California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[catechumen]

Does anyone want to guess what the pass rate will be for this one? I think it's going to be on the high end, say 55-60%. I suspect the graders will be looking for more 65-70's because more ABA people are taking the exam. (Oh incidentally, the MBE's seemed easier than last time...) Thoughts?

[Carryon]

Does anyone want to guess what the pass rate will be for this one? I think it's going to be on the high end, say 55-60%. I suspect the graders will be looking for more 65-70's because more ABA people are taking the exam. (Oh incidentally, the MBE's seemed easier than last time...) Thoughts?

I am going to guess that it will be 57%.

[CCG925]

After the bar, my friend texted me that for Essay Question 6 - he argued manufacturing defect i.e. the chicken wings were "defective" and the Caterer was in the chain of distribution. I laughed until I realized he was serious.

[catechumen]

I argued the same thing my friend. While a products liability argument was a stretch, it was worth mentioning. Worse they can do is pull a Billy Madison. The CA Bars potential response starts at 1:45.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlPw6MKvvIc

[Carryon]

I argued the same thing my friend. While a products liability argument was a stretch, it was worth mentioning. Worse they can do is pull a Billy Madison. The CA Bars potential response starts at 1:45.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlPw6MKvvIc

I guess that you would have to base the products liability argument on a negligence theory rather than strict liability, since the question call for only negligence liablity. I am not sure that I would have had time to discussed that anyway in the question.

[lmr]

After the bar, my friend texted me that for Essay Question 6 - he argued manufacturing defect i.e. the chicken wings were "defective" and the Caterer was in the chain of distribution. I laughed until I realized he was serious.

That's ridiculous-it doesn't fit @ all. Wonder what actual theories he left out in order to write about that.

[catechumen]

Yeah you are probably right the call of the question did not call for strict liability per se. I won't lose points for mentioning Strict PL, I will gain point for having products negligence however. The bottom line is, I just went into default mode and wrote up a full PL essay, and then copy and pasted it into all the parties sections. Changed a few words, and bingo you have a massive essay. You wonder how people get 10 page essays? Well wonder no longer, copy and past is your friend.

I can only gain points for having products liability negligence... I would not have had separate write ups for general negligence and products liability negligence without the full PL writeup. So worse case scenario I used time I could have used on the trusts essay. All the time in the world would not have helped me or anyone with that weird 2nd question on the trusts essay, but I digress...

Oh and for the record PL does fit. Granted the call did not call for strict liability, I give you that... However, the chicken was a product. I mean if salted peanuts are a product, then why not a complicated chicken dinner? The chicken dinner even called for a complex assembly by an expert...

[lmr]

Yeah you are probably right the call of the question did not call for strict liability per se. I won't lose points for mentioning Strict PL, I will gain point for having products negligence however. The bottom line is, I just went into default mode and wrote up a full PL essay, and then copy and pasted it into all the parties sections. Changed a few words, and bingo you have a massive essay. You wonder how people get 10 page essays? Well wonder no longer, copy and past is your friend.

I can only gain points for having products liability negligence... I would not have had separate write ups for general negligence and products liability negligence without the full PL writeup. So worse case scenario I used time I could have used on the trusts essay. All the time in the world would not have helped me or anyone with that weird 2nd question on the trusts essay, but I digress...

Oh and for the record PL does fit. Granted the call did not call for strict liability, I give you that... However, the chicken was a product. I mean if salted peanuts are a product, then why not a complicated chicken dinner? The chicken dinner even called for a complex assembly by an expert...

So what was the defect? Design? Manufacturing? Inadequate warning label? Any warranties in fact pattern that I missed? Where was the negligence by the commercial supplier?

[Jay Heizenburg]

After the bar, my friend texted me that for Essay Question 6 - he argued manufacturing defect i.e. the chicken wings were "defective" and the Caterer was in the chain of distribution. I laughed until I realized he was serious.

LMAO! That is fuckin' hilarious.

[AMCD]

What was "complex" about the chicken? Thought it was chicken wings. Wasn't the point of the negligence per se based upon the posted health code statue in the kitchen that was right in front of his eyes the whole time -- type of harm/class of plaintiff nonsense?

If you look at past essays where these is PL, it's always clearly some object -- blenders etc. Whatever. Given how strange some of my grading was for February, anything can end up pleasing or displeasing them!

[catechumen]

The 1st commercial supplier is not explicitly stated in the fact pattern. The chicken itself from this 1st commercial supplier is the raw materials, no different than say the lead in a pencil or the rubber in a tire. The chicken itself was laced with with some sort of germ that made the end user sick. Otherwise why would he have gotten sick... Perhaps they raised the chicken wrong, allowing it to come into contact with say E. coli. However, they were not one of the parties that was liable per the call of the question...

However, the (replacement chef, the restaurant owner, and the waiter were potentially liable parties...) More importantly it could argued that the (replacement) chef improperly designed the chicken dinner. The chefs design called for x degrees of heat, when safety standards required y. (The health code statute helps prove that...)
Manufacturing defect could also be argued because the restaurants design could call for y degree but the chef used x. (The waiters question regarding how the chicken was suppose to be cooked potentially implies that, as does the statute.) The restaurant is then liable if the (replacement) chef is their employee.

You guys get the idea. The facts are there... A chicken dinner is a complex product that requires assembly and design in order to come out non-defective. Its a bit of a close call whether its a product, but the bar loves close calls. Just look at the crim pro question and the man being stop for wearing a winter coat in summer. The bars loves these sort of things. Don't feel too bad, I don't think too many people argued PL negligence. Its just gravy points at this point. Something to make you stand out from the pack.

[catechumen]

The 1st commercial supplier is not explicitly stated in the fact pattern. The chicken itself from this 1st commercial supplier is the raw materials, no different than say the lead in a pencil or the rubber in a tire. The chicken itself was laced with with some sort of germ that made the end user sick. Otherwise why would he have gotten sick... Perhaps they raised the chicken wrong, allowing it to come into contact with say E. coli. However, they were not one of the parties that was liable per the call of the question...

However, the (replacement chef, the restaurant owner, and the waiter were potentially liable parties...) More importantly it could argued that the (replacement) chef improperly designed the chicken dinner. The chefs design called for x degrees of heat, when safety standards required y. (The health code statute helps prove that...)
Manufacturing defect could also be argued because the restaurants design could call for y degree but the chef used x. (The waiters question regarding how the chicken was suppose to be cooked potentially implies that, as does the statute.) The restaurant is then liable if the (replacement) chef is their employee.

You guys get the idea. The facts are there... A chicken dinner is a complex product that requires assembly and design in order to come out non-defective. I mean the chicken is likely spiced, heated for sure for x time, and then served on plait, thus adding to the complexity. If that is not PL, I don't know what is... Like I said, think salted peanuts, they are products too.

Its a bit of a close call whether its a product, but the bar loves close calls. Just look at the crim pro question and the man being stop for wearing a winter coat in summer. The bars loves these sort of things. Don't feel too bad, I don't think too many people argued PL negligence. Its just gravy points at this point. Something to make you stand out from the pack.

[Jay Heizenburg]

Yeah you are probably right the call of the question did not call for strict liability per se. I won't lose points for mentioning Strict PL, I will gain point for having products negligence however. The bottom line is, I just went into default mode and wrote up a full PL essay, and then copy and pasted it into all the parties sections. Changed a few words, and bingo you have a massive essay. You wonder how people get 10 page essays? Well wonder no longer, copy and past is your friend.

I can only gain points for having products liability negligence... I would not have had separate write ups for general negligence and products liability negligence without the full PL writeup. So worse case scenario I used time I could have used on the trusts essay. All the time in the world would not have helped me or anyone with that weird 2nd question on the trusts essay, but I digress...

Oh and for the record PL does fit. Granted the call did not call for strict liability, I give you that... However, the chicken was a product. I mean if salted peanuts are a product, then why not a complicated chicken dinner? The chicken dinner even called for a complex assembly by an expert...

So what was the defect? Design? Manufacturing? Inadequate warning label? Any warranties in fact pattern that I missed? Where was the negligence by the commercial supplier?

No, there is no "defect." Defect analysis falls under Strict Products Liability, and we were restricted to claims/theories under Negligence. Thus, defect need not be addressed.

Also, if you used Products Negligence ... okay, I guess ... It's the exact same analysis as ordinary Negligence, so it should count.

The problem, in my mind, is that Products Negligence falls within the Strict Products Liability Cluster of: 1) Strict Products Liability, 2) Product Negligence, 3) Implied Warranties, 4) Express Warranty, and 5) Misrepresentation. So, if you address the one without addressing all the others your analysis would be incomplete and out of place. Plus, if they wanted us to address Products Negligence they could have easily asked for claims/theories under Negligence and Strict Products Liability, or left it open-ended ... I think.

[kerryconverse]

The 1st commercial supplier is not explicitly stated in the fact pattern. The chicken itself from this 1st commercial supplier is the raw materials, no different than say the lead in a pencil or the rubber in a tire. The chicken itself was laced with with some sort of germ that made the end user sick. Otherwise why would he have gotten sick... Perhaps they raised the chicken wrong, allowing it to come into contact with say E. coli. However, they were not one of the parties that was liable per the call of the question...

However, the (replacement chef, the restaurant owner, and the waiter were potentially liable parties...) More importantly it could argued that the (replacement) chef improperly designed the chicken dinner. The chefs design called for x degrees of heat, when safety standards required y. (The health code statute helps prove that...)
Manufacturing defect could also be argued because the restaurants design could call for y degree but the chef used x. (The waiters question regarding how the chicken was suppose to be cooked potentially implies that, as does the statute.) The restaurant is then liable if the (replacement) chef is their employee.

You guys get the idea. The facts are there... A chicken dinner is a complex product that requires assembly and design in order to come out non-defective. Its a bit of a close call whether its a product, but the bar loves close calls. Just look at the crim pro question and the man being stop for wearing a winter coat in summer. The bars loves these sort of things. Don't feel too bad, I don't think too many people argued PL negligence. Its just gravy points at this point. Something to make you stand out from the pack.

Negligence products liability was a brilliant move. Don't know how I missed that. Even though the analysis is similar to the other negligence theories, essays that mention it are in the running for 70-75. Shit.

[Jay Heizenburg]

The 1st commercial supplier is not explicitly stated in the fact pattern. The chicken itself from this 1st commercial supplier is the raw materials, no different than say the lead in a pencil or the rubber in a tire. The chicken itself was laced with with some sort of germ that made the end user sick. Otherwise why would he have gotten sick... Perhaps they raised the chicken wrong, allowing it to come into contact with say E. coli. However, they were not one of the parties that was liable per the call of the question...

However, the (replacement chef, the restaurant owner, and the waiter were potentially liable parties...) More importantly it could argued that the (replacement) chef improperly designed the chicken dinner. The chefs design called for x degrees of heat, when safety standards required y. (The health code statute helps prove that...)
Manufacturing defect could also be argued because the restaurants design could call for y degree but the chef used x. (The waiters question regarding how the chicken was suppose to be cooked potentially implies that, as does the statute.) The restaurant is then liable if the (replacement) chef is their employee.

You guys get the idea. The facts are there... A chicken dinner is a complex product that requires assembly and design in order to come out non-defective. Its a bit of a close call whether its a product, but the bar loves close calls. Just look at the crim pro question and the man being stop for wearing a winter coat in summer. The bars loves these sort of things. Don't feel too bad, I don't think too many people argued PL negligence. Its just gravy points at this point. Something to make you stand out from the pack.

Negligence products liability was a brilliant move. Don't know how I missed that. Even though the analysis is similar to the other negligence theories, essays that mention it are in the running for 70-75. Shit.

That's bullshit, they're the exact same analysis. Anyone who did a Negligence analysis did a Negligence Products Liability analysis, and anyone who did a Negligence Products Liability analysis did a Negligence analysis ... they're the same fuckin' thing. How much sense would it make to do both a Negligence and Negligence Products Liability analysis? That would be fuckin' stupid ... conceivable, but still fuckin' stupid.

I know that sounds harsh but it's true, and don't mind my cuss words, I'm a sailor.

[adonai]

The 1st commercial supplier is not explicitly stated in the fact pattern. The chicken itself from this 1st commercial supplier is the raw materials, no different than say the lead in a pencil or the rubber in a tire. The chicken itself was laced with with some sort of germ that made the end user sick. Otherwise why would he have gotten sick... Perhaps they raised the chicken wrong, allowing it to come into contact with say E. coli. However, they were not one of the parties that was liable per the call of the question...

However, the (replacement chef, the restaurant owner, and the waiter were potentially liable parties...) More importantly it could argued that the (replacement) chef improperly designed the chicken dinner. The chefs design called for x degrees of heat, when safety standards required y. (The health code statute helps prove that...)
Manufacturing defect could also be argued because the restaurants design could call for y degree but the chef used x. (The waiters question regarding how the chicken was suppose to be cooked potentially implies that, as does the statute.) The restaurant is then liable if the (replacement) chef is their employee.

You guys get the idea. The facts are there... A chicken dinner is a complex product that requires assembly and design in order to come out non-defective. Its a bit of a close call whether its a product, but the bar loves close calls. Just look at the crim pro question and the man being stop for wearing a winter coat in summer. The bars loves these sort of things. Don't feel too bad, I don't think too many people argued PL negligence. Its just gravy points at this point. Something to make you stand out from the pack.

Negligence products liability was a brilliant move. Don't know how I missed that. Even though the analysis is similar to the other negligence theories, essays that mention it are in the running for 70-75. Shit.

That's bullshit, they're the exact same analysis. Anyone who did a Negligence analysis did a Negligence Products Liability analysis, and anyone who did a Negligence Products Liability analysis did a Negligence analysis ... they're the same fuckin' thing. How much sense would it make to do both a Negligence and Negligence Products Liability analysis? That would be fuckin' stupid ... conceivable, but still fuckin' stupid.

I know that sounds harsh but it's true, and don't mind my cuss words, I'm a sailor.

Pretty obvious that dude is trolling. The only difference between the two analyses is mentioning the words products liability. I tried doing a reasonable person standard and neg per se analysis and you couldn't do a real separate analysis. As someone who was about to write about products liability neg, I felt it wasn't a significant enough issue to merit a lot of points. Focused on other areas instead

[Jay Heizenburg]

The 1st commercial supplier is not explicitly stated in the fact pattern. The chicken itself from this 1st commercial supplier is the raw materials, no different than say the lead in a pencil or the rubber in a tire. The chicken itself was laced with with some sort of germ that made the end user sick. Otherwise why would he have gotten sick... Perhaps they raised the chicken wrong, allowing it to come into contact with say E. coli. However, they were not one of the parties that was liable per the call of the question...

However, the (replacement chef, the restaurant owner, and the waiter were potentially liable parties...) More importantly it could argued that the (replacement) chef improperly designed the chicken dinner. The chefs design called for x degrees of heat, when safety standards required y. (The health code statute helps prove that...)
Manufacturing defect could also be argued because the restaurants design could call for y degree but the chef used x. (The waiters question regarding how the chicken was suppose to be cooked potentially implies that, as does the statute.) The restaurant is then liable if the (replacement) chef is their employee.

You guys get the idea. The facts are there... A chicken dinner is a complex product that requires assembly and design in order to come out non-defective. Its a bit of a close call whether its a product, but the bar loves close calls. Just look at the crim pro question and the man being stop for wearing a winter coat in summer. The bars loves these sort of things. Don't feel too bad, I don't think too many people argued PL negligence. Its just gravy points at this point. Something to make you stand out from the pack.

Negligence products liability was a brilliant move. Don't know how I missed that. Even though the analysis is similar to the other negligence theories, essays that mention it are in the running for 70-75. Shit.

That's bullshit, they're the exact same analysis. Anyone who did a Negligence analysis did a Negligence Products Liability analysis, and anyone who did a Negligence Products Liability analysis did a Negligence analysis ... they're the same fuckin' thing. How much sense would it make to do both a Negligence and Negligence Products Liability analysis? That would be fuckin' stupid ... conceivable, but still fuckin' stupid.

I know that sounds harsh but it's true, and don't mind my cuss words, I'm a sailor.

Pretty obvious that dude is trolling. The only difference between the two analyses is mentioning the words products liability. I tried doing a reasonable person standard and neg per se analysis and you couldn't do a real separate analysis. As someone who was about to write about products liability neg, I felt it wasn't a significant enough issue to merit a lot of points. Focused on other areas instead

Lol, I guess he got me ...

#goodone?

[Jay Heizenburg]

The truth about the California Bar Exam ... and how we feel about every other bar exam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6P3RFEA ... e=youtu.be

[adonai]

Yeah dude, everyone knows the max score you can get is a 55 for wasting time doing a products liability analysis

[catechumen]

You can't lose points in theory for mentioning theories that don't apply. I mean in theory you could make up a theory based on the galactic empires supreme jurisdiction in trust cases, and it would not costs you points. It would however cost you precious time you could have used on other theories in other essays.

Then again, I am sure there are graders that are arbitrary in how they grade exams. I have heard horror stories of people grading exams at traffic lights, or while watching tv... Who knows if those are true... There is a reason that re-reads of exams often very so much... I will leave you to decide why that is...

Oh and I will award 5 points to your overall score if you can figure out the silly cultural reference from my avatar.

[sundance95]

You all should go out for a hike or something.

[Jay Heizenburg]

You all should go out for a hike or something.

After you.

[TitoSantana]

I just took the MPRE and a huge dump today and boy was it asstastic!

[catechumen]

Here is something to think about... Why does it take the bar so long to get us back our essays and mbe scores?

My theory...

Most likely your MBE answers have already been graded, probably over a week ago. This fits in what I have been told in my bar review course...

As for the essays, I have no idea. But if I had to guess I would say... The essays themselves have likely been uploaded to a database that the bar could easily have modified to allow them to be emailed. So the question is why does the bar not email you the number you missed on the MBE, and your answers on the essays. Given that it's all electronic the amount of work would be minimal. You would think for $800 they could at least do that... I mean they could save on the priority mail shipping our essays a month before the next exam, and just email us the essays and MBE totals now.

My theory, is they want to leave us sweating. Perhaps, it's all an elaborate plan to ensure we can't learn from our mistakes until its almost too late. What do you guys think?

Or perhaps I am just wrong... Perhaps the bar puts all of our essays, pt's and mbe answers in a time capsule waiting to be opened up in mid November. I mean anything is possible. I find this last theory less likely though...

[injun]

I'm wondering if the curve for July 2014 will be the same as July 2013. It looks like last year's exam might have been a little harder than this year's exam. I'm hopeful that the curve will be somewhat similar. What do you guys think?