2Little 2Late

(housing, friendships, future exams, all things 2018)

How much are you regretting your extracurricular choices?

Not at all, I can manage my time.
4
5%
I get busy sometimes, but it's not the worst.
14
16%
Every couple of weeks I briefly lose my sanity.
22
25%
I long for the sweet release of death.
28
32%
I am smart and didn't sign up for unnecessary BS
20
23%
 
Total votes: 88

03282016
Posts: 4984
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:52 am

[s][/s]

Postby 03282016 » Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:51 pm

Last edited by 03282016 on Mon Mar 28, 2016 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gray
Posts: 5986
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby Gray » Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:54 pm

buckiguy_sucks wrote:
legit wrote:Are there any not obvious clothing rules I should know about for 1L holiday parties?
For instance, many people wrote not to wear a black suit to an interview.

no black suits seems pretty obvious tbh its not a funeral

the general business formal rule is no black suits for men b/c funeral garb, no blue suits for women because flight attendant. Black suits for women are fine, blue suits for men are fine.
~etiquette~

User avatar
legit
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:17 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby legit » Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:15 pm

Would go with a charcoal suit for receptions at firms

Asking for a Christmas party at a restaurant

User avatar
Poldy
Posts: 917
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:17 am

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby Poldy » Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:20 pm

landshoes wrote:If you're a woman: a conservative dress, low heels, some simple jewelry, a scarf if you want. They know you're a broke student. A nice-ish sweater and a decent skirt would probably be fine too. Black suit rule doesn't apply.

If you're a guy, nice pants, a nice button down, and a nice sweater. Idk about guy shoes.

That's assuming business casual. Don't go if its formal.

What exactly are these things? Are they just receptions or are they holiday parties? At my old job the holiday party was black-tie.

User avatar
Leonardo DiCaprio
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:06 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby Leonardo DiCaprio » Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:21 am

fuck i need halp w/ torts

User avatar
buckiguy_sucks
Posts: 2621
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby buckiguy_sucks » Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:30 am

Leonardo DiCaprio wrote:fuck i need halp w/ torts

shoot away then dooder

User avatar
xael
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:18 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby xael » Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:45 am

buckiguy_sucks wrote:
Leonardo DiCaprio wrote:fuck i need halp w/ torts

shoot away then dooder


i have a patented torts attack system:

1. write down every person mentioned in the fact pattern
1a. don't forget animals
1b. if there are any children involved, write down "[kids] parents"
1c. if there is anyone who was working, write down her employer

2. ASK: if i want to make an EXAMPLE out of the american legal system what would i sue these idiots for?
aka list out everything they did wrong
and to whom they did it with
and i mean everything
for example
kid v. parents: parents should have checked the daycare and not sent their kid to a daycare that is also doggy daycare
kid v. other kids: they should have come and helped when he was bit
kid v. dog: the dog bit him

3. now pretend that you are the defendants' lawyer and ask if they actually should be liable:
3a. did this person have a duty? (answer: probably yes)
3b. would it have been cheaper for this person to just do their duty than to now pay damages? (probably yes)
3c. would a reasonable person have done what this idiot did?
3d. did what this person do cause it? check the front of your exam the professor might have said to use a specific causation test otherwise run through them all

4. repeat for the next person AND their tort and who they did it to--don't just go person by person, go event by event. and type fast because this method probably means you will include shit the professor doesn't care about.
4a. for ones that are dumb, write "X cannot sue Y because Y did not cause the injury/Y was not unreasonable/etc."
4b. for example, "Kid cannot sue Dog because it is a Dog." or "Kid cannot sue the other kids for not coming to her rescue because they did not have a duty."

5. Remember to check:
- limited liability
- if someone worked for someone else
- if anything was intentional
- insurance
- anything else your professor stressed in class

6. don't delete anything. start every sentence with "X might want to bring [claim] because..." and then if you realize halfway through that you are wrong just write "but X cannot bring this claim because..."

7. when you are done, maybe go back through and add in policy. for example, "as a practical matter though, Junior probably can't sue his parents."
7a. also go back through and add things like "but Y is probably insolvent."

8. maybe include an apology to your professor for turning in a 20k word torts final



the end

eta: the key to torts is just TYPE TYPE TYPE. then when you think you are done with stuff just keep typing typing typing. don't spend tons of time on one issue, and don't make up facts unless you do have time (i.e. don't be like "if Y had also done...").

this may not work if you have a word count limited final, which I believe should be a capital offense

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 3897
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby pancakes3 » Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:50 am

for men: if it's for an event where you aren't already working (networking, interview, etc.) the only fashion decision you're making is what color tie. blue suit and don't waver.

for torts: general advice is to just learn the BLL elements and don't try to do any line-drawing. you're going to have to argue both sides anyway, so let the facts of the hypo come test day do the line drawing for you. if you can take every verb in the hypo and sort it into a viable tort, then argue persuasively why it's not a tort, and toss in a little econ for policy at the end, you're golden. if the hypo gets too crazy, i draw a timeline.

edit on preview: xael is better/smarter.

lulz at minnie's anus.

also, which company's holiday party was black tie?

User avatar
Leonardo DiCaprio
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:06 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby Leonardo DiCaprio » Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:54 am

wtf is gross negligence/recklessness??? what are the prima facie elements for them are they the same as negligence? we literally spent like 80% of the time on just regular neg. practice exam asks if there is a claim for gross neg or recklessness...

User avatar
xael
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:18 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby xael » Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:54 am

Leonardo DiCaprio wrote:wtf is gross negligence/recklessness??? what are the prima facie elements for them are they the same as negligence? we literally spent like 80% of the time on just regular neg. practice exam asks if there is a claim for gross neg or recklessness...


gross negligence in torts (not crim) is just super negligence iirc

User avatar
Poldy
Posts: 917
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:17 am

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby Poldy » Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:57 am

pancakes3 wrote:for men: if it's for an event where you aren't already working (networking, interview, etc.) the only fashion decision you're making is what color tie. blue suit and don't waver.

for torts: general advice is to just learn the BLL elements and don't try to do any line-drawing. you're going to have to argue both sides anyway, so let the facts of the hypo come test day do the line drawing for you. if you can take every verb in the hypo and sort it into a viable tort, then argue persuasively why it's not a tort, and toss in a little econ for policy at the end, you're golden. if the hypo gets too crazy, i draw a timeline.

edit on preview: xael is better/smarter.

lulz at minnie's anus.

also, which company's holiday party was black tie?


O&G company I used to work for.

User avatar
Leonardo DiCaprio
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:06 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby Leonardo DiCaprio » Sun Dec 06, 2015 12:59 am

xael wrote:
Leonardo DiCaprio wrote:wtf is gross negligence/recklessness??? what are the prima facie elements for them are they the same as negligence? we literally spent like 80% of the time on just regular neg. practice exam asks if there is a claim for gross neg or recklessness...


gross negligence in torts (not crim) is just super negligence iirc


so what makes it "super?" are the basic elements still just duty, breach, causation and injury? what makes it GROSS negligence though?

User avatar
xael
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:18 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby xael » Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:05 am

well you could have something where it is negligent bc like, it would have cost you a thousand bucks to put railings up on some tower, and someone fell off and broke their leg and damages are put at $1000.10. that's technically speaking learned hand negligence. or you could have a situation where someone offered to put up railings for free and you turned it down and someone died. the latter would be grossly negligent. the former just negligent.

eta: the "gross" part comes in at the breach part. i.e. how BAD did they breach. were you like "jfc you monster" or were you llike "wait what the fuck that's a tort i do that all the time!"

also actual quotes from my torts final:

D will be unable to bring a claim against R bc R was neither negligent nor intentional when he hurt the d og.


C and A:C could argue that A is liable to her because he should have checked her registration and seen that she was insane. This is not a good claim.. because A does not owe any special relationship towards C.


J could also be neglgent in running the business itself. It is doubtful that it is customary or safe to keep a dog/children daycare.


However, niether of these would be brought to trial so this is a nonstarter.

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 3897
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby pancakes3 » Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:10 am

Leonardo DiCaprio wrote:
xael wrote:
Leonardo DiCaprio wrote:wtf is gross negligence/recklessness??? what are the prima facie elements for them are they the same as negligence? we literally spent like 80% of the time on just regular neg. practice exam asks if there is a claim for gross neg or recklessness...


gross negligence in torts (not crim) is just super negligence iirc


so what makes it "super?" are the basic elements still just duty, breach, causation and injury? what makes it GROSS negligence though?


i remember gross negligence mainly came into play in products liability (somewhere in a restatement?) and the key of what made it gross is if the D knew, or should have known that what he was doing would have [very] probably result in harm rather than the negligent action creates a possibility.

Poldy wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:
also, which company's holiday party was black tie?


O&G company I used to work for.


Wow. Nice. Bolo black tie? Or am I completely mischaracterizing the O&G industry?

User avatar
Minnietron
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:28 am

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby Minnietron » Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:13 am

pancakes3 wrote:
lulz at minnie's anus.


Whoa whoa whoa! Who said anything about anus. I meant my mouth will be stretched from extreme bawling. E.G.,

Image

I thought the pre-party stretching was also mouths from comfort eating.

Sickos...

User avatar
xael
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 5:18 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby xael » Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:17 am

pancakes3 wrote:
Leonardo DiCaprio wrote:
xael wrote:
Leonardo DiCaprio wrote:wtf is gross negligence/recklessness??? what are the prima facie elements for them are they the same as negligence? we literally spent like 80% of the time on just regular neg. practice exam asks if there is a claim for gross neg or recklessness...


gross negligence in torts (not crim) is just super negligence iirc


so what makes it "super?" are the basic elements still just duty, breach, causation and injury? what makes it GROSS negligence though?


i remember gross negligence mainly came into play in products liability (somewhere in a restatement?) and the key of what made it gross is if the D knew, or should have known that what he was doing would have [very] probably result in harm rather than the negligent action creates a possibility.

Poldy wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:
also, which company's holiday party was black tie?


O&G company I used to work for.


Wow. Nice. Bolo black tie? Or am I completely mischaracterizing the O&G industry?


oh right i think it may have come up in products liability. iirc we didn't call it gross neg there

• TYPES OF DEFECTS (Manufacturing Defect, Design Defect, Warning Defect)
o MANUFACTURING DEFECT:
 RST § 402(A): A product is defective when at the time it leaves the seller’s hands it is in a condition not contemplated by the ultimate consumer and is unreasonably dangerous.
• Unreasonably dangerous: dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it.
 RTT § 2: When the product departs from its intended design even though all possible care was exercised in the preparation and marketing of the product.
• Natural Exception: no liability for things that would naturally occur (clamshells in clam chowder = okay, nails = not okay)
• Reasonable Expectations Exception: no liability for things that people reasonable expect would show up (clamshells in clam chowder = okay, nails = not okay)
o Used Goods
 Used goods usually are not included in this, however, if the goods are substantially looked over or altered then they are. Used goods need to or should be marked “as is.”
 Causation:
• RTPL § 3: Circumstantial Evidence Supporting Inference of Product Defect
o It may be inferred that the harm sustained by the plaintiff was caused by a product defect existing at the time of ale or distribution, without proof of a specific defect, when the incident that harmed the plaintiff:
 Was of a kind that ordinarily occurs as a result of a product defect; AND
 Was not, in the particular case, solely the result of causes other than product defect existing at the time of sale or distribution.
o DESIGN DEFECT (3)
1. Consumer Expectation Test:
o RST § 402(A): A product is defective when at the time it leaves the seller’s hands it is in a condition not contemplated by the ultimate consumer and is unreasonably dangerous.
2. Risk/Utility Test [Negligence]
o RTT § 2: when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller etc. and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe.
 Volkswagen: have a duty not only to regular use, but the consequences of regular use (like car crashes)
3. California Hybrid Test
o Combines both—a product can be defective under the Consumer Expectations Test or the Risk/Utility Test
o State of the Art Exception:
 Definition: embraces the scientific, technological, and safety standards that are reasonably foreseeable at the time or product design.
 Most courts do not allow compliance with the state of the art to excuse product defects.

User avatar
Gray
Posts: 5986
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby Gray » Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:20 am

Minnietron wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:
lulz at minnie's anus.


Whoa whoa whoa! Who said anything about anus. I meant my mouth will be stretched from extreme bawling.

On TLS you can always assume anus.

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 3897
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby pancakes3 » Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:21 am

Ah, but wasn't it a pre-party cavity stretching? But I guess cavities can also exist in a mouth, i'll still take the L for reading comp. i've never had a tooth cavity so i mostly operate under the presumption of a body cavity definition.

edit: fantastic stuff xael but how's bk working out for you? did you end up finding practice exams? when is it?

User avatar
Big Red
Posts: 3010
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:29 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby Big Red » Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:22 am

hm ty xael, I keep forgetting parties/issues that I see the first read around bc I'm not writing anything down

it did not occur to me to write things down :lol:

User avatar
Poldy
Posts: 917
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 12:17 am

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby Poldy » Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:22 am

Common misconception. I rarely wore steel toes and FRCs to work. My company was notorious for not believing in casual Friday which, in the city I was in, was completely unheard of. There is just a lot of money in the industry (when oil isn't <$40/bbl).

User avatar
Leonardo DiCaprio
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:06 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby Leonardo DiCaprio » Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:25 am

torts mastermen/masterwomen, i need a tl;dr on strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities

User avatar
buckiguy_sucks
Posts: 2621
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1

Postby buckiguy_sucks » Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:37 am

Leonardo DiCaprio wrote:torts mastermen/masterwomen, i need a tl;dr on strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities


Abnormally dangerous = ultrahazardous activity

Still need proximate cause and damage

Ultrahazardous =
(1) whether the activity involves a high degree of risk or harm;
(2) the gravity of that risk;
(3) whether the risk can be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care;
(4) whether the activity is a matter of common usage;
(5) whether the activity is appropriate to the place where it is carried out on and
(6) the value of the activity to the community.

E: make sure you focus on the activity (shipping dangerous chemicals activity is shipping not the danger of the chemicals) this typically seems common sense in negligence but is harder to distiguish in SL

User avatar
KMart
Posts: 3627
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:25 am

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby KMart » Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:42 am

Leonardo DiCaprio wrote:torts mastermen/masterwomen, i need a tl;dr on strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities

If something is abnormally dangerous, you are liable. Factors to consider are: high degree of risk, likelihood the harm will be great, inability to eliminate the risk, not a matter of common usage, inappropriateness of the activity, extent to which the value is outweighed by the risk.

Driving is "abnormally dangerous" but does it have strict liability? Well there's a high degree of risk and, really, not much ability to eliminate the risk other than simply not driving, but it's also a matter of common use, appropriate for society, and provides great value which outweighs any risk.

Owning a mountain lion as a pet in a city is "abnormally dangerous", but does it have strict liability? Well there's a high degree of risk which will create great harm, it's certainly not common, it provides zero value to offset the risk.

tl;dr for the tl;dr version: if normally, sane, people wouldn't do it because it'd be too risky, there's probably SL. Driving is dangerous but sane people do it so no SL; owning a mountain lion is cool, but dangerous, and normal people don't do it so SL.

The blind leading the blind...

User avatar
landshoes
is that cool?
Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:17 pm

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby landshoes » Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:58 am

oh yay a tort thing we actually did

abnormally dangerous = it's really risky, and I have no desire to do it, but I'm too lazy to ban it, so instead I will use the tort system to force you to basically insure everyone you might damage with this stupid and unpopular activity. If I couldn't successfully sue you there would be a real risk that the legislature would care enough about your stupid risky bullshit to ban it. Also, hopefully when deciding whether to do this activity you will consider all the costs (since you'll be paying them) and realize that the benefit is not worth it, and just not do it after all.

User avatar
Mack.Hambleton
Posts: 5417
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

Re: Tonight, We Dine in He1L

Postby Mack.Hambleton » Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:59 am

Hand wrote:
Mack.Hambleton wrote:
Hand wrote:
unsweetened wrote:Anyone going to 1L holiday parties or open houses over the break?

We have the annual georgetown 1L gang bang coming up after exams, that should be a good time

Can I come

come, huhu

not sure if your HARVARD prestige will be a turn-on or turn-off for us lowly GULC students, but I guess there's only one way to find out! there's a pre-game cavity stretching session planned at gray's house


I imagine it'll be like the bar scene in goodwill hunting




Return to “TLS Class of 2018 Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest