Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

lost in translation
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:54 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby lost in translation » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:29 am

HELP!

I'm having some kind of mental block with this..

Can someone PLEEZE explain the difference between Strict Liability for Defective Products (p54 of torts) and Strict products Liability under a different heading 2 pages later?

Under Strict Liability V heading, the outline goes onto explain dangerous activites and animals, but doesn't include defective or dangerous products'.

Is it that SL only applies to possessors, while SPL applies to anyone in the manufacturing/distribution chain?

Is it the same test under both except for that.

thank you

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby soj » Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:24 am

lost in translation wrote:HELP!

I'm having some kind of mental block with this..

Can someone PLEEZE explain the difference between Strict Liability for Defective Products (p54 of torts) and Strict products Liability under a different heading 2 pages later?

Under Strict Liability V heading, the outline goes onto explain dangerous activites and animals, but doesn't include defective or dangerous products'.

Is it that SL only applies to possessors, while SPL applies to anyone in the manufacturing/distribution chain?

Is it the same test under both except for that.

thank you
A plaintiff injured by a defective product can sue under negligence (i.e. manufacturers, distributors, and/or retailers were negligent in manufacturing or inspecting--same old negligence you've always seen) or strict products liability (i.e. product was defective when it left the hands of manufacturers, distributors, and/or retailers). The negligence claim is not frequently used because there's no advantage to doing so--you just get the additional burden of proving fault. But the two avenues exist and are worth discussing separately, though you should spend more time on strict products liability. There's actually also breach of warranties, so consider those, too.

Despite the separate heading, SPL is just a type of SL. The "DAD" acronym on page 54 includes SPL. SPL just gets its own section in the outline because it's got a lot more of its own nuances (the types of defect and shit like that), but the general principle of strict liability applies the same: you no more have to prove the defendant's fault (i.e. negligence) in a SPL claim than you would against a tiger owner whose tiger bit you or a waste treatment plant whose toxic spill gave you cancer.

In one sense, SPL isn't "true" SL because in proving one of the three types of defects, you kinda have to prove "fault" in a broad sense. But it's still much, much easier than ordinary negligence. Imagine having to prove that Safeway was negligent in failing to detect that the box of cereals it sold to you out of hundreds it sold that day was laced with mercury.

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby soj » Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:25 am

anyone got any tips on all this multiparty bullshit in civ pro? i'm referring to impleader, interpleader, joinder of parties and claims that can be permissive or compulsory or whatnot. and then there are cross claims and counter claims that also can be mandatory or permissive. and then there are awful rules about which ones get supp j and which need their own jx. also, i still get smj, pj, and venue confused sometimes. and i haven't even gotten into state distinctions. help

henry flower
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:22 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby henry flower » Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:46 am

soj wrote:
lost in translation wrote:HELP!

I'm having some kind of mental block with this..

Can someone PLEEZE explain the difference between Strict Liability for Defective Products (p54 of torts) and Strict products Liability under a different heading 2 pages later?

Under Strict Liability V heading, the outline goes onto explain dangerous activites and animals, but doesn't include defective or dangerous products'.

Is it that SL only applies to possessors, while SPL applies to anyone in the manufacturing/distribution chain?

Is it the same test under both except for that.

thank you
A plaintiff injured by a defective product can sue under negligence (i.e. manufacturers, distributors, and/or retailers were negligent in manufacturing or inspecting--same old negligence you've always seen) or strict products liability (i.e. product was defective when it left the hands of manufacturers, distributors, and/or retailers). The negligence claim is not frequently used because there's no advantage to doing so--you just get the additional burden of proving fault. But the two avenues exist and are worth discussing separately, though you should spend more time on strict products liability. There's actually also breach of warranties, so consider those, too.

Despite the separate heading, SPL is just a type of SL. The "DAD" acronym on page 54 includes SPL. SPL just gets its own section in the outline because it's got a lot more of its own nuances (the types of defect and shit like that), but the general principle of strict liability applies the same: you no more have to prove the defendant's fault (i.e. negligence) in a SPL claim than you would against a tiger owner whose tiger bit you or a waste treatment plant whose toxic spill gave you cancer.

In one sense, SPL isn't "true" SL because in proving one of the three types of defects, you kinda have to prove "fault" in a broad sense. But it's still much, much easier than ordinary negligence. Imagine having to prove that Safeway was negligent in failing to detect that the box of cereals it sold to you out of hundreds it sold that day was laced with mercury.


Another key bar-exam distinction:

For strict products liability, the majority rule (in comparative fault jurisdictions) is to diminish the plaintiff's recovery by her degree of fault (if any).

For other types of strict liability (abnormally dangerous activities, wild animals and such), the majority rule is that the plaintiff's fault is irrelevant (for apportioning liability, anyway).

henry flower
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:22 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby henry flower » Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:34 am

One Themis peeve of mine? Negligently formatted handout PDFs. Several "blanks" towards the end my Commercial Paper (ugh) handout were actually (ironically?) signature fields, making it so I couldn't fill those sonuvabitches with the natural and appropriate terms. And this hasn't happened in a spell, but I've had a few handouts where I lacked permission to highlight or make comments on the PDF, which was crappy because highlighting and making comments are two things that really help.

Related: I hate it hate it hate it when a handout has too many darned blanks. Usually I can figure out what belongs in each blank by context if I sorta miss something during my double-time lecture listening, but it's tough when the subject, the verb, and the object for every sentence must be filled in. So yeah, I really wish they would just make "filled-in" versions available. Filling in stupid blanks hardly even makes sense for non-substantive handouts like the MPT workshop.

User avatar
Mad Hatter
Posts: 655
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:38 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Mad Hatter » Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:11 am

soj wrote:anyone got any tips on all this multiparty bullshit in civ pro? i'm referring to impleader, interpleader, joinder of parties and claims that can be permissive or compulsory or whatnot. and then there are cross claims and counter claims that also can be mandatory or permissive. and then there are awful rules about which ones get supp j and which need their own jx. also, i still get smj, pj, and venue confused sometimes. and i haven't even gotten into state distinctions. help

Someone made a pretty good supp j post a couple pages back. Otherwise, I've got the same issue...

lost in translation
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:54 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby lost in translation » Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:21 am

henry flower wrote:
soj wrote:
lost in translation wrote:HELP!

I'm having some kind of mental block with this..

Can someone PLEEZE explain the difference between Strict Liability for Defective Products (p54 of torts) and Strict products Liability under a different heading 2 pages later?

Under Strict Liability V heading, the outline goes onto explain dangerous activites and animals, but doesn't include defective or dangerous products'.

Is it that SL only applies to possessors, while SPL applies to anyone in the manufacturing/distribution chain?

Is it the same test under both except for that.

thank you
A plaintiff injured by a defective product can sue under negligence (i.e. manufacturers, distributors, and/or retailers were negligent in manufacturing or inspecting--same old negligence you've always seen) or strict products liability (i.e. product was defective when it left the hands of manufacturers, distributors, and/or retailers). The negligence claim is not frequently used because there's no advantage to doing so--you just get the additional burden of proving fault. But the two avenues exist and are worth discussing separately, though you should spend more time on strict products liability. There's actually also breach of warranties, so consider those, too.

Despite the separate heading, SPL is just a type of SL. The "DAD" acronym on page 54 includes SPL. SPL just gets its own section in the outline because it's got a lot more of its own nuances (the types of defect and shit like that), but the general principle of strict liability applies the same: you no more have to prove the defendant's fault (i.e. negligence) in a SPL claim than you would against a tiger owner whose tiger bit you or a waste treatment plant whose toxic spill gave you cancer.

In one sense, SPL isn't "true" SL because in proving one of the three types of defects, you kinda have to prove "fault" in a broad sense. But it's still much, much easier than ordinary negligence. Imagine having to prove that Safeway was negligent in failing to detect that the box of cereals it sold to you out of hundreds it sold that day was laced with mercury.


Another key bar-exam distinction:

For strict products liability, the majority rule (in comparative fault jurisdictions) is to diminish the plaintiff's recovery by her degree of fault (if any).

For other types of strict liability (abnormally dangerous activities, wild animals and such), the majority rule is that the plaintiff's fault is irrelevant (for apportioning liability, anyway).



Thanks HF and SOJ, that's helped alot - so happy to have you guys/gals here

User avatar
annapach
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:24 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby annapach » Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:30 am

This whole time my suggested pace has been 1.8%, and I've been doing 1.8% every day, woke up this morning and it is now 2.2%. wut. i give up

henry flower
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 1:22 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby henry flower » Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:21 am

Mad Hatter wrote:
soj wrote:anyone got any tips on all this multiparty bullshit in civ pro? i'm referring to impleader, interpleader, joinder of parties and claims that can be permissive or compulsory or whatnot. and then there are cross claims and counter claims that also can be mandatory or permissive. and then there are awful rules about which ones get supp j and which need their own jx. also, i still get smj, pj, and venue confused sometimes. and i haven't even gotten into state distinctions. help

Someone made a pretty good supp j post a couple pages back. Otherwise, I've got the same issue...


The chart posted on this forum a few pages back will probably get you through the bar exam, although it is not 100% accurate. Really, for the most part, the handout (and the lectures) does a damned good job running down how supplemental jurisdiction works with joinder on a functional level. The topic is scattered b/w the supplemental jurisdiction and joinder "chapters," so you might want to re-listen to those particular lectures and then look closely at those chapters of the handout. If it helps you process the info you may want to type it all out.

As far as the more general confusion, SMJ, PJ, and venue really have nothing in common, so grouping them together doesn't accomplish anything.If the concepts are tripping you up, you may want to get the Civ Pro Examples & Explanations, which is really helpful and easy-to-understand. I had a fantastic Civ Pro teacher, but I still found it to be indispensable during 1L. A used copy would work just fine.

Oh, and federal SMJ and venue have basically NOTHING to do with their state-law counterparts, but there is overlap between state and federal PJ.

smalogna
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby smalogna » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:30 pm

Lunch break. MBE should be officially recognized by the US government as a form of torture holy hell.

Mystery
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Mystery » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:49 pm

How is everyone going about memorizing rule statements? I'm in a slight panic about there being so much info that I have to recite purely from memory, especially with under 3 weeks left. At least with the MBE the answer is in front of you.

User avatar
milesdavisjd
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:38 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby milesdavisjd » Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:40 pm

sdphill wrote:
Mad Hatter wrote:
milesdavisjd wrote:
Mad Hatter wrote:IL bros: how do we see where we are taking the bar? Is everyone at UIC Forum?


I'm not a bro, I'm a "lady", but yes, I think we're all at UIC Forum.

Thanks. I was just confused because of this page:

https://www.ilbaradmissions.org/allnews.action


Have either of you heard from them lately? The last e-mail I got from them was the confirmation that I was taking the exam on a computer.


I emailed about my exam location , which is the UIC forum. But I think we are getting an email 2 weeks before the exam.

User avatar
sdphill
Posts: 490
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby sdphill » Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:48 pm

milesdavisjd wrote:
I emailed about my exam location , which is the UIC forum. But I think we are getting an email 2 weeks before the exam.


Thanks for the heads up! :)

gr8scOtt!
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby gr8scOtt! » Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:52 pm

MD test takers - I didn't get an email but happened to log in and saw that I had a seat number assigned!

It's getting real :shock:

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby soj » Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:10 pm

i smh every time someone posts here and is like "omg i'm ONLY at 60% i'll never finish :cry: " when i'm rocking about 20 %pts less than that. not as bad as the folks who complain about "only" scoring 70% on an mbe pq set or some nonsense, though.

User avatar
zot1
Posts: 3082
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:53 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zot1 » Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:38 pm

Mystery wrote:How is everyone going about memorizing rule statements? I'm in a slight panic about there being so much info that I have to recite purely from memory, especially with under 3 weeks left. At least with the MBE the answer is in front of you.


I usually have problems on the essays for this reason because my rule statements are not quite right. I called my advisor and she had take today to just write down statements from the sample answers of all essays I've taken. I'm hoping this will work somehow.

User avatar
sd5289
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby sd5289 » Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:53 pm

Due to a bizarre set of events yesterday / last night, I definitely missed the simulated MBE, but a friend left at lunch, so apparently I'm not missing much. Plan on going into my law school tomorrow, find a classroom, and do the simulation, so spending the entire day charting out all the MBE subjects. This is getting. so. exhausting.

As for memorizing rule statements, I'm just writing and re-writing them. That's how I've always retained information. I just have no idea how I'm supposed to retain ALL THE LAWS.

User avatar
milesdavisjd
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:38 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby milesdavisjd » Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:54 pm

zot1 wrote:
Mystery wrote:How is everyone going about memorizing rule statements? I'm in a slight panic about there being so much info that I have to recite purely from memory, especially with under 3 weeks left. At least with the MBE the answer is in front of you.


I usually have problems on the essays for this reason because my rule statements are not quite right. I called my advisor and she had take today to just write down statements from the sample answers of all essays I've taken. I'm hoping this will work somehow.


If you want, I'm compiling an XLS file that has all of the rule statements for the most frequently topics in each subject, which has been really useful. It's a work in progress (in serious draft form at the moment, I haven't even finished all of the subjects and I'm constantly updating), but I can share it with you. It's just helped me to memorize the phrases, typing them out, getting used to the flow of the rule statement, etc. The value is mostly in the act of creating the spreadsheet!

User avatar
milesdavisjd
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:38 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby milesdavisjd » Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:58 pm

A TLS moderator (I think), posted this guide for getting answering MEE essay topics. It's kind of refreshing, and helpful supplement to the long outlines from Themis. Plus it states the rules in plain language. After going through all the legalese in the lectures and outlines, it's helped to read things written normally.

viewtopic.php?p=8706889#p8649609

User avatar
sd5289
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby sd5289 » Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:06 pm

milesdavisjd wrote:The value is mostly in the act of creating the spreadsheet!


Agreed. I'm doing something very similar for the MBE subjects, and will likely do so for the NY distinctions.

User avatar
paulshortys10
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 7:03 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby paulshortys10 » Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:38 pm

milesdavisjd wrote:
zot1 wrote:
Mystery wrote:How is everyone going about memorizing rule statements? I'm in a slight panic about there being so much info that I have to recite purely from memory, especially with under 3 weeks left. At least with the MBE the answer is in front of you.


I usually have problems on the essays for this reason because my rule statements are not quite right. I called my advisor and she had take today to just write down statements from the sample answers of all essays I've taken. I'm hoping this will work somehow.


If you want, I'm compiling an XLS file that has all of the rule statements for the most frequently topics in each subject, which has been really useful. It's a work in progress (in serious draft form at the moment, I haven't even finished all of the subjects and I'm constantly updating), but I can share it with you. It's just helped me to memorize the phrases, typing them out, getting used to the flow of the rule statement, etc. The value is mostly in the act of creating the spreadsheet!


Share please!

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby soj » Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:39 pm

henry flower wrote:The chart posted on this forum a few pages back will probably get you through the bar exam, although it is not 100% accurate. Really, for the most part, the handout (and the lectures) does a damned good job running down how supplemental jurisdiction works with joinder on a functional level. The topic is scattered b/w the supplemental jurisdiction and joinder "chapters," so you might want to re-listen to those particular lectures and then look closely at those chapters of the handout. If it helps you process the info you may want to type it all out.

As far as the more general confusion, SMJ, PJ, and venue really have nothing in common, so grouping them together doesn't accomplish anything.If the concepts are tripping you up, you may want to get the Civ Pro Examples & Explanations, which is really helpful and easy-to-understand. I had a fantastic Civ Pro teacher, but I still found it to be indispensable during 1L. A used copy would work just fine.

Oh, and federal SMJ and venue have basically NOTHING to do with their state-law counterparts, but there is overlap between state and federal PJ.

Thanks. I kinda agree and disagree about SMJ/PJ/venue having nothing in common. I understand the conceptual distinctions: SMJ is about whether fed court system has power, PJ is whether courts in this state can pull in this defendant, and venue is about whether the suit is in the appropriate district. but i get confused by the nitty-gritty when i'm doing essays or mbe questions where the three concepts draw on the analysis of similar facts (diversity jx depends on residency of parties, personal jurisdiction depends on residency/presence/contacts of defendant, and venue kind of seems to use the same factors as PJ).

Ahyis
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:25 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Ahyis » Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:51 pm

Wow, that sucked. I did make it into Themis' "average-student-at-this-time score (110-120)" range, but that score is a bit below what we'd actually need to feel safe, so I'm still nervous.

Lubberlubber
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:41 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Lubberlubber » Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:58 pm

Ahyis wrote:Wow, that sucked. I did make it into Themis' "average-student-at-this-time score (110-120)" range, but that score is a bit below what we'd actually need to feel safe, so I'm still nervous.


Ugh exact same boat. Also all 3 of my milestone exams I've gotten the EXACT SAME SCORE (60%).

I'm averaging 65-70 on essays. Hopefully those will balance out? Kind of freaking out right now.

User avatar
milesdavisjd
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:38 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby milesdavisjd » Wed Jul 08, 2015 4:04 pm

paulshortys10 wrote:
milesdavisjd wrote:
zot1 wrote:
Mystery wrote:How is everyone going about memorizing rule statements? I'm in a slight panic about there being so much info that I have to recite purely from memory, especially with under 3 weeks left. At least with the MBE the answer is in front of you.


I usually have problems on the essays for this reason because my rule statements are not quite right. I called my advisor and she had take today to just write down statements from the sample answers of all essays I've taken. I'm hoping this will work somehow.


If you want, I'm compiling an XLS file that has all of the rule statements for the most frequently topics in each subject, which has been really useful. It's a work in progress (in serious draft form at the moment, I haven't even finished all of the subjects and I'm constantly updating), but I can share it with you. It's just helped me to memorize the phrases, typing them out, getting used to the flow of the rule statement, etc. The value is mostly in the act of creating the spreadsheet!


Share please!


Just sent you the link via PM. It's in draft version, but can share with the group when it's completed.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jaysgirl42671 and 3 guests