First Week of Torts (Reflection thereof) Forum

[kalvano]

Wait, you covered battery, assault, and false imprisonment in a week?

Send your professor over to my school. That was about 7 weeks for us.

I was also confused by that, we're spending a bit more than a week on battery.

You should be able to reasonably cover all the intentional torts in a couple of weeks.

[Tanicius]

Wait, you covered battery, assault, and false imprisonment in a week?

Send your professor over to my school. That was about 7 weeks for us.

I was also confused by that, we're spending a bit more than a week on battery.

You should be able to reasonably cover all the intentional torts in a couple of weeks.

Our prof said we cover intentional torts in 2 days at the very end of class and that he designed it that way on purpose. Different profs, different styles and opinions on what's important, I guess. Well, no, obviously.

[kalvano]

Our prof said we cover intentional torts in 2 days at the very end of class and that he designed it that way on purpose. Different profs, different styles and opinions on what's important, I guess. Well, no, obviously.

Sure. But I guess my point is that they are not difficult and should not take a large amount of class time.

[YourCaptain]

i do not know what leews or pls do for you people.

There are ambiguities and exceptions, deal with it. When you get to an exam, concisely write out what you're struggling with, why you're struggling with it, maybe a distinction from a case you read in class if there's a similar issue present, make your conclusion and explain why you did so.

it's not that hard.

[spleenworship]

It it good or bad that I have done the same if not more prep than the op and feel the exact opposite after my first couple days?

No confidence here. Just fear and self-loathing.

I flip flop by the hour between the two extremes

[reverendt]

More than any other class, torts is ALL about the elements. Just stick to the black letter law and don't get bogged down by the details of the cases you're reading.

[introversional]

BUT, what I was trying to say-which I will attempt more clearly- is that exam time the teacher doesn't want a basic definition of something, right? The P may have very will hit D, but don't we need to exam all of the nuances in order to accumulate more points? That was my focus.

There aren't a lot of nuances when someone gets hit.

Sure there are. For example, if the OP, in his hometown state of New Jersey, went out one evening and proceeded to fist pump to his favorite techno song, and another individual (who was drunk) stumbled into the dancing OP and injured his head on the OP's fist, there's plenty of important nuance there...

In fact, if OP injured his fist on the negligent(?) D's head, the OP might have a battery claim against D.

[kswiss]

In fact, if OP injured his fist on the negligent(?) D's head, the OP might have a battery claim against D.

Battery is an intentional tort.

[beach_terror]

BUT, what I was trying to say-which I will attempt more clearly- is that exam time the teacher doesn't want a basic definition of something, right? The P may have very will hit D, but don't we need to exam all of the nuances in order to accumulate more points? That was my focus.

There aren't a lot of nuances when someone gets hit.

Sure there are. For example, if the OP, in his hometown state of New Jersey, went out one evening and proceeded to fist pump to his favorite techno song, and another individual (who was drunk) stumbled into the dancing OP and injured his head on the OP's fist, there's plenty of important nuance there...

In fact, if OP injured his fist on the negligent(?) D's head, the OP might have a battery claim against D.

There's no intent there, the discussion was about intentional torts. So no, your hypo fails.

[kaiser]

Lol these 1L's gotta study a bit more...

[Naked Dude]

BUT, what I was trying to say-which I will attempt more clearly- is that exam time the teacher doesn't want a basic definition of something, right? The P may have very will hit D, but don't we need to exam all of the nuances in order to accumulate more points? That was my focus.

There aren't a lot of nuances when someone gets hit.

Sure there are. For example, if the OP, in his hometown state of New Jersey, went out one evening and proceeded to fist pump to his favorite techno song, and another individual (who was drunk) stumbled into the dancing OP and injured his head on the OP's fist, there's plenty of important nuance there...

In fact, if OP injured his fist on the negligent(?) D's head, the OP might have a battery claim against D.

There's no intent there, the discussion was about intentional torts. So no, your hypo fails.

I guess it depends on how narrowly you read intent. You might argue fault to give you intent but, I doubt there would be a battery claim because that sort of shit is par for the course at a club.

[beach_terror]

I guess it depends on how narrowly you read intent. You might argue fault to give you intent but, I doubt there would be a battery claim because that sort of shit is par for the course at a club.

No, hit the books. Even thinking intentional torts there is a bad sign.

[introversional]

BUT, what I was trying to say-which I will attempt more clearly- is that exam time the teacher doesn't want a basic definition of something, right? The P may have very will hit D, but don't we need to exam all of the nuances in order to accumulate more points? That was my focus.

There aren't a lot of nuances when someone gets hit.

Sure there are. For example, if the OP, in his hometown state of New Jersey, went out one evening and proceeded to fist pump to his favorite techno song, and another individual (who was drunk) stumbled into the dancing OP and injured his head on the OP's fist, there's plenty of important nuance there...

In fact, if OP injured his fist on the negligent(?) D's head, the OP might have a battery claim against D.

There's no intent there, the discussion was about intentional torts. So no, your hypo fails.

You can be negligently wrongful, not only intentionally wrongful.

[071816]

LOL at the Jersey Shore hypo. That definitely fails as an example of an intentional tort.

[kaiser]

I guess it depends on how narrowly you read intent. You might argue fault to give you intent but, I doubt there would be a battery claim because that sort of shit is par for the course at a club.

No. This is wasted discussion on an exam since its so blatantly and clearly not an intentional tort. Wasting a moment discussing it would just show an inability to say "it is X, not Y", which is a valuable skill. On torts exams (and exams in general in law school), being able to say "well, it isn't so and so, thus I don't need to analyze it as such" is just as valuable as identifying what the situation actually is.

[Naked Dude]

How can you categorically state that there is no intent? Maybe the guy is really pissed off and decides he wants to hit someone.

[beach_terror]

How can you categorically state that there is no intent? Maybe the guy is really pissed off and decides he wants to hit someone.

Yes, making up facts that aren't there is a great idea when trying to solve an exam problem.

[071816]

How can you categorically state that there is no intent? Maybe the guy is really pissed off and decides he wants to hit someone.

Because he was dancing, not fighting...

[shoeshine]

Naked Dude you are kind of embarrassing yourself.

[FeelTheHeat]

How can you categorically state that there is no intent? Maybe the guy is really pissed off and decides he wants to hit someone.

Yes, making up facts that aren't there is a great idea when trying to solve an exam problem.

Arguendo!

But seriously, this might be the most annoying topic I've seen on TLS in months.

[D'Angelo]

my torts isn't until spring...hopefully that means less craziness like this...

[kaiser]

Naked Dude you are kind of embarrassing yourself.

In all fairness, he is a week or 2 into school, so cut him some slack. I'm sure I tried making some flimsy arguments at first, yet I turned it around and did very well in torts.

[introversional]

How can you categorically state that there is no intent? Maybe the guy is really pissed off and decides he wants to hit someone.

Because he was dancing, not fighting...

We're getting off point here... The dancing guy wanted to hit the air above his head, that's all. The drunken heathen that ran into the dancer's first with his head is the potential tortfeasor here. If we show fault/negligence (say he was on E along with his bottle of jager) and stumbled into the innocent dancer thereby hurting dancer's first with his sweaty head... we have a case, no?

[Grizz]

LOL

[Naked Dude]

How can you categorically state that there is no intent? Maybe the guy is really pissed off and decides he wants to hit someone.

Because he was dancing, not fighting...

We're getting off point here... The dancing guy wanted to hit the air above his head, that's all. The drunken heathen that ran into the dancer's first with his head is the potential tortfeasor here. If we show fault/negligence (say he was on E along with his bottle of jager) and stumbled into the innocent dancer thereby hurting dancer's first with his sweaty head... we have a case, no?

but what about the whole substantial certainty bit? the nightclub location covers that i guess. whatever man i'm giving legal advice or nothing, feel free to correct me and all. enjoy it if you must, no need to be hostile.