Top Law Schools

Let's say you have a tort case where the plaintiff was injured when he went to the defendant's property.

On first glance, you can label him as a trespasser.

However, after scrutinizing the facts some more, you realize he is actually a public invitee.

In cases like that, should you still mention that he is a trespasser, even though it is actually wrong? You wouldn't want the prof to think you missed the fact that he could also "count" as a trespasser, right?

Gamecubesupreme wrote:Let's say you have a tort case where the plaintiff was injured when he went to the defendant's property.

On first glance, you can label him as a trespasser.

However, after scrutinizing the facts some more, you realize he is actually a public invitee.

In cases like that, should you still mention that he is a trespasser, even though it is actually wrong? You wouldn't want the prof to think you missed the fact that he could also "count" as a trespasser, right?

A public invitee is someone who _____________________

P might argue that he is a trespasser because... but this is wrong because_______(how he meets the requirements of a PI and not a trespasser)_____

what the poster above said. Use these competing legal conclusions (trespasser vs. invitee) as fodder for your analysis. Each side wants to characterize their actions in a light might favorable to them, so do that. After fleshing each side's arguments out, resolve the issue by choosing which side has more facts, law, or your prof's ideological policy concerns on their side. If truly down the middle, which it usually is only superficially so, then just say that, but do your best to predict a likely outcome based on your prof's ideological leanings.