Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby 09042014 » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:23 pm

Objective is somehow defined as their subjective opinion of what reasonable is. This is silly.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Bikeflip » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:25 pm

Themis questions pissing you off, too?

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby 09042014 » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:29 pm

Bikeflip wrote:Themis questions pissing you off, too?


Lectures

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Bikeflip » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:32 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:Themis questions pissing you off, too?


Lectures


I sympathize, breh.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Br3v » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:35 pm

DF is this your take on the TLS version of a vague Facebook status?

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Bikeflip » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:44 pm

Br3v wrote:DF is this your take on the TLS version of a vague Facebook status?



"Comment if you understand. You know who you are."

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby 09042014 » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:47 pm

Br3v wrote:DF is this your take on the TLS version of a vague Facebook status?


We should, as a society, vow to forever respond to those posts like we know exactly what happened.

"BAD DAY, DON'T EVEN ASK"

"Yea tough break, you'll get through it, its curable"

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Bikeflip » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:52 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Br3v wrote:DF is this your take on the TLS version of a vague Facebook status?


We should, as a society, vow to forever respond to those posts like we know exactly what happened.

"BAD DAY, DON'T EVEN ASK"

"Yea tough break, you'll get through it, its curable"


In that vein, we assume everyone got an STD from their cousin.

RodneyRuxin
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:08 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby RodneyRuxin » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:56 pm

Cool thread bro

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Bronte » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:32 pm

Objective = we don't care what was in the defendant's head, just what would have been in a reasonable person's head. Subjective = we try to figure out what was actually in defendant's head. They're pretty useful terms of art.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Bikeflip » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:34 pm

Bronte wrote:Objective = we don't care what was in the defendant's head, just what would have been in a reasonable person's head. Subjective = we try to figure out what was actually in defendant's head. They're pretty useful terms of art.


Yeah, but our bar prep company's being a dick about it.

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Bronte » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:43 pm

Bikeflip wrote:
Bronte wrote:Objective = we don't care what was in the defendant's head, just what would have been in a reasonable person's head. Subjective = we try to figure out what was actually in defendant's head. They're pretty useful terms of art.


Yeah, but our bar prep company's being a dick about it.


Cuz the multiple choice are supposedly objective but have embedded fact determinations? If this is the case, I feel you, but it seems a lot of MBE questions are actually like this.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Bikeflip » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:16 pm

Bronte wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:
Bronte wrote:Objective = we don't care what was in the defendant's head, just what would have been in a reasonable person's head. Subjective = we try to figure out what was actually in defendant's head. They're pretty useful terms of art.


Yeah, but our bar prep company's being a dick about it.


Cuz the multiple choice are supposedly objective but have embedded fact determinations? If this is the case, I feel you, but it seems a lot of MBE questions are actually like this.



That's my complaint. To respond to that problem, I've noted that, for Themis torts questions about negligence, nearly any remedial activity the defendant does to prevent a negligent act is probably reasonable. I just feel some of the defendant's reasonable acts were not reasonable.

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Reinhardt » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:19 pm

So I'm not the only one.

"Defendant manufactured a widget which left the factory defective. Defendant has an inspection system in place. Plaintiff was injured by the defective widget and brought a negligence action only. Will plaintiff prevail?

Correct Answer: No, because the defendant had an inspection system in place."

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Bronte » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:25 pm

Bikeflip wrote:That's my complaint. To respond to that problem, I've noted that, for Themis torts questions about negligence, nearly any remedial activity the defendant does to prevent a negligent act is probably reasonable. I just feel some of the defendant's reasonable acts were not reasonable.


I hear you. I don't know if I'd blame it on Themis because this seems to be just another part of the nightmare that is the bar.

Reinhardt wrote:So I'm not the only one.

"Defendant manufactured a widget which left the factory defective. Defendant has an inspection system in place. Plaintiff was injured by the defective widget and brought a negligence action only. Will plaintiff prevail?

Correct Answer: No, because the defendant had an inspection system in place."


But yeah this seems egregious. What if the inspection system was that the defendant would send a known drunk and blind man down to the assembly line once a month to check one widget?

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Reinhardt » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:30 pm

In fairness, that question stem had additional details, but none that convinced me I should conclude the defendant had behaved reasonably. Usually the answer choices will help out a great deal. If the answer choice had been "No, because the defendant has a reasonable inspection system in place in light of its costs and benefits," then I would feel a lot more comfortable. Those really short answer choices scare me.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Bikeflip » Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:52 pm

Bronte wrote:
Bikeflip wrote:That's my complaint. To respond to that problem, I've noted that, for Themis torts questions about negligence, nearly any remedial activity the defendant does to prevent a negligent act is probably reasonable. I just feel some of the defendant's reasonable acts were not reasonable.


I hear you. I don't know if I'd blame it on Themis because this seems to be just another part of the nightmare that is the bar.

Reinhardt wrote:So I'm not the only one.

"Defendant manufactured a widget which left the factory defective. Defendant has an inspection system in place. Plaintiff was injured by the defective widget and brought a negligence action only. Will plaintiff prevail?

Correct Answer: No, because the defendant had an inspection system in place."


But yeah this seems egregious. What if the inspection system was that the defendant would send a known drunk and blind man down to the assembly line once a month to check one widget?


Probably a bit of both. Themis will adapt MBE questions, for whatever reason. Maybe the adaptation's made the question more susceptible creating the frustration that Reinhardt and I are having.

With that said, I have feeling that this frustration isn't unique to Themis. Other prep companies probably have adapted questions, and the bar examiners themselves have to test reasonableness somehow. Otherwise, a large chunk of torts cannot be tested.

User avatar
Danger Zone
Posts: 7305
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:36 am

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Danger Zone » Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:04 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Objective is somehow defined as their subjective opinion of what reasonable is. This is silly.

THANK YOU. I was so confused sitting in Torts while my prof rambled about an "objective" standard. No it's fucking not.

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Bronte » Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:16 pm

Danger Zone wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Objective is somehow defined as their subjective opinion of what reasonable is. This is silly.

THANK YOU. I was so confused sitting in Torts while my prof rambled about an "objective" standard. No it's fucking not.


Wait, but again, the negligence standard is an objective standard. Objective has the term of art meaning I described above. This is consistent with one dictionary meaning of objective, which is "of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.," the thoughts and feelings being those of the defendant, not the factfinder. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective. Obviously the factfinder's determination is going to relate to his thoughts or feelings regardless of whether the standard is objective or subjective.

User avatar
Danger Zone
Posts: 7305
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:36 am

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Danger Zone » Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:19 pm

Bronte wrote:
Danger Zone wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Objective is somehow defined as their subjective opinion of what reasonable is. This is silly.

THANK YOU. I was so confused sitting in Torts while my prof rambled about an "objective" standard. No it's fucking not.


Wait, but again, the negligence standard is an objective standard. Objective has the term of art meaning I described above. This is consistent with one dictionary meaning of objective, which is "of or relating to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings, etc.," the thoughts and feelings being those of the defendant, not the factfinder. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective. Obviously the factfinder's determination is going to relate to his thoughts or feelings regardless of whether the standard is objective or subjective.

How is "what would a reasonable person do" an objective standard if people can have very different answers depending on, I don't know, their subjective "thoughts, feelings, etc."

Oh, you actually said that in your post. But you see how that could be really confusing for a first semester law student.

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Bronte » Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:46 pm

Danger Zone wrote:How is "what would a reasonable person do" an objective standard if people can have very different answers depending on, I don't know, their subjective "thoughts, feelings, etc."

Oh, you actually said that in your post. But you see how that could be really confusing for a first semester law student.


Yes, it can be a bit confusing, and I remember being confused and other people being confused about it in torts. But it's actually a pretty useful distinction. You'll see it used not just in torts but in pretty much any context where mental states are involved.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: Why don't lawyers know what objective mean?

Postby Br3v » Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:33 pm

I know exactly what you mean DF. PM me if you need to talk about it. Otherwise my advice is to bite the bullet, pay the $75, and rent the steam cleaner.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests