Glannons E&E not helpful for my class? Forum

[Easy-E]

I just starting reading the Glannon Torts E&E on vicarious liability. The general overview is fine, nothing I don't really get already, but main takeaway in class for vicarious liability seemed to be the Birkner criteria for determining whether an employee was in fact acting within the scope of employment. The supplement makes no mention of it, and the examples seem to ignore it's application outright. In general, we discuss the Restatement's of Torts and Agency extremely little in class, am I going to waste my time mentioning these on exams? I'm wondering if this supplement may not be very useful for my class? Or if I should just ignore this section? Or become a chef?

[brotherdarkness]

.

[Easy-E]

I just starting reading the Glannon Torts E&E on vicarious liability. The general overview is fine, nothing I don't really get already, but main takeaway in class for vicarious liability seemed to be the "Birkner Criteria". The supplement makes no mention of it, and the examples seem to ignore it's application outright. In general, we discuss the Restatement's of Torts and Agency extremely little in class. I'm wondering if this supplement may not be very useful for my class? Or if I should just ignore this section?

For purposes of your exam, your professor's words are gospel. Whatever he or she says, emphasizes, or seems to find important, is what you should say, emphasize, and find important. Anytime there's a contradiction between your professor and a supplement, disregard the supplement.

Yeah that's what I'm going with. We really never touch on "black letter law" per se, just sort of overlying principles (policy? theory? I don't know).

[941law]

fwiw, sometimes if you read closely enough you'll see that a supp and your prof are saying the exact same thing regardless of specific language, elements, etc being different - from a general perspective.

[thesealocust]

Every professor teaches a different class - "popular" supplements tend to just state things in a clear way that usually, but hardly always or perfectly, lines up with the material and presentation of a particular prof/subject.

[Easy-E]

fwiw, sometimes if you read closely enough you'll see that a supp and your prof are saying the exact same thing regardless of specific language, elements, etc being different - from a general perspective.

Every professor teaches a different class - "popular" supplements tend to just state things in a clear way that usually, but hardly always or perfectly, lines up with the material and presentation of a particular prof/subject.[/quote


Thank guys. I'll stick with it, as I did find parts of it very helpful.