IceManKazanski wrote:BuenAbogado wrote:brotherdarkness wrote:BrokenMouse wrote:On the PT, I only got 2 main prongs to my rules... to analyse 2 locations. Did I goof hard? I heard someone discuss (c) earlier... Wtf is this third issue...
Nah don't trip. I'm the one that had (c) and it's because:
(a) Cursory explanation of the weird SJ standard and P's burden re causation;
(b) Explained "the rule" and why I thought it applied, but noted that it had an exception and so we move to part (c);
(c) I broke this into two sub-parts, one for each location.
Weren't we supposed to answer to the defendant's answer? He had a. Causation for negligence to one, b. Causation to the other and c. Professionally negligent design as to both? It seemed that was the structure they wanted.
That's what I went with, figured it was safe bet anyway.
I also thought the exception in 2 didn't apply. The opponent tried to apply it, but it didn't seem like he satisfied the condition at all.
2 didn't apply because he denied and didn't have explanation right?