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

[Nova]

Raiden FWIW I've heard from two profs now that it's better to hit all the issues with less analysis than it is to go in depth on fewer issues.

Thats esp what my torts prof wants.

[LetsGoLAW]

Person A leaves out a box in the middle of the street. Person B pushes Person C. C trips over the box and breaks her arm.

A is the proximate cause of C tripping.
B is proximate cause of the broken arm.

Joint and several?

[SportsFan]

Raiden FWIW I've heard from two profs now that it's better to hit all the issues with less analysis than it is to go in depth on fewer issues.

According to my profs, there are only so many points available per issue, most of which you get just from spotting and giving a decent analysis.

Yeah, I think this is probably true. IMO the key is (if you think you're really gonna be time limited) to make sure you get enough analysis to get all the 'easy' points possible.

That said, I know my torts professors exams don't really have many issues at all, and its basically expected to hit them all. The points are entirely in doing a thorough, deep, and well organized analysis.

[Nova]

That said, I know my torts professors exams don't really have many issues at all, and its basically expected to hit them all. The points are entirely in doing a thorough, deep, and well organized analysis.

Thats esp how my K and CLAW exams will be.

Everyone in my Con law class knows there will be 4-6 issues per essay (there are 2 essays) and if you miss one, you can kiss the A good bye.

[SportsFan]

Person A leaves out a box in the middle of the street. Person B pushes Person C. C trips over the box and breaks her arm.

A is the proximate cause of C tripping.
B is proximate cause of the broken arm.

Joint and several?

If you determine A to also be the proximate cause as well, then yeah, A and B would be joint and severally liable.

[SportsFan]

That said, I know my torts professors exams don't really have many issues at all, and its basically expected to hit them all. The points are entirely in doing a thorough, deep, and well organized analysis.

Thats esp how my K and CLAW exams will be.

Everyone in my Con law class knows there will be 4-6 issues per essay (there are 2 essays) and if you miss one, you can kiss the A good bye.

My torts professor seems to make each question (3 total) about 1 or 2 main issues that I imagine most people will get all of, but then each question will have 1 or 2 minor issues (like an intentional tort or vicarious liability or whatever) thrown in, and I imagine those will be a lot of what separates the A's from the B's...

[Maximized]

LGL, you do this thread a lot of good and I appreciate your work.

Agreed. (minus the fact that I sometimes think we are gangsters with all the profanity, lol)

Just did an exam for 70 mins, 2900 words. Sometimes I am not able to get to all the elements of a rule, because I try to spend extra analysis time on some of the other elements. I think this is fine, but those elements I don't get to hit but are big issues are points forever gone.

If anyone wants to read it to check if my analysis is good, lemme know. Gracias & keep strong team, part of law school is testing us under pressure, lets sure em that we love this pressure like a pressure cooker on a sunday afternoon.

And good job JSA! I hope your momentum continues into your other exams.

Fuark bro. I just did a 90-minute one and only posted 2050 words (Civ.Pro.). Excellent work sir.

And agreed, congrats. to JSA are in order. Bask in the glory. Bask in it I say.

[Raiden]

Raiden FWIW I've heard from two profs now that it's better to hit all the issues with less analysis than it is to go in depth on fewer issues.

Thats esp what my torts prof wants.

I have heard from my professors that students who get more analysis but cover more issues generally do better than all the students who hit all the issues. But you are right, its a balance, try to hit most issues with the most balanced analysis.

Though I always felt like Getting to Maybe and other conventional wisdom erred on the side of analysis > more issues. Assuming you are not repeating things in your analysis.

[laxbrah420]

LGL, you do this thread a lot of good and I appreciate your work.

Agreed. (minus the fact that I sometimes think we are gangsters with all the profanity, lol)

huh?

[Raiden]

LGL, you do this thread a lot of good and I appreciate your work.

Agreed. (minus the fact that I sometimes think we are gangsters with all the profanity, lol)

Just did an exam for 70 mins, 2900 words. Sometimes I am not able to get to all the elements of a rule, because I try to spend extra analysis time on some of the other elements. I think this is fine, but those elements I don't get to hit but are big issues are points forever gone.

If anyone wants to read it to check if my analysis is good, lemme know. Gracias & keep strong team, part of law school is testing us under pressure, lets sure em that we love this pressure like a pressure cooker on a sunday afternoon.

And good job JSA! I hope your momentum continues into your other exams.

Fuark bro. I just did a 90-minute one and only posted 2050 words (Civ.Pro.). Excellent work sir.

And agreed, congrats. to JSA are in order. Bask in the glory. Bask in it I say.

Tbh I think you could totally get that word count as well. I don't really type that fast, I just try to always have my fingers on the keyboard, and just try to spend making common sense analysis. It is easier to do this if you are creating a story that both sides could present, rahter than being trite and quick (but then I dunno, maybe the quickness gives you more points)

[noleknight16]

BRB heading to Taco Bell and then spend the next 6 hours listening to the God of Civil Procedure, Richard Freer explain it away.... because my own civil procedure teacher fails hard.

[LetsGoLAW]

I agree with the above.

1) Anticipate issues quickly (you should learn this through those PTs you took from your professors)
2) Outline neatly (LEEWS)
3) Organize your story
4) Present both sides
5) Probable conclusion
6) FINISH THIS SEMESTER
7) DRINK
SLEEP
9) DRINK MORE
10) Repeat next semester

[Jsa725]

.

[LetsGoLAW]

I used a "but for" approach. Simple analysis:

C v. A

Actual: Actual causation is the cause-in-fact of the harm. Actual causation is proven with the "but for" test. But for A leaving the box in the middle of the street, C would not have tripped over the box.

PC: Proximate causation is the legal cause of the harm. To A, the harm was reasonably foreseeable because leaving a box in the middle of the street creates a potential obstacle. Pedestrians crossing the street may come into contact with the box. In fact, pedestrians may trip over the box.

On the other hand, the harm was not reasonably foreseeable because pedestrians typically walk on the sidewalk. Although pedestrians cross the street, the harm is much more foreseeable to cars and bicyclists. However, this argument will ultimately fail because proximate causation does not look to probability, but anticipation.

Furthermore, the harm was reasonably foreseeable because the plaintiff was in the "zone of danger." Since pedestrians utilize the street, albeit to a lesser extent, a possibility exists an unwary pedestrian trips over the box by accident or bumping into someone. Especially under the broader Andrews test, a duty of reasonable care was owed to the plaintiff because the risk of harm was not too removed in space and time. A push and a trip occurred prior to C's injury.

However, A may argue B's action was unforeseeable. Typically, pedestrians do not push each other in the middle of the street. Alternatively, this argument will not hold because the same type of harm occurred. Although B's push was unforeseeable, the trip was foreseeable in either instance. As a result, C can probably show leaving the box in the middle of the street was a proximate cause because it contributed materially to C's harm.

---

Then for B, I would argue A's action might have been a superseding cause but it ultimately was not because it is foreseeable pushing someone could lead to tripping. I'd hold them both as PCs and in a comparative negligence jurisdiction, hold both of them proportionally liable; joint and severally liable in a contributory negligence. Obviously, B would be more liable.

However, I do not think an intentional tort is a complete superseding cause. If A punches B and B falls into an uncovered manhole, I think it the MANNER of the harm was unforeseeable, but the TYPE of harm was. As mentioned, either way someone was going to fall into the hole. Proportional liability is a different instance, obviously.

Think it could hold?

[smaug_]

The Palsgraf discussion seems kinda antiquated and forced, imho.

You could make a strong argument that it was a (strange) form on an enabling tort. Someone tripping was a foreseeable result of placing it out in the open. In this manner it is an unforeseeable manner of harm (Marshall v. Nugent) rather than an unforeseeable plaintiff (Palsgraff).

Under either Cardozo's logic of relational duty or Andrew's idea of a duty to the world at large, the plaintiff here was owed a duty, but the manner of the accident was unexpected, so I think the analysis isn't really relevant.

Under the enabling tort analysis the "fork" (or whatever y'all call them as y'all seem to approach this from a different angle than I do) would be if the intentional tort was a superseding cause or not.


As to the folks worried about the number of words, have you read model answers or past exams written by students? It seems like different professors have very different expectations. Although some prefer word dumps with substantive analysis, others seem to like it when students wrestle with the facts. In the commentary on past answers a prof gave us he mentioned multiple times that students were spending too much time on issues that didn't have legal merit. Speaking with students who had my contracts prof. before, they said that he would take points away for "stupid" arguments. I agree that it is generally better to raise the issue and quickly address why it isn't a valid concern, but you can also reach too far.

ETA: I think your analysis is OK LetsGoLAW, but I'm confused by a few things.

First, you seem to spend some time repeating flat doctrine like "Actual causation is the cause-in-fact of the harm." I think "show, don't tell." applies here. You can weave the doctrine into your analysis of facts without just reciting it on the page.

Second, I'm confused by the use of "zone of danger" in this context. Unless I'm mistaken, that's normally applied in NIED cases and not in this situation. Either way, you should be careful when using words that point to a different part of the doctrine than the one you're discussing.

Third, I think you can integrate your discussion of the claims. For example, the superseding cause claim overlaps with foreseeability and you can't really discuss the foreseeability issue fully without mentioning the superseding cause.

Maybe I'm totally off on all this, though.

[LetsGoLAW]

The Palsgraf discussion seems kinda antiquated and forced, imho.

You could make a strong argument that it was a (strange) form on an enabling tort. Someone tripping was a foreseeable result of placing it out in the open. In this manner it is an unforeseeable manner of harm (Marshall v. Nugent) rather than an unforeseeable plaintiff (Palsgraff).

Under either Cardozo's logic of relational duty or Andrew's idea of a duty to the world at large, the plaintiff here was owed a duty, but the manner of the accident was unexpected, so I think the analysis isn't really relevant.

Under the enabling tort analysis the "fork" (or whatever y'all call them as y'all seem to approach this from a different angle than I do) would be if the intentional tort was a superseding cause or not.


As to the folks worried about the number of words, have you read model answers or past exams written by students? It seems like different professors have very different expectations. Although some prefer word dumps with substantive analysis, others seem to like it when students wrestle with the facts. In the commentary on past answers a prof gave us he mentioned multiple times that students were spending too much time on issues that didn't have legal merit. Speaking with students who had my contracts prof. before, they said that he would take points away for "stupid" arguments. I agree that it is generally better to raise the issue and quickly address why it isn't a valid concern, but you can also reach too far.

ETA: I think your analysis is OK LetsGoLAW, but I'm confused by a few things.

First, you seem to spend some time repeating flat doctrine like "Actual causation is the cause-in-fact of the harm." I think "show, don't tell." applies here. You can weave the doctrine into your analysis of facts without just reciting it on the page.

Second, I'm confused by the use of "zone of danger" in this context. Unless I'm mistaken, that's normally applied in NIED cases and not in this situation. Either way, you should be careful when using words that point to a different part of the doctrine than the one you're discussing.

Third, I think you can integrate your discussion of the claims. For example, the superseding cause claim overlaps with foreseeability and you can't really discuss the foreseeability issue fully without mentioning the superseding cause.

Maybe I'm totally off on all this, though.

Thanks for your opinion. So, I should have mentioned a few things. My professor wants the rule first. Also, he is a big fan of Palsgraf, indirectly telling us to incorporate it into our analysis. But you're right, I'm going to avoid using doctrinal words.

On the other hand, I've been keeping my PC analysis to 1) Was the harm foreseeable? 2) Superseding causes? 3) Type of harm, extent of harm, manner of harm.

[JRustle]

ive got in my notes that the effect of intervening events on foreseeability varies based on the circumstances:
brower v NY railroad: theft is a natural result of a wreck that causes plaintiff to abandon his goods in the middle of a city
compared to
watson v kentucky/indiana bridge: train derails and spills gasoline, a bystander throws a lit match which causes it to catch fire... court says if its thrown as arson then no negligence, but if it was just tossed aside while someone lit a cig then it is negligence.

so basically if the superseding cause is malicious, then it supersedes and no negligence on part of first person. if the superseding cause is negligent, then the first party is also going to be liable. i think because he got pushed over the box rather than merely tripped over it, A is going to be safe. of course this depends on if B knew the box was actually there. if B didnt know, then it doesnt matter and A will still be in trouble.

[laxbrah420]

BRB heading to Taco Bell and then spend the next 6 hours listening to the God of Civil Procedure, Richard Freer explain it away.... because my own civil procedure teacher fails hard.

make sure you use the barbri site to get the updated tapes --wont make a huge difference but i think it's more comforting to know you're getting current law. ie cant imagine the old tapes talk about goodyear

[laxbrah420]

ive got in my notes that the effect of intervening events on foreseeability varies based on the circumstances:
brower v NY railroad: theft is a natural result of a wreck that causes plaintiff to abandon his goods in the middle of a city
compared to
watson v kentucky/indiana bridge: train derails and spills gasoline, a bystander throws a lit match which causes it to catch fire... court says if its thrown as arson then no negligence, but if it was just tossed aside while someone lit a cig then it is negligence.

so basically if the superseding cause is malicious, then it supersedes and no negligence on part of first person. if the superseding cause is negligent, then the first party is also going to be liable. i think because he got pushed over the box rather than merely tripped over it, A is going to be safe. of course this depends on if B knew the box was actually there. if B didnt know, then it doesnt matter and A will still be in trouble.

you mean intervening?
and also see braun v. soldier of fortune brah. foreseeable malicious shit doesn't necessarily supersede. intentional torts generally do, but not always

[smaug_]

On the other hand, I've been keeping my PC analysis to 1) Was the harm foreseeable? 2) Superseding causes? 3) Type of harm, extent of harm, manner of harm.

Just my opinion, but that kind of analysis is like an accordion. Sometimes you want to stretch parts and sometimes you need to squeeze it back in. I think in general PC can be understood as foreseeability (unforeseeable πs, unforeseeable extent, unforeseeable type, unforeseeable manner), but there are other random relevant tests, right? You've got harm-within-the-risk, you've got market share liability, you've got overdetermined events and even far off things like Calabresi on "causal link." I think half of the challenge is choosing which angle of attack is most effective rather than going through the paces of a checklist.

[JRustle]

ive got in my notes that the effect of intervening events on foreseeability varies based on the circumstances:
brower v NY railroad: theft is a natural result of a wreck that causes plaintiff to abandon his goods in the middle of a city
compared to
watson v kentucky/indiana bridge: train derails and spills gasoline, a bystander throws a lit match which causes it to catch fire... court says if its thrown as arson then no negligence, but if it was just tossed aside while someone lit a cig then it is negligence.

so basically if the superseding cause is malicious, then it supersedes and no negligence on part of first person. if the superseding cause is negligent, then the first party is also going to be liable. i think because he got pushed over the box rather than merely tripped over it, A is going to be safe. of course this depends on if B knew the box was actually there. if B didnt know, then it doesnt matter and A will still be in trouble.

you mean intervening?
and also see braun v. soldier of fortune brah. foreseeable malicious shit doesn't necessarily supersede. intentional torts generally do, but not always

woops yeah intervening.

[LetsGoLAW]

My class was limited to plaintiff, extent, type, and manner.

[laxbrah420]

Just my opinion, but that kind of analysis is like an accordion. Sometimes you want to stretch parts and sometimes you need to squeeze it back in. I think in general PC can be understood as foreseeability (unforeseeable πs, unforeseeable extent, unforeseeable type, unforeseeable manner), but there are other random relevant tests, right? You've got harm-within-the-risk, you've got market share liability, you've got overdetermined events and even far off things like Calabresi on "causal link." I think half of the challenge is choosing which angle of attack is most effective rather than going through the paces of a checklist.

This was a real challenge on my torts exam today. I started with a huge overview of negligence, and named a ton of tests and shit...and then basically under analysis applied the most applicable argument for and against. Not sure how this will go over

[smaug_]

Just my opinion, but that kind of analysis is like an accordion. Sometimes you want to stretch parts and sometimes you need to squeeze it back in. I think in general PC can be understood as foreseeability (unforeseeable πs, unforeseeable extent, unforeseeable type, unforeseeable manner), but there are other random relevant tests, right? You've got harm-within-the-risk, you've got market share liability, you've got overdetermined events and even far off things like Calabresi on "causal link." I think half of the challenge is choosing which angle of attack is most effective rather than going through the paces of a checklist.

This was a real challenge on my torts exam today. I started with a huge overview of negligence, and named a ton of tests and shit...and then basically under analysis applied the most applicable argument for and against. Not sure how this will go over

Like I said, it depends on your prof. I know (or I think I know) from reading past answers that my prof. really dislikes 'formalism' and repeating the rules, especially if they aren't grounded in a legal fact.

I think the other thing to consider is what role you're playing. If it is a CLASSIC issue spotter and just "who can sue whom for what?" type question, you're probably not going to have time do in depth analysis on many issues. If the question asks you to take the role of an attorney preparing a brief, you should probably consider and include analysis of the strengths of your various arguments including if they'd meet the burden of proof at the relevant stage or stages of trial. I know my prof. likes to give questions where you're an appellate judge reviewing a case, so you need to keep the procedural posture in mind while review (potentially) a more narrow issue.

I really don't think there is a magic bullet. Instead, I think everyone needs to focus on (1) engaging the question that is given (2) developing substantive analysis of the facts as presented and (3) show skill in knowing which arguments are "winners" both in terms of persuasion and in the opportunity that they give you to demonstrate your skill with the doctrine through application.

[Jsa725]

.