California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[dtl]

For owner I did

Vicarious with independent contractor and undelagable duty analysis
Negligent hiring
Product liability (figured it didn't fit but why not?

[barmaggedditon]

Crim pro expected, torts was a possibility...

Dat trusts with comm prop crossover doe.

Did anyone do a full blown negligence analysis for the torts question? I didn't really understand what they meant by theory or theories of liability under negligence. The only one i could think of was vicarious liability...maybe joint and several liability

Neg per Se
Vicarious liability w independent contractor non deleg.
I threw in premise liability just bc.

Negligent hiring of C by O as well as his vicarious liability for both of them

I did full blown negligence analysis and threw in assumption of risk (just for kicks to balance out the arguments), then VL for the other two guys, and negligent hiring. When I read the facts I told myself to do premises liability just in case but forgot :/

[chicoalto0649]

Torts:

Kind of a free for all:

P vs O: negligent hiring (said not liable for Indy contractors and no exceptions apply, pretty sure it was delegable)

P vs W & D: battery kind of stretch but knew with substantial certainty harmful contact would occur

P vs C for negligence or something like that (maybe I said both of them)

P vs O: implied warranty of merchantable

http://www.maginnislaw.com/2012/07/food ... ntability/

Oh ya, vicarious liability for Owner via waiters conduct. Argued that cook was Indy contractor.

[dtl]

Torts:

Kind of a free for all:

P vs O: negligent hiring (said not liable for Indy contractors and no exceptions apply, pretty sure it was delegable)

P vs W & D: battery kind of stretch but knew with substantial certainty harmful contact would occur

P vs C for negligence or something like that (maybe I said both of them)

P vs O: implied warranty of merchantable

http://www.maginnislaw.com/2012/07/food ... ntability/

Not to be a dick but it said negligence theories only I think.

[Kiwi917]

So are we due for a weird non-memo PT now? Or a PR crossover? Not that it matters, since there's no way to prepare. Can't wait for 5:00...

[chicoalto0649]

Torts:

Kind of a free for all:

P vs O: negligent hiring (said not liable for Indy contractors and no exceptions apply, pretty sure it was delegable)

P vs W & D: battery kind of stretch but knew with substantial certainty harmful contact would occur

P vs C for negligence or something like that (maybe I said both of them)

P vs O: implied warranty of merchantable

http://www.maginnislaw.com/2012/07/food ... ntability/

Not to be a dick but it said negligence theories only I think.

Lol no way, I think I just remembered that

[lmr]

Torts:

Kind of a free for all:

P vs O: negligent hiring (said not liable for Indy contractors and no exceptions apply, pretty sure it was delegable)

P vs W & D: battery kind of stretch but knew with substantial certainty harmful contact would occur

P vs C for negligence or something like that (maybe I said both of them)

P vs O: implied warranty of merchantable

http://www.maginnislaw.com/2012/07/food ... ntability/

Not to be a dick but it said negligence theories only I think.

Yeah it explicitly said negligence theory or theories.

[Byejulyhifeb]

My shot in the dark:

Vs C. Negligence. Negligence per se. Per se is hard cause statute didn't provide criminal penalty. But argued it was only an excerpt of the rule. Either way basic neg is good enough

Vs. W. Causation issue for negligence. Just serving the food wasn't a significant enough of superseding to strip C's causation. Also argued no duty but then P says he assumed a higher duty by warning about the temperature

Vs O. Vicarious liability. Non-delegable duty of providing safe environment. Also threw invitee duty in. Then neg hiring failing to look up C

Lastly res ipsa vs. All 3 of them. Probably not necessary but had a few minutes left and threw it in

[Byejulyhifeb]

In the trust/cp one I didn't see transmution for H's claim but focused more on waiver and duty as co-t. Went beyond just giving up rights to cp and he is expressly under took co-t role to give charity the assets. Doubt I took the right line but fuck it.

[barmaggedditon]

I feel pretty confident there will be a Wills/Trusts essay, and most likely Com Prop crossover with it. I have no clue about the other two, but I am hoping for Crim and Tort.... but doubt it.

Bullseye.

[gaagoots]

I feel pretty confident there will be a Wills/Trusts essay, and most likely Com Prop crossover with it. I have no clue about the other two, but I am hoping for Crim and Tort.... but doubt it.

Bullseye.

Impressed! Which means in Feb I will likely get stuck with Civ Pro, Civ Pro and Civ Pro and Gaaaah Corporations.

[pkt63]

Oh god that PT. I think it would have been fun if it was am assignment at work and I had like a day to do it. As it is? No fucking idea how I did. Such a blur.

[a male human]

Congrats on finishing! You guys actually did it!

[LSATNightmares]

So first, I'm so glad to be done! We did it! Special thanks to all the veterans who helped us along the way, such as A Male Human, for helping us. And thank you to all of you for helping me with my questions.

As for how today went, I'm kind of surprised people finished the PT as early as they did. I thought it was complex, and while I "finished," I really wished I had more time to deal with a sub issue, which I rushed too much. I don't know how people could have finished early -- am I the only one who thinks that?

I thought the morning essays were fair, and I was surprised how a lot of predictions came true.

[pkt63]

Congrats on finishing! You guys actually did it!

Thanks for following this thread with us, AMH, and always offering helpful and timely advice and thoughts. I'm seriously trying to resist the urge to freak out right now, which is very scary, but even in the midst of impending panic I have to say you've been a great contributor and I'm grateful!

[Mr. Pink]

I feel pretty confident there will be a Wills/Trusts essay, and most likely Com Prop crossover with it. I have no clue about the other two, but I am hoping for Crim and Tort.... but doubt it.

Bullseye.

Impressed! Which means in Feb I will likely get stuck with Civ Pro, Civ Pro and Civ Pro and Gaaaah Corporations.

Yeah I surprised myself a little with that one... Was very happy to get those subjects, but still blanked a little. On the Crim Pro, I did pretty well except on the request to rep himself part, which I bullshitted through then afterwards found out my bullshit was good enough; the trusts/CP one I don't think I missed anything, except maybe not discussing the potential invalid trust since it was irrevocable but she changed the property (it focussed on Henry v. sis and charity... so I didn't spend a bunch of time on it, should be good). The negligence one pissed me off because 1) I completely screwed the pooch on neg per se; 2) discussed owners liability through resp sup, and his negligent hiring and all, but I was rushed and didn't organize as well as I should have.

Three race essays in a row is a bitch. I always finish early, but not that time.

Oh well, what's done is done. I feel like I like my chances, which is a little scary. But I don't think I would have scored less than a 65 on any essay, and at least 2 of them should be 75-80s. Then the PTs.... those damn things. Felt like I got everything and made good uses of the cases and facts, but I never know with those. Again, organization a little bit of a concern.

[Mr. Pink]

Congrats on finishing! You guys actually did it!

Thank you sir, thank you and the others for all the input throughout the way.

[Lasers]

Essays and pt were better than day 1.

So glad to be done. Fuck the lawl.

[Charles Barkley]

Special thanks to A male human and 2807 for their contributions.

I wouldn't feel nearly as confident that I performed well on 3 of the essays if it wasn't for their advice.

[2807]

Special thanks to A male human and 2807 for their contributions.

I wouldn't feel nearly as confident that I performed well on 3 of the essays if it wasn't for their advice.

Good job bud.
Go celebrate.
That is a hard earned celebration.
You did it.

Looking forward to your big post in November !

[umstah]

how badly can one fuck up a PT?

I finished today's PT, but somehow i just really screwed up my time management and so my analysis for a couple of my arguments against his motions was really scant, just a few sentences, basically why a certain case was applicable and so his motion shouldn't be granted, etc. is that still pretty much a fail?

[CAWondering86]

Oh man....As con law would says....I hope the essay grading isn't Arbitrary and Capricious. Finished up in Pasadena. That exam lady in D gave me mini heart attacks with time.

[LSATNightmares]

how badly can one fuck up a PT?

I finished today's PT, but somehow i just really screwed up my time management and so my analysis for a couple of my arguments against his motions was really scant, just a few sentences, basically why a certain case was applicable and so his motion shouldn't be granted, etc. is that still pretty much a fail?

Yeah, I also had the same challenge. There were four arguments and three sub arguments with one issue. I had trouble covering all the sub arguments. I basically guessed at one sub issue and wrote only like two or three sentence making stuff up.

[barmaggedditon]

how badly can one fuck up a PT?

I finished today's PT, but somehow i just really screwed up my time management and so my analysis for a couple of my arguments against his motions was really scant, just a few sentences, basically why a certain case was applicable and so his motion shouldn't be granted, etc. is that still pretty much a fail?

I think I really screwed up that last PT. I think I made decent arguments using the cases for like one damn issue but the rest were such short ass discussions that didn't really pertain to the main points of the cases or the opposing arguments.

btw I had to hold myself back from typing "Fucktus Officio" because that's what I felt like the last hour.

[lmr]

Can we talk PTB?
Okay usually you don't do a summation of the facts of the cases in the library but the directions said to analogize the facts to our case, right?

(ii) Did anyone feel like this lacked the factual analysis level that the camper's case had? My analysis for camper was much greater-maybe bc we only had two main issues?

This case seemed more law heavy. I mean it was very straightforward but my analysis only consisted of these points off the top of my head...
(i) comparing the two attorney fees clauses and facts from that case
(ii) comparing case regarding inadvertent omission,
(iii) how punitive damages didn't matter bc error of law is non-reviewable per SC and public policy,
(iv) time bar thing didn't apply bc he wasn't doing a material change
(v) how the arbitrator was limiting his stuff to on the record.
(vi) Non-final judgment compared the cases-Riley didn't bifurcate the issue, etc.

WHAT AM I MISSING? Ugh i HATED having my legal rules longer than my factual analysis but maybe that was okay since i broke up into many sub rules and analysis? Statement of facts was ridiculous time waste- i just did it last 15 minutes of the exam