1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[kalvano]

Oh man, I had no idea we didn't cover so much. Im just now finding out vicarious liability and strict liability are different things! FFffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Check out the E&E. It's gold for Torts. I didn't pay a bit of attention in class and rocked the exam.

You can even use the old one that's like $5 on Half.com.

[ph14]

Oh man, I had no idea we didn't cover so much. Im just now finding out vicarious liability and strict liability are different things! FFffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Vicarious liability is essentially strict liability in that a master is responsible for their agent. But also remember that strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities only applies for damage that results from the danger that caused the activity to be held in strict liability in the first place. If you are blasting dynamite and you scare some minks and they kill themselves or something then there's no liability, even though blasting dynamite may be a "strict liability" activity.

[Extension_Cord]

Oh man, I had no idea we didn't cover so much. Im just now finding out vicarious liability and strict liability are different things! FFffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Vicarious liability is essentially strict liability in that a master is responsible for their agent. But also remember that strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities only applies for damage that results from the danger that caused the activity to be held in strict liability in the first place. If you are blasting dynamite and you scare some minks and they kill themselves or something then there's no liability, even though blasting dynamite may be a "strict liability" activity.

Great tips, thanks.

Im reading Emanuels now. Will check E&E later.

[crossarmant]

Vicarious liability is essentially strict liability in that a master is responsible for their agent. But also remember that strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities only applies for damage that results from the danger that caused the activity to be held in strict liability in the first place. If you are blasting dynamite and you scare some minks and they kill themselves or something then there's no liability, even though blasting dynamite may be a "strict liability" activity.

Same example my professor used.... guessing it's a thing.

Also, for Torts, I found "Mastering Torts" by Vincent R. Johnson VERY helpful. It's much shorter than the E&E and is a great review read, you can find it used on Amazon for like $2.

[kalvano]

Torts is probably the easiest class to screw off in and then make it up come exam time. It's very linear and rule-based, and lends itself well to exam analysis.

[lifestooquick]

I felt so bad for those baby minks

Also...I need to kick it into gear. I've put in some significant outlining time over break, but it's taking longer than I thought it would Hoping to get through them soon and shift to more working on hypos/practice exams

[Gettingstarted1928]

Oh man, I had no idea we didn't cover so much. Im just now finding out vicarious liability and strict liability are different things! FFffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Vicarious liability is essentially strict liability in that a master is responsible for their agent. But also remember that strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities only applies for damage that results from the danger that caused the activity to be held in strict liability in the first place. If you are blasting dynamite and you scare some minks and they kill themselves or something then there's no liability, even though blasting dynamite may be a "strict liability" activity.

Great tips, thanks.

Im reading Emanuels now. Will check E&E later.

LOL. Just picturing minks with tiny GI Joe size guns

[Extension_Cord]

So in contributory negligence jurisdictions; strict liability won't normally bar P's recovery? But in comparative negligence jurisdictions; damages will be reduced to corresponding liability %?

Is that correct? If so it seems like contributory negligence jurisdiction would award a negligent P more than a comparative negligence jurisdiction. Seems like something tricky to test on.

[ph14]

So in contributory negligence jurisdictions; strict liability won't normally bar P's recovery? But in comparative negligence jurisdictions; damages will be reduced to corresponding liability %?

Is that correct? If so it seems like contributory negligence jurisdiction would award a negligent P more than a comparative negligence jurisdiction. Seems like something tricky to test on.

That's correct.

[Lasers]

i literally know all the substantive material for my first final...it's spotting all the issues that is killer.

i keep missing 1-2 issues per practice test, some that can be pretty big. frustrating, but i'm learning...slowly.

[$peppercorn]

The part at the end of the Torts E&E about exams and structure was actually pretty helpful too.

[ilovesf]

i literally know all the substantive material for my first final...it's spotting all the issues that is killer.

i keep missing 1-2 issues per practice test, some that can be pretty big. frustrating, but i'm learning...slowly.

Do you have property on thursday too? I think someone told me all the sections have it at the same time.

[FeelTheHeat]

Finished LEEWS on the way back to Gville...I feel like a BAWSE lol

[Lasers]

i literally know all the substantive material for my first final...it's spotting all the issues that is killer.

i keep missing 1-2 issues per practice test, some that can be pretty big. frustrating, but i'm learning...slowly.

Do you have property on thursday too? I think someone told me all the sections have it at the same time.

indeed i do.

[Extension_Cord]

Im a little confused on internal and external circumstances on a persons standard of care. Is it that internal circumstances have no effect and they are held to the RPP standard and external may have an effect?

[SwampRat88]

..

[brickman]

Today, all of civil procedure made sense.

except parts of PJ, i'm pretty sure some of that is straight bullshit.

[lifestooquick]

Today, all of civil procedure made sense.

except parts of PJ, i'm pretty sure some of that is straight bullshit.

Is there some magical trick for it all to make sense??

The only thing that's helped me so far are the BarBri lectures.

[kalvano]

Just did torts exam. Pretty sure I ***** fucked the intentional torts fact pattern. Man and women were fighting, the man pulled out a gun, fired it past her. The bullet went pretty far, ricocheted off another building, and hit a man's car driving on the highway. Stupidly I went into transferred intent for assault and battery (having the guy in the car sue the man in the house). The fact pattern, I believe, did not give any indication the man in the car traced the bullet back to the man in the house.

Am I right that I completely missed Res Ipsa, and that there is no realistic way the man with the gun would be liable for the transferred intent for assault and battery?

It's been a bit since Torts, but he couldn't have assaulted the guy in the car since the guy wasn't afraid before being hit by a bullet out of fucking nowhere, but you should still discuss it. As for battery yeah, he's still on the hook. He intended to fire the gun and is responsible for the consequences. The chain of events is pretty closely connected, and there's not really a break that absolves him.

[brickman]

Just did torts exam. Pretty sure I ***** fucked the intentional torts fact pattern. Man and women were fighting, the man pulled out a gun, fired it past her. The bullet went pretty far, ricocheted off another building, and hit a man's car driving on the highway. Stupidly I went into transferred intent for assault and battery (having the guy in the car sue the man in the house). The fact pattern, I believe, did not give any indication the man in the car traced the bullet back to the man in the house.

Am I right that I completely missed Res Ipsa, and that there is no realistic way the man with the gun would be liable for the transferred intent for assault and battery?

he had purpose/kwsc that he would shoot the person, but he missed. doesn't matter that he didn't have purpose/kwsc w/r/t to the other guy, it transfers.

then you get into negligence discussion
this is clearly negligence on the guy who fired the bullet, but there might not be legal causation here.

if you are going to do a polemis test, this is probably a direct result b/c it followed inevitably from the fact that a bullet was fired and someone was harmed.

it gets interesting under a palsgraf analysis. how large is the zone of danger of firing a bullet and is it affect by physical constructions? I'd probably the guy in the car was outside the zone of danger simply because the zone of danger is a bullet traveling in a straight line, but it is arguable.

under just a straight up foreseeability test, the harm that occurred was the type that would be expected, dude got shot. though are there superseding causes? doesn't look like temporal or human action problems (maybe the dude driving), but there is a spatial problem here that might be superseding.

still, I think this is risk still "unfolding in the bosom" of time, the situtation has not stabilized, that bullet is still wizzing through the air and the type of harm that happens is what one might expect.

damage is easy and so is but for. this is a beautiful legal cause question!

[brickman]

Today, all of civil procedure made sense.

except parts of PJ, i'm pretty sure some of that is straight bullshit.

Is there some magical trick for it all to make sense??

The only thing that's helped me so far are the BarBri lectures.

yes there is a trick.

just think about the federal government as really lazy fucking dude. he has been given responsibilities by the state, but he's like: "fuck that. Congress, limit the shit i have to hear". congress is like, alright, but you still have to hear some shit, and the court is like "yea, fuck it, fine". Congress is like "these citizens have rights, we should probably respect them" courts are like, god damnit okay.

So courts try making a system that is fair, but when shit is all over they want finality, they don't want to deal with the shit anymore so they make sure decisions are F-I-N-A-L. They are also like, "hey look at that constitution FF&C clause, lets fucking make a federal one so we don't have to worry about litigating these shitty judgements". Federal courts are like "slam fucking dunk".

From there it is just arbitrary little limitations on the dollar amounts and time periods and shit like that, but the above is the fundamental stuff.

edit: also the courts are like, plaintiffs are dumb as fuck, lets help them out by giving them tons of time and tons of opportunities to fix all their shitty and stupid mistakes.

except TwIqbal is like, lol, fuck plaintiffs lets get back to drinking.

[Kabuo]

Today, all of civil procedure made sense.

except parts of PJ, i'm pretty sure some of that is straight bullshit.

Is there some magical trick for it all to make sense??

The only thing that's helped me so far are the BarBri lectures.

yes there is a trick.

just think about the federal government as really lazy fucking dude. he has been given responsibilities by the state, but he's like: "fuck that. Congress, limit the shit i have to hear". congress is like, alright, but you still have to hear some shit, and the court is like "yea, fuck it, fine". Congress is like "these citizens have rights, we should probably respect them" courts are like, god damnit okay.

So courts try making a system that is fair, but when shit is all over they want finality, they don't want to deal with the shit anymore so they make sure decisions are F-I-N-A-L. They are also like, "hey look at that constitution FF&C clause, lets fucking make a federal one so we don't have to worry about litigating these shitty judgements". Federal courts are like "slam fucking dunk".

From there it is just arbitrary little limitations on the dollar amounts and time periods and shit like that, but the above is the fundamental stuff.

edit: also the courts are like, plaintiffs are dumb as fuck, lets help them out by giving them tons of time and tons of opportunities to fix all their shitty and stupid mistakes.

except TwIqbal is like, lol, fuck plaintiffs lets get back to drinking.

Do you mind if I borrow this for my civpro outline next semester?

[dabomb75]

Just did torts exam. Pretty sure I ***** fucked the intentional torts fact pattern. Man and women were fighting, the man pulled out a gun, fired it past her. The bullet went pretty far, ricocheted off another building, and hit a man's car driving on the highway. Stupidly I went into transferred intent for assault and battery (having the guy in the car sue the man in the house). The fact pattern, I believe, did not give any indication the man in the car traced the bullet back to the man in the house.

Am I right that I completely missed Res Ipsa, and that there is no realistic way the man with the gun would be liable for the transferred intent for assault and battery?

he had purpose/kwsc that he would shoot the person, but he missed. doesn't matter that he didn't have purpose/kwsc w/r/t to the other guy, it transfers.

then you get into negligence discussion
this is clearly negligence on the guy who fired the bullet, but there might not be legal causation here.

if you are going to do a polemis test, this is probably a direct result b/c it followed inevitably from the fact that a bullet was fired and someone was harmed.

it gets interesting under a palsgraf analysis. how large is the zone of danger of firing a bullet and is it affect by physical constructions? I'd probably the guy in the car was outside the zone of danger simply because the zone of danger is a bullet traveling in a straight line, but it is arguable.

under just a straight up foreseeability test, the harm that occurred was the type that would be expected, dude got shot. though are there superseding causes? doesn't look like temporal or human action problems (maybe the dude driving), but there is a spatial problem here that might be superseding.

still, I think this is risk still "unfolding in the bosom" of time, the situtation has not stabilized, that bullet is still wizzing through the air and the type of harm that happens is what one might expect.

damage is easy and so is but for. this is a beautiful legal cause question!

I'm confused. Isn't the palsgraf analysis and the foreseeability test the same thing? I thought that all of palsgraf was just "whats foreseeable?"


It's funny how big of a different the teacher can make. Civ Pro is a piece of cake to me. It just all makes sense thanks to having an awesome teacher. Whereas torts I've pretty much had to self-learn and so I'm still sorta confused about a lot of things

[Extension_Cord]

Just did torts exam. Pretty sure I ***** fucked the intentional torts fact pattern. Man and women were fighting, the man pulled out a gun, fired it past her. The bullet went pretty far, ricocheted off another building, and hit a man's car driving on the highway. Stupidly I went into transferred intent for assault and battery (having the guy in the car sue the man in the house). The fact pattern, I believe, did not give any indication the man in the car traced the bullet back to the man in the house.

Am I right that I completely missed Res Ipsa, and that there is no realistic way the man with the gun would be liable for the transferred intent for assault and battery?

he had purpose/kwsc that he would shoot the person, but he missed. doesn't matter that he didn't have purpose/kwsc w/r/t to the other guy, it transfers.

then you get into negligence discussion
this is clearly negligence on the guy who fired the bullet, but there might not be legal causation here.

if you are going to do a polemis test, this is probably a direct result b/c it followed inevitably from the fact that a bullet was fired and someone was harmed.

it gets interesting under a palsgraf analysis. how large is the zone of danger of firing a bullet and is it affect by physical constructions? I'd probably the guy in the car was outside the zone of danger simply because the zone of danger is a bullet traveling in a straight line, but it is arguable.

under just a straight up foreseeability test, the harm that occurred was the type that would be expected, dude got shot. though are there superseding causes? doesn't look like temporal or human action problems (maybe the dude driving), but there is a spatial problem here that might be superseding.

still, I think this is risk still "unfolding in the bosom" of time, the situtation has not stabilized, that bullet is still wizzing through the air and the type of harm that happens is what one might expect.

damage is easy and so is but for. this is a beautiful legal cause question!

I can't tell if its a battery because we need to know more about the intent of the actor. Did he act with the purpose or substantial certainty that he would make indirect contact with his wife? If so its for sure a battery by way of transferred intent.

If he was just arguing with his wife and he picked it up just to asault his wife then it may not be battery because he had no intent to batter her, just assault her; battery cannot be transferred in this scenario. However assault can and the car driver can argue he was in imminent apprehension that someone would come to finish to job.

Regarding negligence I think it would be the proximate cause via Cardozo's sense. A gun is an inheritently dangerous item and it was handled in a dangerous circumstance, and the need for caution increases with the risk. I know this is from a products liability case, but it holds true here because Cardozo stateed the bigger the risk the bigger the zone of danger. The bigger the zone of dager the more likely the plaintiff was foreseeable.

[RPK34]

Can someone help me what the breach of duty would be in this case:

Guy is driving down the road talking on his hand's free cell phone. He looks over and sees a really offensive ad on the side of the road, and shocked, spills his coffee on his leg. After he spills the coffee, he swerves into another lane and hits another passenger.

What would you define as breach of duty? Is it too broad to say driving distracted?