kyle010723 wrote:gmail wrote:Is it just me or are the barbri tort lecutres frequently insufficient to actually answer barbri tort questions. For example, the lecture clearly states that there is an affirmative duty to act in only three instances, (1) close family relationships, (2) common carriers inkeepers, (3) invitee/invitors. Then there's a StudySmart question where a farmer on a tractor sees a storm was coming and fled to a lightening-safe area, leaving his 16 yr old, city-slicker, farmworker in the back of the tractor to get struck. We're supposed to find the farmer liable b/c "modern cases" extend the affirmative duty to act/rescue to the employer in an employer/employee relationship.
How the shit are we supposed to know that??
I mean, you would think a reasonable person under that circumstance would tell the 16 yr old to get the heck out of there.
I agree, but if a RP has a duty to act/rescue by virtue of their relationship, especially when it is something broad like employer/employee, you'd think Barbri would have their lecturer include that. I'm just preparing for Gmail v. Barbri here...