1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT) Forum

[RemyMarathe]

Great thread. Will be back with Qs I'm sure.

[BigZuck]

TORTS question crossposted in 1L thread:

Can anyone help me with successive causation damages in cases like Baker v. Willoughby? In cases like this does D have to pay all the damages or just up to the point before a second dude further fucked up his injury?

I'm thinking about a fact pattern where person A negligently runs over person B's leg and cripples it, then person C shoots person B's crippled leg at a later time and it has to be amputated.

Here's basically what my notes say but I'm not sure if this is correct or how to make sense of it:
-Measure of damages against C, if negligent: difference between crippled leg and amputated leg
-Measure of damages against A, if C is negligent: crippled leg (because A robbed B of a potential cause of action against C?)
-Measure of damages against A, if C is NOT negligent: only pain and suffering (because C can be thought of as a "natural" cause that B would have had no cause of action against anyway?)

When did C shoot B? I think this all hinges on what you mean by "later," no?

[rambleon65]

Contracts. Independent and Dependent Promises. Why is this distinction important? Intuitively, I figure it matters for when you're determining whether there was breach. But it seems lumped together with Conditions syllabus/hornbook wise. What's the deal with these things?

So, so close to finishing this outline. This is holding me up.

One more thing to add (and maybe why the hornbook is lumping it together) is that traditionally, there was a presumption of independent conditions. i.e. even if you don't do your part, I still have to do mine, and then sue for your performance/damages.

But now, there's a presumption of dependent conditions (save for minor breach). Presumably to lessen the administrative burden.

[BPLawl]

Hi Lawlers!

Anyone here do Restitution in K's? If I'm a doctor and in an emergency I save someone's life, it is my understanding that I'm able to receive quantum meruit damages. If I'm Joe Dirt and I save someone's life, do I have a claim for the same damages in restitution?

How about Promise for Benefit Received S86 RSC? My understanding is that this isn't really different, it's just a way around the foisting exception in restitution. All the hypos I've seen of this is in the construction context where a builder sues the owner of the property after contracting with the lessee. Anyone think of any other cases where this would be applied?


Thanks!

eta: In torts, could there be a duty to rescue if, in an accident I negligently caused, I spill a truck load of chocolate milk on the side of the road and kids later come and drink it? My thought was maybe because I caused it; my buddy argued the negative on grounds that I don't own the road. [based on a real hypo]

[Zensack]

Hi Lawlers!

Anyone here due Restitution in K's? If I'm a doctor and in an emergency I save someone's life, it is my understanding that I'm able to receive quantum meruit damages. If I'm Joe Dirt and I save someone's life, do I have a claim for the same damages in restitution?

No, you can't. Don't think of restitution like normal damages, it's concerned with unjust enrichment. The reasoning behind letting the doctor recover is that you would normally pay for medical services from him, but you wouldn't for Joe Dirt. Because of the emergency circumstances the doctor can assume that you would agree to pay for his services. This is a quasi-contract, which is a legal fiction that allows recovery for unsolicited benefits when (1) immediate action was required, (2) advance assent would be impracticable, and (3) claimant had no reason to believe benefactor would not want action to be taken.

eta: In torts, could there be a duty to rescue if, in an accident I negligently caused, I spill a truck load of chocolate milk on the side of the road and kids later come and drink it? My thought was maybe because I caused it; my buddy argued the negative on grounds that I don't own the road. [based on a real hypo]

If you create the situation, you have a duty to rescue, even if you weren't negligent. The children are lapping it up off the pavement? I think that makes it an attractive nuisance, which creates a duty to keep the children out of danger.

[sublime]

..

[BPLawl]

Hi Lawlers!

Anyone here due Restitution in K's? If I'm a doctor and in an emergency I save someone's life, it is my understanding that I'm able to receive quantum meruit damages. If I'm Joe Dirt and I save someone's life, do I have a claim for the same damages in restitution?

No, you can't. Don't think of restitution like normal damages, it's concerned with unjust enrichment. The reasoning behind letting the doctor recover is that you would normally pay for medical services from him, but you wouldn't for Joe Dirt. Because of the emergency circumstances the doctor can assume that you would agree to pay for his services. This is a quasi-contract, which is a legal fiction that allows recovery for unsolicited benefits when (1) immediate action was required, (2) advance assent would be impracticable, and (3) claimant had no reason to believe benefactor would not want action to be taken.

eta: In torts, could there be a duty to rescue if, in an accident I negligently caused, I spill a truck load of chocolate milk on the side of the road and kids later come and drink it? My thought was maybe because I caused it; my buddy argued the negative on grounds that I don't own the road. [based on a real hypo]

If you create the situation, you have a duty to rescue, even if you weren't negligent. The children are lapping it up off the pavement? I think that makes it an attractive nuisance, which creates a duty to keep the children out of danger.

Thanks!

[lhanvt13]

Q: do we talk about damages for every single claim in Torts?
A v. B Negligence
- negligence analysis
- damages

A v. B Battery
- Battery analysis
- damages

etc?

[Br3v]

Market share causation.

That only answers But For Causation correct? You still have to prove the harm to be a proximate cause? I guess I cant think of a situation where you would use market share causation and it would not be found to be the proximate cause.

[sf_39]

Q: do we talk about damages for every single claim in Torts?
A v. B Negligence
- negligence analysis
- damages

A v. B Battery
- Battery analysis
- damages

etc?

That's likely prof-dependant and a great question to ask yours

-------

So can someone dumb down Erie for me and Byrd/Hanna?

[Lavitz]

So can someone dumb down Erie for me and Byrd/Hanna?

I'll take a shot at this. Someone correct me if I'm wrong or just didn't explain it very well.

Erie: There is no federal common law, so federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction (not deciding a matter of federal law), must apply the state's substantive laws, whether decided by the state legislature or the state's highest court.

Klaxon: Which state's substantive laws do you apply? Must use choice-of-law rules of state in which federal court sits. Federal Court located in NY, must look to NY state's choice-of-law rules. If you were suing in NY state court, would state court apply substantive laws of the place where the wrong occurred (may be another state) or of the forum state (NY)? That determines which law federal court will use.

York: Established outcome-determinative test. Outcome should be same in federal court as if it were brought in state court. So if applying federal procedural practice would make case come out differently than applying state's rule, federal court must apply state's procedural rule.

Byrd: When issue is one of procedure and is not "bound up" with state-granted substantive rights, weigh the outcome-determinative test and state's interests against federal countervailing considerations. Example: If important federal policies underlie the federal practice, the state's interests are not that great and it's iffy whether the outcome would actually be different after applying the federal practice, follow federal practice. If matter is one of pure substance or one of procedure bound up with substantive rights, defer to state's law.

Hana: None of that ever meant to apply to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, only "federal judicial practices." If there is a conflict between FRCP and state rule, federal court will apply FRCP unless rule fails the Sibbach test: as long as Congress had constitutional authority to make rule, and the authority was granted to the Court in the Rules Enabling Act, it applies. The rule would fail this test if it affected a substantive right but as you find in Sibbach, the Court uses a broad definition of "procedural," so Congress can constitutionally mandate any rule that can rationally be characterized as procedural. So a federal court would have to be convinced that Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Advisory Committee were all wrong when they adopted the rule.
If the conflict is just between state rule and matter of federal judicial practice, you now apply the twin aims of Erie doctrine. Twin aims of Erie were to discourage forum-shopping and avoid inequitable administration of the laws. So ask whether ignoring the state's rule would lead to either the plaintiff choosing to sue in a different forum or giving the plaintiff who sues in federal court in diversity an advantage over a plaintiff suing in state court. If so, apply the state rule. If neither, apply federal practice.

[BigZuck]

Market share causation.

That only answers But For Causation correct? You still have to prove the harm to be a proximate cause? I guess I cant think of a situation where you would use market share causation and it would not be found to be the proximate cause.

Pretty sure our prof only talked about market share in regards to the drug DES. What context are you applying it broseph?

[sublime]

..

[lhanvt13]

Q: do we talk about damages for every single claim in Torts?
A v. B Negligence
- negligence analysis
- damages

A v. B Battery
- Battery analysis
- damages

etc?

That's likely prof-dependant and a great question to ask yours

-------

So can someone dumb down Erie for me and Byrd/Hanna?

Thanks! I just emailed him

[BigZuck]

Looks pretty good to me, Brother Lavitz.

I did kind of tl;dr some of it, but I was wondering- in Erie you said state law was either statute based or what the state Supreme Court said it was. However, sometimes a federal court has to apply state law and its unclear what the state law would be so they have to either certify it from the state Supreme Court or basically act and decide as if they were the state Supreme Court themselves. It's a classic Erie Problem, yo!

Was that something in one of the other cases and I just missed it when I tl;dreded that stuff?

[Lavitz]

Looks pretty good to me, Brother Lavitz.

I did kind of tl;dr some of it, but I was wondering- in Erie you said state law was either statute based or what the state Supreme Court said it was. However, sometimes a federal court has to apply state law and its unclear what the state law would be so they have to either certify it from the state Supreme Court or basically act and decide as if they were the state Supreme Court themselves. It's a classic Erie Problem, yo!

Was that something in one of the other cases and I just missed it when I tl;dreded that stuff?

It was; I just left that part out. Sorry.

Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America: Federal court must act as state court would when deciding what state law should be. If no indication state supreme court would rule differently on issue today, use that. If very strong indications, or no law at all on record, make an "Erie guess" as to what law would be.

[North]

Contracts. Are Expectation, Reliance, and Restitution damages mutually exclusive? Or is it an I'll take whatever's highest kind of thing.

[goden]

TORTS question crossposted in 1L thread:

Can anyone help me with successive causation damages in cases like Baker v. Willoughby? In cases like this does D have to pay all the damages or just up to the point before a second dude further fucked up his injury?

I'm thinking about a fact pattern where person A negligently runs over person B's leg and cripples it, then person C shoots person B's crippled leg at a later time and it has to be amputated.

Here's basically what my notes say but I'm not sure if this is correct or how to make sense of it:
-Measure of damages against C, if negligent: difference between crippled leg and amputated leg
-Measure of damages against A, if C is negligent: crippled leg (because A robbed B of a potential cause of action against C?)
-Measure of damages against A, if C is NOT negligent: only pain and suffering (because C can be thought of as a "natural" cause that B would have had no cause of action against anyway?)

When did C shoot B? I think this all hinges on what you mean by "later," no?

Yeah good point. I think I'm asking about "later" as in at least a few days or not immediately after, so A can't argue that he wasn't a but-for cause of the harm (like in Dillon v. Twin State Gas).

[Br3v]

Thanks for those who helped my causation question, I figured out (I think) that it just gets you over the But for causation, not proximate causation.

Contracts. Are Expectation, Reliance, and Restitution damages mutually exclusive? Or is it an I'll take whatever's highest kind of thing.

Pretty sure you only get 1, though you can plead in the alternative for all of them. They are calculated different ways (obviously) with some overlap so it wouldn't make sense to get more than 1 of them. So I guess it is a "take the highest" deal.

[Dolphine]

Thanks for those who helped my causation question, I figured out (I think) that it just gets you over the But for causation, not proximate causation.

Contracts. Are Expectation, Reliance, and Restitution damages mutually exclusive? Or is it an I'll take whatever's highest kind of thing.

Pretty sure you only get 1, though you can plead in the alternative for all of them. They are calculated different ways (obviously) with some overlap so it wouldn't make sense to get more than 1 of them. So I guess it is a "take the highest" deal.

You only get 1. Expectancy encompasses reliance and restitution. You want expectancy if you're the non-breaching party ("NBP"). Restitution is kinda separate from Expectancy and Reliance

Simplified
Expectancy --> Puts NBP in position had K been performed
Reliance ---> Puts NBP in position they were in before K made (Typically parties ask for this if expectancy is unavailable for a variety of reasons).
Restitution ---> Available when P conferred a benefit onto D and it would be unjust for P not to receive compensation.
If you're the breaching party, you can ONLY sue in restitution, expectancy and reliance is not available (the case we did involved an employment K for a year, and the employee breached after 9 months, despite breaching he was award a pro-rata portion for his work (75% of the K (9/12 months))

Since K's are usually made for the benefit of both parties, Expectancy usually puts the NBP in a better position and is typically a higher amount.

[First Offense]

Thanks for those who helped my causation question, I figured out (I think) that it just gets you over the But for causation, not proximate causation.

Contracts. Are Expectation, Reliance, and Restitution damages mutually exclusive? Or is it an I'll take whatever's highest kind of thing.

Pretty sure you only get 1, though you can plead in the alternative for all of them. They are calculated different ways (obviously) with some overlap so it wouldn't make sense to get more than 1 of them. So I guess it is a "take the highest" deal.

You only get 1. Expectancy encompasses reliance and restitution. You want expectancy if you're the non-breaching party ("NBP"). Restitution is kinda separate from Expectancy and Reliance

Simplified
Expectancy --> Puts NBP in position had K been performed
Reliance ---> Puts NBP in position they were in before K made (Typically parties ask for this if expectancy is unavailable for a variety of reasons).
Restitution ---> Available when P conferred a benefit onto D and it would be unjust for P not to receive compensation.
If you're the breaching party, you can ONLY sue in restitution, expectancy and reliance is not available (the case we did involved an employment K for a year, and the employee breached after 9 months, despite breaching he was award a pro-rata portion for his work (75% of the K (9/12 months))

Since K's are usually made for the benefit of both parties, Expectancy usually puts the NBP in a better position and is typically a higher amount.

Pretty big exception to that are losing Ks. Can't remember the case name, but since expectation damages would be effectively 0 (or less), if the other party breached you want to go for restitution damages IIRC.

(Some case involving a building contract and some cranes)

[Dolphine]

Thanks for those who helped my causation question, I figured out (I think) that it just gets you over the But for causation, not proximate causation.

Contracts. Are Expectation, Reliance, and Restitution damages mutually exclusive? Or is it an I'll take whatever's highest kind of thing.

Pretty sure you only get 1, though you can plead in the alternative for all of them. They are calculated different ways (obviously) with some overlap so it wouldn't make sense to get more than 1 of them. So I guess it is a "take the highest" deal.

You only get 1. Expectancy encompasses reliance and restitution. You want expectancy if you're the non-breaching party ("NBP"). Restitution is kinda separate from Expectancy and Reliance

Simplified
Expectancy --> Puts NBP in position had K been performed
Reliance ---> Puts NBP in position they were in before K made (Typically parties ask for this if expectancy is unavailable for a variety of reasons).
Restitution ---> Available when P conferred a benefit onto D and it would be unjust for P not to receive compensation.
If you're the breaching party, you can ONLY sue in restitution, expectancy and reliance is not available (the case we did involved an employment K for a year, and the employee breached after 9 months, despite breaching he was award a pro-rata portion for his work (75% of the K (9/12 months))

Since K's are usually made for the benefit of both parties, Expectancy usually puts the NBP in a better position and is typically a higher amount.

Pretty big exception to that are losing Ks. Can't remember the case name, but since expectation damages would be effectively 0 (or less), if the other party breached you want to go for restitution damages IIRC.

(Some case involving a building contract and some cranes)

That's US v. Algernon Blair, in that case the P would've ended up losing money had the contract been fulfilled (expectancy damages), so they gave the damages equal to the labor and materials used. (Value of benefit conferred).

[BigZuck]

Just wanted to thank Lavitz for his Erie case explanations, was pretty clutch while I was outlining today.

[Lavitz]

Just wanted to thank Lavitz for his Erie case explanations, was pretty clutch while I was outlining today.

No problem. I hope it's right.

[BigZuck]

Just wanted to thank Lavitz for his Erie case explanations, was pretty clutch while I was outlining today.

No problem. I hope it's right.

Me too brother, me too

Glannon seemed to agree I think