facts better. Writing in margins? Anything?

For example, if I see "Person A is a skiier. Person B is a geologist." On a contracts exam, I will recognize immediately that this pertains to allocation of the risk for mistake, misunderstanding, frustration of purpose, etc. Question is, how do you remember it quickly?

And I took the night to re-read torts causation. Struggle with it long enough, you will definitely get these things down. Practice, practice, practice!

Feeling fucking great, bros. GET THAT FUCKING ATTITUDE STRAIGHT. WE CAN DO THIS. PROBLEMS? POUND THROUGH IT! POUND THROUGH IT! STAY UP AN EXTRA HOUR. NO, TWO HOURS. DO IT! YOU'RE ALL CAPABLE OF THIS. IT'S NOT HARD. IT'S LIKE THE LSAT. THERE'S A FORMULA. LEARN IT, DON'T STOP, WON'T STOP, MUTHA FUCKAN PUHROFAT.
Last edited by LetsGoLAW on Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
noleknight16
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:09 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby noleknight16 » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:54 pm

laxbrah420 wrote:Any duty to warn them about the hibachi dangers (invitee) or is it so obvious?


I don't think premise liability applies here???

User avatar
laxbrah420
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby laxbrah420 » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:55 pm

Birdnals wrote:
minnbills wrote:
Blumpbeef wrote:strict liability on restaurant owner?



For product defects?

Probably only for inherently dangerous activity, but it is a huge stretch.

And for informed consent, that is only if there is a duty to inform. So that argument may work, along with warning defect for SPL, but you get into "product vs. service" territory there.

ETA: unless you are saying vicarious liability for restaurant owner, which is available if you prove the employee was negligent.

Hibachi isn't dangerous when reasonable care is taken :lol:

User avatar
laxbrah420
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby laxbrah420 » Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:56 pm

noleknight16 wrote:
laxbrah420 wrote:Any duty to warn them about the hibachi dangers (invitee) or is it so obvious?


I don't think premise liability applies here???

You mean in these circumstances it's inconsequential or you don't think restaurants have a special duty to their patrons?

User avatar
noleknight16
Posts: 943
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 3:09 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby noleknight16 » Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:02 pm

laxbrah420 wrote:
noleknight16 wrote:
laxbrah420 wrote:Any duty to warn them about the hibachi dangers (invitee) or is it so obvious?


I don't think premise liability applies here???

You mean in these circumstances it's inconsequential or you don't think restaurants have a special duty to their patrons?


I think it's inconsequential. Nothing about the hibachi grills themselves is considered dangerous. It was the operation of them by the cook. When I think of premise liability I think of the property conditions.

Am I wrong in thinking that? Dear lord I'm gonna fail tomorrow :(

User avatar
Birdnals
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:26 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Birdnals » Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:05 pm

laxbrah420 wrote:Hibachi isn't dangerous when reasonable care is taken :lol:


No matter how much care is used, can't prevent the danger caused by bitches getting wet over being taken to classy ass Hibachi by their main man.

noleknight16 wrote:
laxbrah420 wrote:Any duty to warn them about the hibachi dangers (invitee) or is it so obvious?


I don't think premise liability applies here???


Well if they are in a part of the restaurant they have license to be in, then yes, at least duty to warn about known dangerous conditions, maybe even duty to protect from.

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Blumpbeef » Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:08 pm

minnbills wrote:
Blumpbeef wrote:strict liability on restaurant owner?



For product defects?


I was thinking Rylands/inherently dangerous activities.

Guess it's a bit of a stretch though to compare the risk level to a nuclear power plant.

ETA:

"Domesticated animals that have a known propensity for dangerous behavior" qualifies as an inherently dangerous activity. I wonder if you can classify the cook as a domesticated animal?
Last edited by Blumpbeef on Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests