OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS) Forum

[laxbrah420]

On torts, my professor never went over duty and foreseeability. He only referred to foreseeability under proximate cause. Think I should talk about it under duty still?

Really?
So like you have a duty of reasonable care to everyone, but then under PC, you might not if they're unforeseeable? Sick

[minnbills]

On torts, my professor never went over duty and foreseeability. He only referred to foreseeability under proximate cause. Think I should talk about it under duty still?

That's weird. Has it appeared anywhere in your reading? If you have any excuse (like if you're talking about the theory of torts in your analysis) then go for it. You never know, the prof may be impressed you "figured that out."

[SportsFan]

Correct me if I'm wrong since we only spent like 10 minutes discussing this in class, but the "we owe a duty to everyone and its only limited by proximate cause" is basically Andrews dissent in Palgraf. Two quotes from it I have in my notes are;
"Every one owes to the world at large the duty of refraining from those acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others."
"The law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point."
I imagine his professor just loves this opinion...?

[laxbrah420]

Correct me if I'm wrong since we only spent like 10 minutes discussing this in class, but the "we owe a duty to everyone and its only limited by proximate cause" is basically Andrews dissent in Palgraf. Two quotes from it I have in my notes are;
"Every one owes to the world at large the duty of refraining from those acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others."
"The law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point."
I imagine his professor just loves this opinion...?

Except his professor does bring forseeability into PC...

[LetsGoLAW]

Correct me if I'm wrong since we only spent like 10 minutes discussing this in class, but the "we owe a duty to everyone and its only limited by proximate cause" is basically Andrews dissent in Palgraf. Two quotes from it I have in my notes are;
"Every one owes to the world at large the duty of refraining from those acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others."
"The law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point."
I imagine his professor just loves this opinion...?

Except his professor does bring forseeability into PC...

We only went over Palsgraf. We did not cover duty and foreseeability together. Under PC, we went over foreseeable plaintiff, foreseeable type of harm, etc.

After I defined the duty owed, perhaps I can say "Furthermore, the duty owed to B because at the time A drove under the influence, B was a foreseeable plaintiff. On the other hand, B was not a foreseeable plaintiff because B, too, was driving under the influence. On balance, B was a foreseeable plaintiff."

Or, "As a landowner, A owes a duty to invitees to protect them from foreseeable risks of harm."

Something quick an easy like that.

[Jsa725]

.

[laxbrah420]

So you go like this: (?)

Duty: Defendant has a duty to use reasonable care to everyone in the world
Breach: He didn't use RC
CIF: By not using reasonable care, he caused A to crash into B. B went to the hospital and occupied the hospital's entire resources. C was triaged under B and thus not attended to for a little while. C died because he was improperly triaged. But for B's negligence, C would have gotten treated, because he was the only other person at the hospital.
PC: That's fucking crazy, no liability to C.

[shredderrrrrr]

For my criminal law class, the teacher tests over common law v. MPC but is known for not even bothering to teach common law. To counter this, most students get that info from past outlines. For burglary, the outline I have define it as: "the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony."

That sounds wrong. Is it? We never once read about or discussed burglary so I have no clue. I just don't want to be blindsided by a burglary issue on the test.

[LetsGoLAW]

So you go like this: (?)

Duty: Defendant has a duty to use reasonable care to everyone in the world
Breach: He didn't use RC
CIF: By not using reasonable care, he caused A to crash into B. B went to the hospital and occupied the hospital's entire resources. C was triaged under B and thus not attended to for a little while. C died because he was improperly triaged. But for B's negligence, C would have gotten treated, because he was the only other person at the hospital.
PC: That's fucking crazy, no liability to C.

This. Obviously, with all the nuances under duty and cause-in-fact. But under PC, I would say, "A's crash was not the proximate cause of C's death because 1) he was an unforeseeable plaintiff and 2) it was too remote."

But maybe for extra points, even though my teacher did not discuss it directly:

Duty owed: A owes a duty to protect others against foreseeable harms.
Standard of care: Reasonable person
Breach: Was not a reasonable person
CIF: But for
PC: Although he did not act like a reasonable person, C was not a foreseeable plaintiff at the time of the crash.

[laxbrah420]

So you go like this: (?)

Duty: Defendant has a duty to use reasonable care to everyone in the world
Breach: He didn't use RC
CIF: By not using reasonable care, he caused A to crash into B. B went to the hospital and occupied the hospital's entire resources. C was triaged under B and thus not attended to for a little while. C died because he was improperly triaged. But for B's negligence, C would have gotten treated, because he was the only other person at the hospital.
PC: That's fucking crazy, no liability to C.

This. Obviously, with all the nuances under duty and cause-in-fact. But under PC, I would say, "A's crash was not the proximate cause of C's death because 1) he was an unforeseeable plaintiff and 2) it was too remote."

Then definitely don't fuck with your professor's duty theory

[noleknight16]

How I learned Duty:

General rule (misfeasance) - "The general rule is that we owe a duty to others to avoid causing them injury with negligent action"

General rule (nonfeasance) - "The general rule is that we do not owe a duty to others to protect or rescue"

Then for nonfeasance we look at things such as special relationships, undertaking, causing the threatening situation in the first place

We also look at Premise Liability when looking at Duty - specifically the standard of care for invitees, licensees, and trespassers.

[Pleasye]

For my criminal law class, the teacher tests over common law v. MPC but is known for not even bothering to teach common law. To counter this, most students get that info from past outlines. For burglary, the outline I have define it as: "the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony."

That sounds wrong. Is it? We never once read about or discussed burglary so I have no clue. I just don't want to be blindsided by a burglary issue on the test.

That's what the Glannon Guide (written by my prof) says it is.

[Unagi]

10 days until my first final.....freaking out.

Calm down, at least it's not tomorrow.....mine is

Alpha team; gear up: exam tomorrow get some rest
Bravo; you are on deck... Hypos PT BLL stat.
Charlie, delta echo and foxtrot; double Bravo's regemine... You are in the hole, we need you to cover our six come Zulu Hour. Pinpoint weaknesses, STAT.

LetsGo flank the left w/ swimmer ingood and nole.
Gaud right flank w/ crumpets laxbrah, and sportsfan
Minbills take birdnals blump raiden JG assumption et al, and provide cover fire just over the 3rd wheelhouse on the hillside.

Team:When we look back, we can look back with a smile and know that we GAVE OUR BEST EFFORT during 1L. No matter HOW TIRED, HOW STUPID, or HOW FRUSTRATED we feel, we MUST KEEP GOING. We prepared for battle and BATTLE AWAITS.VICTORY AWAITS.

If I get median pwned it WILL NOT BE BECAUSE I DID NOT STUDY MY ASS OFF. IT WILL NOT BE BECAUSE I DIDNT WANT TO STUDY. IT WILL NOT BE BECAUSE I WAS TOO TIRED TO STUDY. IT WILL NOT BE BECAUSE I THINK I KNOW IT ALL ALREADY. IT WILL NOT BE BECAUSE I BURNED MYSELF OUT BEFORE THE EXAM. IT WILL NOT BE BECAUSE I DID THE BARE MINIMUM. IT WILL NOT BE BECAUSE SOMEONE WORKED HARDER THAN ME.

I CAN ACCEPT mediocrity if I KNOW I GAVE IT 100%....CAN YOU?

My brothers and sisters in ARMS... GO HARD then GO HARDER.

All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved. Sun Tzu. CSWS.

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. W. Churchill. CSWS.

Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory. G.s. Patton. CSWS.

Good luck tomorrow!!!

[laxbrah420]

So you go like this: (?)

Duty: Defendant has a duty to use reasonable care to everyone in the world
Breach: He didn't use RC
CIF: By not using reasonable care, he caused A to crash into B. B went to the hospital and occupied the hospital's entire resources. C was triaged under B and thus not attended to for a little while. C died because he was improperly triaged. But for B's negligence, C would have gotten treated, because he was the only other person at the hospital.
PC: That's fucking crazy, no liability to C.

This. Obviously, with all the nuances under duty and cause-in-fact. But under PC, I would say, "A's crash was not the proximate cause of C's death because 1) he was an unforeseeable plaintiff and 2) it was too remote."

But maybe for extra points, even though my teacher did not discuss it directly:

Duty owed: A owes a duty to protect others against foreseeable harms.
Standard of care: Reasonable person
Breach: Was not a reasonable person
CIF: But for
PC: Although he did not act like a reasonable person, C was not a foreseeable plaintiff at the time of the crash.

nooo

[shredderrrrrr]

For my criminal law class, the teacher tests over common law v. MPC but is known for not even bothering to teach common law. To counter this, most students get that info from past outlines. For burglary, the outline I have define it as: "the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony."

That sounds wrong. Is it? We never once read about or discussed burglary so I have no clue. I just don't want to be blindsided by a burglary issue on the test.

That's what the Glannon Guide (written by my prof) says it is.

Thanks! Huh, I never knew. Seems strange that you can only be a burglar at night. (You have no clue how insane I am about the possibility of being tested over something that I clearly have never once learned about).

[LetsGoLAW]

So you go like this: (?)

Duty: Defendant has a duty to use reasonable care to everyone in the world
Breach: He didn't use RC
CIF: By not using reasonable care, he caused A to crash into B. B went to the hospital and occupied the hospital's entire resources. C was triaged under B and thus not attended to for a little while. C died because he was improperly triaged. But for B's negligence, C would have gotten treated, because he was the only other person at the hospital.
PC: That's fucking crazy, no liability to C.

This. Obviously, with all the nuances under duty and cause-in-fact. But under PC, I would say, "A's crash was not the proximate cause of C's death because 1) he was an unforeseeable plaintiff and 2) it was too remote."

But maybe for extra points, even though my teacher did not discuss it directly:

Duty owed: A owes a duty to protect others against foreseeable harms.
Standard of care: Reasonable person
Breach: Was not a reasonable person
CIF: But for
PC: Although he did not act like a reasonable person, C was not a foreseeable plaintiff at the time of the crash.

nooo

WOOPS. Haha. You know, I read how everyone else's class runs differently. I just don't know why my professor would exclude something THIS BIG.

[Pleasye]

Thanks! Huh, I never knew. Seems strange that you can only be a burglar at night. (You have no clue how insane I am about the possibility of being tested over something that I clearly have never once learned about).

You're very welcome. I don't have torts until next semester so I was just glad to be able to finally know the answer to someones question . I would be really uncomfortable being tested on something that I never learned, that sucks.

[noleknight16]

Taking this study party till 2AM. Gonna sleep till 9 or so. Wake up and repeatedly type out BLL and discussion topics for each section. Exam begins at 1PM (so lucky).

LETS DO THIS!!! I got friggen pneumonia and I couldn't care less about it. I got my meds, cough drops, and tissues ready to go and I'll be ready to kick Tort's ass.

A's for everyone on TLS and especially in this thread. We studied hard for this and we prepped as well as we could. Time to execute on test day

[laxbrah420]

4 hours of torts, 3 1 hour essays (@25% a pop), and 25% of MC.
Do MC first or last?
First thinking...gets you thinking about shit
last thinking...time constraints
Certainly leaning towards doing them last

[noleknight16]

4 hours of torts, 3 1 hour essays (@25% a pop), and 25% of MC.
Do MC first or last?
First thinking...gets you thinking about shit
last thinking...time constraints
Certainly leaning towards doing them last

If you can strictly stay on your time schedule, I say essays first.

[apollo2015]

Its a great feeling looking at all of these posts on Torts now that I don't need to worry about Torts anymore. Battery is back to just being a thing that the energizer bunny uses.

It will be splendid when Wednesday comes, and I can get back to thinking of K as just another letter in the alphabet.

Speaking of K, my contracts professor did one of his two pre-finals office hours during the middle of our section's Torts final. I approve of his moxiousness.

[smaug_]

Correct me if I'm wrong since we only spent like 10 minutes discussing this in class, but the "we owe a duty to everyone and its only limited by proximate cause" is basically Andrews dissent in Palgraf. Two quotes from it I have in my notes are;
"Every one owes to the world at large the duty of refraining from those acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others."
"The law arbitrarily declines to trace a series of events beyond a certain point."
I imagine his professor just loves this opinion...?

Just because I'm a huge nerd and really enjoyed Palsgraf, the awesome quote from Andrews (and you'll remember it because it is awesome) is "we draw an uncertain and wavering line, but draw it we must as best we can."

He does indeed do the duty to the world thing and gives a list of factors looking not only into if the event was a continuous sequence/foreseeable, but also into if there were intervening causes, if negligence was likely to create the effect and if the event was too removed in time and place (which can be argued a little more broadly than foreseeability.)

[smaug_]

4 hours of torts, 3 1 hour essays (@25% a pop), and 25% of MC.
Do MC first or last?
First thinking...gets you thinking about shit
last thinking...time constraints
Certainly leaning towards doing them last

If you start with them you can do them for an allotted amount of time and return if the essays finish up quickly. Seems more likely that you'd run out of time and have MC questions left unanswered than that you'd be utterly unable to pound out a torts response, but you'd do better if you have more time.

[laxbrah420]

Yea that's actually what I'll do --thanks.

[gaud]

Good luck to everyone w/ finals today!