1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT) Forum

[BigZuck]

If the injury/death comes much later then would NIED even apply?

I mean, if their family member gets sprayed with acid and they melt in front of them, then yeah, NIED.

Or, if they know people are getting sprayed with cancer spray then yeah, NIED.

But is there just a sludge that is being sprayed about and people start dying later? Then people start worrying about the fact that they or family members were sprayed with cancer spray? Am I wrong in thinking that might not be NIED?

I guess the hypo isn't clear to me.

[kay2016]

If the injury/death comes much later then would NIED even apply?

I mean, if their family member gets sprayed with acid and they melt in front of them, then yeah, NIED.

Or, if they know people are getting sprayed with cancer spray then yeah, NIED.

But is there just a sludge that is being sprayed about and people start dying later? Then people start worrying about the fact that they or family members were sprayed with cancer spray? Am I wrong in thinking that might not be NIED?

I guess the hypo isn't clear to me.

We did a similar case in class where the guy couldn't recover..

Was working for a company, was around asbestos, was terrified he was going to get mesothelioma... Court said not eligible to recover for nied

[sublime]

..

[cynthia rose]

If the injury/death comes much later then would NIED even apply?

I mean, if their family member gets sprayed with acid and they melt in front of them, then yeah, NIED.

Or, if they know people are getting sprayed with cancer spray then yeah, NIED.

But is there just a sludge that is being sprayed about and people start dying later? Then people start worrying about the fact that they or family members were sprayed with cancer spray? Am I wrong in thinking that might not be NIED?

I guess the hypo isn't clear to me.

We had a case (Hymowitz) where the court made an exception to the statute of limitation rule b/c of a drug that caused birth defects - it was not possible to learn of the defects until after the statute of limitations had run out and it wasn't good public policy to let the defendants off the hook for mass injuries based on that technicality. So one could argue that this claim should be allowed based on that precedent, if a big lapse of time were an issue. It doesn't seem like it was though. Also, like sublime said, there has to be a predominant chance of you actually suffering injury (or you actually being injured), not just a fear that you will.

[kay2016]

If the injury/death comes much later then would NIED even apply?

I mean, if their family member gets sprayed with acid and they melt in front of them, then yeah, NIED.

Or, if they know people are getting sprayed with cancer spray then yeah, NIED.

But is there just a sludge that is being sprayed about and people start dying later? Then people start worrying about the fact that they or family members were sprayed with cancer spray? Am I wrong in thinking that might not be NIED?

I guess the hypo isn't clear to me.

We had a case (Hymowitz) where the court made an exception to the statute of limitation rule b/c of a drug that caused birth defects - it was not possible to learn of the defects until after the statute of limitations had run out and it wasn't good public policy to let the defendants off the hook for mass injuries based on that technicality. So one could argue that this claim should be allowed based on that precedent, if a big lapse of time were an issue. It doesn't seem like it was though. Also, like sublime said, there has to be a predominant chance of you actually suffering injury (or you actually being injured), not just a fear that you will.

We did Hymowitz too, but I don't see that as a NIED case.. Because they had real damages -- birth defects. Maybe that's not the point you were trying to make though.

[Br3v]

Trying to see the forest for a second.

Is negligence a tort? Like a giant huge tort we spent most of the year discussing after discussion other (intentional) torts? (Battery, assault)

[kay2016]

Trying to see the forest for a second.

Is negligence a tort? Like a giant huge tort we spent most of the year discussing after discussion other (intentional) torts? (Battery, assault)

Negligence is a tort. Big Huge tort tree haha

[Cellar-door]

My Torts professor covered Negligent Infliction of Emotional distress in one sentence:

"There is no such thing as negligent infliction of emotional distress."

[Easy-E]

Trying to see the forest for a second.

Is negligence a tort? Like a giant huge tort we spent most of the year discussing after discussion other (intentional) torts? (Battery, assault)

Negligence is a tort. Big Huge tort tree haha

I think it's like the great Deku tree in the tort forest, no?




Anyone have any familiarity with the NY and CA rules for the plain meaning rule? It's something I jotted down next to my notes, but I'm not sure the meaning/importance of it.

[Presidentjlh]

My Torts professor covered Negligent Infliction of Emotional distress in one sentence:

"There is no such thing as negligent infliction of emotional distress."

Ah, the Arkansas theory on NIED.

[Swimp]

Trying to see the forest for a second.

Is negligence a tort? Like a giant huge tort we spent most of the year discussing after discussion other (intentional) torts? (Battery, assault)

Negligence is a tort. Big Huge tort tree haha

I think it's like the great Deku tree in the tort forest, no?




Anyone have any familiarity with the NY and CA rules for the plain meaning rule? It's something I jotted down next to my notes, but I'm not sure the meaning/importance of it.

New York has a pretty strict view of using extrinsic evidence to supplement or supersede the plain meaning of a word that looks unambiguous on its face. California is much more permissive because words mean whatever we want them to mean, man.

[Easy-E]

Trying to see the forest for a second.

Is negligence a tort? Like a giant huge tort we spent most of the year discussing after discussion other (intentional) torts? (Battery, assault)

Negligence is a tort. Big Huge tort tree haha

I think it's like the great Deku tree in the tort forest, no?




Anyone have any familiarity with the NY and CA rules for the plain meaning rule? It's something I jotted down next to my notes, but I'm not sure the meaning/importance of it.

New York has a pretty strict view of using extrinsic evidence to supplement or supersede the plain meaning of a word that looks unambiguous on its face. California is much more permissive because words mean whatever we want them to mean, man.

Well put...this is what I have for the CA rule:"Evidence of prior negotiation okay to allow trial judge to determine if term is ambiguous".

[Easy-E]

Anyone tell me anything about "time for performance when not expressly stated"? One case seems to hold that substantial performance is required, CL seems to be that performance of work precedes payment, and the Restatement seems to agree with that (when performance of one party takes a period of time--> work before pay). Restatement also provides that when performance is simultaneous-->due at same time).

Am I making this more complicated than it is? I hate K's

[sublime]

..

[Easy-E]

Anyone tell me anything about "time for performance payment when not expressly stated"? One case seems to hold that substantial performance is required, CL seems to be that performance of work precedes payment, and the Restatement seems to agree with that (when performance of one party takes a period of time--> work before pay). Restatement also provides that when performance is simultaneous-->due at same time).

Am I making this more complicated than it is? I hate K's

I think you are.

Always assume concurrent obligation.

Time for performance when not express is within a reasonable time (question of fact)

Our prof explained it as the render or tender rule. To recover at law, you have to do one or the other.

Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you are asking though.

Wait, I fucked up, I meant to ask about "time for payment when not expressly stated.

[Mr.Throwback]

Anyone do the K case with the chickens and the K was ambiguous to what a chicken really meant? My prof spent 20 minutes just talking to himself about chickens.

[Easy-E]

Anyone do the K case with the chickens and the K was ambiguous to what a chicken really meant? My prof spent 20 minutes just talking to himself about chickens.

I did...did you have a question about it?

[FKASunny]

That case was so freaking simple. It's obnoxious how much they belabor that shit.

[PippyLongstocking]

Anyone do the K case with the chickens and the K was ambiguous to what a chicken really meant? My prof spent 20 minutes just talking to himself about chickens.

When the judge consulted the dictionary, there were several def. for chicken. On its face, then, the term was ambiguous. The judged then allowed the extrinsic evidence to determine what the actual meaning of chicken was. There are 2 views on this NY and CA. NY states that the judge must first determine if the term is ambiguous on its face. Then if the term is ambiguous, they allow in extrinsic evidence to determine the meaning. In CA, they first allow in extrinsic evidence to determine if the term is ambiguous. They then allow that extrinsic evidence to determine the actual meaning.

[shifty_eyed]

FRANK: Let me understand, you got the hen, the chicken and the rooster. The rooster goes with the chicken. So, who's having sex with the hen?

GEORGE: Why don't we talk about it another time.

FRANK: But you see my point here? You only hear of a hen, a rooster and a chicken. Something's missing!

MRS. ROSS: Something's missing all right.

MR. ROSS: They're all chickens. The rooster has sex with all of them.

FRANK: That's perverse.

[Easy-E]

Anyone do the K case with the chickens and the K was ambiguous to what a chicken really meant? My prof spent 20 minutes just talking to himself about chickens.

When the judge consulted the dictionary, there were several def. for chicken. On its face, then, the term was ambiguous. The judged then allowed the extrinsic evidence to determine what the actual meaning of chicken was. There are 2 views on this NY and CA. NY states that the judge must first determine if the term is ambiguous on its face. Then if the term is ambiguous, they allow in extrinsic evidence to determine the meaning. In CA, they first allow in extrinsic evidence to determine if the term is ambiguous. They then allow that extrinsic evidence to determine the actual meaning.

Make fun all you want, this is case is a watershed in bird law

[arklaw13]

Anyone tell me anything about "time for performance payment when not expressly stated"? One case seems to hold that substantial performance is required, CL seems to be that performance of work precedes payment, and the Restatement seems to agree with that (when performance of one party takes a period of time--> work before pay). Restatement also provides that when performance is simultaneous-->due at same time).

Am I making this more complicated than it is? I hate K's

I think you are.

Always assume concurrent obligation.

Time for performance when not express is within a reasonable time (question of fact)

Our prof explained it as the render or tender rule. To recover at law, you have to do one or the other.

Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you are asking though.

Wait, I fucked up, I meant to ask about "time for payment when not expressly stated.

I think the main idea is that if performance/payment can be simultaneous, they have to be simultaneous. But if performance requires some time, then payment isn't due until completion unless the contract states otherwise. The upshot is if its simultaneous performance and one party breaches, the other party has to show that he "tendered" performance in order to recover for the breach. If you and I agree that I'll sell you my watch for $500 and you show up without the money or otherwise renege on the deal, I can sue for the breach, but only if I actually "tendered" the watch for purchase by you.

[PippyLongstocking]

Are you required to plead damages in federal court under Rule 8?

[Mr.Throwback]

Are you required to plead damages in federal court under Rule 8?

See 8(a). I believe "a demand for relief sought" would be damages.

[RemyMarathe]

When/how is value of goods determined under the UCC for Statute of Frauds (i.e., it meet $500+ requirement)?