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

[romanticegotist]

for amount-in-controversy requirements, can you aggregate multiple P's claims? I have conflicting notes. TYIA

I have no, but if one plaintiff meets the threshold, other Ps can tag along after that.

So if Plaintiff A and B are suing over event X and A's damages are 50k and Bs are 50k, no go.

If A is 80k and B is 40k, B can tag along with A.


HTH.

Thanks; that looks about right but I wasn't sure.

[Easy-E]

Could someone just briefly explain the qualified immunity doctrine for state/local gov't tort liability?

pls advise?

We didn't cover it in torts, just briefly mentioned it with a case in civ pro..

Qualified immunity standard is there to protect officers

Test to revoke immunity
1) Violation of constitutional right
2)That was not objectively reasonable at the time

Probably not what you're looking for but

Nah, doesn't sound like something we covered. I'm guessing it's something not all classes cover then? It seems to be a trend in past exams that one person is a gov't employee of some kind, I'll see what I can dig up from the book.



This is probably easy, but quick hypo. D drives negligently (changes lanes without looking, whatever) and causes accident. A driver on the other side of the road instinctively turns to see the accident, and rear-ends the car in front of him. Is D going to be held liable for the damage? Car accidents are pretty foreseeable result of driving negligently as D did, but does the scope of liability extend to the driver on the other side of the road?

[BluePurgatory]

Hey ya'll. Quick question for civ pro, for compulsory joinder the rule says "A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined ..." Does subject to service of process just mean that the court has personal jurisdiction over him/her?

[Swimp]

Hey ya'll. Quick question for civ pro, for compulsory joinder the rule says "A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined ..." Does subject to service of process just mean that the court has personal jurisdiction over him/her?

Yep.

[Easy-E]

Kinda confused about the test for determining whether expert testimony is admissible...I have the Daubert standard, Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and the holding from GE vs. Joiner. I know their all related, but I just want to know which one I need to apply on exams really.

[Easy-E]

Having a torts meltdown...this is some basic shit but looking at the duty element of a claim. Assuming no special relationship exists, D only had a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances? But if I establish either a special relationship, that the danger is due to D's negligence, co-adventurers/common undertaking, they would then have an affirmative duty to act to PROTECT P from harm? Maybe because it was covered at the beginning of the year, but I'm having a hard-ass time with this, and how to really discuss the role of duty on the exam.

[BigZuck]

Having a torts meltdown...this is some basic shit but looking at the duty element of a claim. Assuming no special relationship exists, D only had a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances? But if I establish either a special relationship, that the danger is due to D's negligence, co-adventurers/common undertaking, they would then have an affirmative duty to act to PROTECT P from harm? Maybe because it was covered at the beginning of the year, but I'm having a hard-ass time with this, and how to really discuss the role of duty on the exam.

We all have basically a general duty to protect others from harm when we create the risk of harm (Heaven v Pender)

Sometimes there is no duty (Palsgraf- unforseeable plaintiff, etc)

Sometimes things we do or actions we take create a duty (run over a cow- gotta stay and make sure no one else hits the cow and gets into an accident).

I guess I'm not sure what your question is? What distinctions are you having trouble with? BTW I swore to myself I would never think about torts again after I took my final on Tuesday. Oh well.

[Easy-E]

Having a torts meltdown...this is some basic shit but looking at the duty element of a claim. Assuming no special relationship exists, D only had a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances? But if I establish either a special relationship, that the danger is due to D's negligence, co-adventurers/common undertaking, they would then have an affirmative duty to act to PROTECT P from harm? Maybe because it was covered at the beginning of the year, but I'm having a hard-ass time with this, and how to really discuss the role of duty on the exam.

We all have basically a general duty to protect others from harm when we create the risk of harm (Heaven v Pender)

Sometimes there is no duty (Palsgraf- unforseeable plaintiff, etc)

Sometimes things we do or actions we take create a duty (run over a cow- gotta stay and make sure no one else hits the cow and gets into an accident).

I guess I'm not sure what your question is? What distinctions are you having trouble with? BTW I swore to myself I would never think about torts again after I took my final on Tuesday. Oh well.

I don't know really. I just went into a panic mode since I tried doing some practice work today. Sorry to make you revisit it, but can I ask how you "attacked" the exam? Mine is already divided into questions by party, so each one will "A's claims against B, B's defenses" and such. Just go through duty-breach-causation-damages, and discuss issues relevant to each one?

[BigZuck]

Having a torts meltdown...this is some basic shit but looking at the duty element of a claim. Assuming no special relationship exists, D only had a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances? But if I establish either a special relationship, that the danger is due to D's negligence, co-adventurers/common undertaking, they would then have an affirmative duty to act to PROTECT P from harm? Maybe because it was covered at the beginning of the year, but I'm having a hard-ass time with this, and how to really discuss the role of duty on the exam.

We all have basically a general duty to protect others from harm when we create the risk of harm (Heaven v Pender)

Sometimes there is no duty (Palsgraf- unforseeable plaintiff, etc)

Sometimes things we do or actions we take create a duty (run over a cow- gotta stay and make sure no one else hits the cow and gets into an accident).

I guess I'm not sure what your question is? What distinctions are you having trouble with? BTW I swore to myself I would never think about torts again after I took my final on Tuesday. Oh well.

I don't know really. I just went into a panic mode since I tried doing some practice work today. Sorry to make you revisit it, but can I ask how you "attacked" the exam? Mine is already divided into questions by party, so each one will "A's claims against B, B's defenses" and such. Just go through duty-breach-causation-damages, and discuss issues relevant to each one?

That's probably how I would have done it, if my exam wasn't weird.

I've kind of forgotten the questions on mine, but there were two hour long questions, both re: a comparative negligence statute. In the first fact pattern a dude got rearended and injured, went to work, and then on the way to the doctors after work he got rearended again. The applicable statute had some weird things about apportioning damages. So I had to talk about mitigating, assigning blame in an inextricable tangle, and whether or not the P would be barred from recovery based on how the statute read.

Second question was same fact pattern, except the first rearender was intentional (therefore battery) and the statute was more liberal. Had to compare it to the first situation.

So, not as much of a traditional issue spotter I guess.

tl;dr- Yeah, I probably would go through duty, breach, cause in fact, proximate cause, and damages for each party like you're saying.

[moonman157]

Last minute desperation post about torts. For the state of the art defense for products liability, does it have to be the state of the art at the time of the trial, or does the defendant just need to show that it was the state of the art at the time of manufacture? Because I thought our professor said the former, but I'm not positive...thanks!

[KingFish]

Last minute desperation post about torts. For the state of the art defense for products liability, does it have to be the state of the art at the time of the trial, or does the defendant just need to show that it was the state of the art at the time of manufacture? Because I thought our professor said the former, but I'm not positive...thanks!

My notes:

State of the art test
Look at time of manufacture
Can't look at new safety updates (old cars)
Manufactured safely at manufacture

[moonman157]

Last minute desperation post about torts. For the state of the art defense for products liability, does it have to be the state of the art at the time of the trial, or does the defendant just need to show that it was the state of the art at the time of manufacture? Because I thought our professor said the former, but I'm not positive...thanks!

My notes:

State of the art test
Look at time of manufacture
Can't look at new safety updates (old cars)
Manufactured safely at manufacture

Thanks, it didn't make sense to hold them to up to date standards, since that would discourage innovation.

[mu13ski]

So along with the casebook, our prof had us read some outside articles throughout the semester regarding the different goals/approaches of tort law (corrective justice, compensation of parties, economic theory). This theory/public policy aspect of the course was something I never fully grasped.
Anyone have any helpful ideas on how to get a better understanding of this or maybe what you view as the most convincing tort law theory? Thanks

[Nyclawyer618]

thanks.

[chem!]

Can the 2d Restatement apply to the sale of goods at all, or only the UCC? (yeah, i'm that lost in K's)

My understanding is that the UCC applies to transactions in goods. If it's silent on an issue and no state statute is in place for it, then common law applies.

[Swimp]

Can the 2d Restatement apply to the sale of goods at all, or only the UCC? (yeah, i'm that lost in K's)

My understanding is that the UCC applies to transactions in goods. If it's silent on an issue and no state statute is in place for it, then common law applies.

Yeah, remember that the UCC came about as a way to bring uniformity (the uniform commercial code) to sales of goods in all 50 states. Contracts involving sales of goods used to be governed by all the same common law standards that govern other kinds of contracts. UCC provisions displace the common law wherever they apply, but if there's no relevant UCC provision governing an issue, the common law (perhaps articulated by the Restatement, depending on the jurisdiction) is still there.

[First Offense]

Can the 2d Restatement apply to the sale of goods at all, or only the UCC? (yeah, i'm that lost in K's)

If I'm correct, UCC only applies if the seller is a merchant (and then goes on to define merchant). If it's between non-merchants, I guess common law would govern. Someone will want to check me on that though.

[Swimp]

Can the 2d Restatement apply to the sale of goods at all, or only the UCC? (yeah, i'm that lost in K's)

If I'm correct, UCC only applies if the seller is a merchant (and then goes on to define merchant). If it's between non-merchants, I guess common law would govern. Someone will want to check me on that though.

This is incorrect. There are some specific provisions that have different effects depending on whether the parties are merchants, but the UCC applies to sales of goods in general.

[nickb285]

..

[First Offense]

Can the 2d Restatement apply to the sale of goods at all, or only the UCC? (yeah, i'm that lost in K's)

If I'm correct, UCC only applies if the seller is a merchant (and then goes on to define merchant). If it's between non-merchants, I guess common law would govern. Someone will want to check me on that though.

This is incorrect. There are some specific provisions that have different effects depending on whether the parties are merchants, but the UCC applies to sales of goods in general.

Yikes... glad this didn't come up on my final.

[MCFC]

Can the 2d Restatement apply to the sale of goods at all, or only the UCC? (yeah, i'm that lost in K's)

My understanding is that the UCC applies to transactions in goods. If it's silent on an issue and no state statute is in place for it, then common law applies.

Yeah, remember that the UCC came about as a way to bring uniformity (the uniform commercial code) to sales of goods in all 50 states. Contracts involving sales of goods used to be governed by all the same common law standards that govern other kinds of contracts. UCC provisions displace the common law wherever they apply, but if there's no relevant UCC provision governing an issue, the common law (perhaps articulated by the Restatement, depending on the jurisdiction) is still there.

Right. We were told to cite to UCC 1-103(b) to back this up:
"(b) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [the Uniform Commercial Code], the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions."

[hellojd]

Still can't quite wrap my head around Erie/Byrd/Hanna/etc. As I understand it, when a state rule directly conflicts with the FRCP, you use the FRCP, but when do you apply the Hanna tests of Erie goals? Is it anytime that both federal (non-FRCP) and state rules could be applied, or is it only when a state rule conflicts with a non-FRCP federal rule?

If there is no conflict, then both rules can and should be applied (see Shady Grove for how justices disagree about whether they may conflict). If FRCP conflicts with state law, FRCP wins unless it violates RES (which is never). If federal judicial practice conflicts, contrast Byrd goals with Erie goals.

I have a question about Crim Law

For accomplice liability, do you need the principal to actually be guilty of the substantive offense? E.G. if I help a friend commit murder, and he does, but he gets acquitted on some jury error or mental defense, am I still guilty of accomplice to murder?

[nickb285]

..

[Br3v]

I have written down that contributory negligence can be defense in some jurisdictions to strict liability claims?

That doesn't seem to make sense.

[kay2016]

I have written down that contributory negligence can be defense in some jurisdictions to strict liability claims?

That doesn't seem to make sense.

Indeed but in some jurisdictions it's true.. In those jurisdictions (NC, AL, and 2 other states) that still do contrib negligence instead of comparative..

It's an odd concept to apply it to SL but it is a defense