Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2014 Exam Forum

[Shawshank33]

" In 1945 Owen, owner of both Blackacre and Whiteacre, executed and delivered two separate deeds by which he conveyed the two tracts of land as follows: Blackacre was conveyed “To Alpha and his heirs as long as it is used exclusively for residential purposes, but if it is ever used for other than residential purposes to the American Red Cross.” Whiteacre was conveyed “To Beta and her heirs as long as it is used exclusively for residential purposes, but if it is used for other than residential purposes prior to 1965, then to the Salvation Army.” In 1950 Owen died leaving a valid will by which he devised all his real estate to his brother, Bill. The will had no residuary clause. Owen was survived by Bill and by Owen's daughter, Delia who was Owen's sole heir. For the purpose of this set of questions, it may be assumed that the common law Rule Against Perpetuities applies in the state where the land is located and that the state also has a statute providing that, “All future estates and interests are alienable, descendable, and devisable in the same manner as possessory estates and interests.”

Question 23
In 1955, Alpha and Delia entered into a contract with John whereby Alpha and Delia contracted to sell Blackacre to John in fee simple. After examining title. John refused to perform on the ground that Alpha and Delia could not give good title. Alpha and Della joined in an action against John for specific performance. Prayer for specific performance will be
A. granted, because Alpha and Delia together own a fee simple absolute in Blackacre
B. granted, because Alpha alone owns the entire fee simple in Blackacre
C. denied, because Bill has a valid interest in Blackacre
D. denied, because the American Red Cross has a valid interest in Blackacre

Question 24
In 1946, the interest of the American Red Cross in Blackacre could best be described as a
A. valid contingent remainder
B. void executory interest
C. valid executory interest
D. void contingent remainder

Can someone please help me on this reasoning of the above answers for this fact pattern? I have missed patterns similar to this multiple times :/ I only have the answers and not the reasoning available.

[Kiwi917]

Also, for those of you who are visual learners, check these flowcharts out. The link leads to inchoate offenses but there are plenty more subjects on the site. You might have to play around with your print settings to get them to work but, once you get it, they'll make a fine wallpaper in your home.

http://brendanconley.com/barexam/crimes ... liability/

Thank you so much for this! I was looking for something exactly like this a few weeks ago, since I keep screwing up inchoate offenses on the MC questions. For me, a chart is so much easier to understand and remember than outline form.

[Prime]

Also, for those of you who are visual learners, check these flowcharts out. The link leads to inchoate offenses but there are plenty more subjects on the site. You might have to play around with your print settings to get them to work but, once you get it, they'll make a fine wallpaper in your home.

http://brendanconley.com/barexam/crimes ... liability/

Awesome! Thanks

[chuckbasstard]

Does anyone know what the deal is with obtaining a filled in handout? Folks mentioned being able to get copies earlier this month after dealing with hard to follow lectures, but after requesting one for myself my adviser says we're not allowed to have them . . .

I requested one for Secured Transactions because the lecturer was not at all clear as to what went in each blank. My advisor emailed me back telling me that it's against Themis' policy and philosophy, but that she would make an exception for me just "this once" as long as I promised to follow along and pay attention. The kicker was I had already watched the lectures and filled in the handout to the best of my ability - there were just a few blanks that I couldn't figure out at all so I asked for the filled in handout to see what I had missed. So I guess they technically aren't allowed to give out the filled in handouts because it messes with our "memory retention." I just emailed my advisor and asked. Maybe you could try reaching out to someone else at Themis?

Thanks - good to know since I'm also requesting the Secured Transactions handout after trudging through the lectures

[Prime]

Hm. This is making me heavily consider not spending the day studying Commercial Paper. I can't imagine most bar associations care about something so monumentally outdated. (Seriously, who writes "to bearer" on their check, ever?)

Any idea where we can find the breakdown of how often each state has tested certain topics?

Texas:

(2) Texas Real Property
Oil and Gas
(2) Business Associations
(2) UCC
Articles 2 & 2A (Sales & Leases)
Articles 3 & 4(Payment Systems)
Article 9(Secured Transactions)
(2) Family Law
Marital Property
(2) Wills & Estates
(1) Trusts or Guardianship
(1) Consumer Law

From what I understand, they typically test on Article 3 and 9. A year ago, they threw everyone for a loop when they broke out article 2 instead of an Article 9 essay.

[Tanicius]

Hm. This is making me heavily consider not spending the day studying Commercial Paper. I can't imagine most bar associations care about something so monumentally outdated. (Seriously, who writes "to bearer" on their check, ever?)

Any idea where we can find the breakdown of how often each state has tested certain topics?

Texas:

(2) Texas Real Property
Oil and Gas
(2) Business Associations
(2) UCC
Articles 2 & 2A (Sales & Leases)
Articles 3 & 4(Payment Systems)
Article 9(Secured Transactions)
(2) Family Law
Marital Property
(2) Wills & Estates
(1) Trusts or Guardianship
(1) Consumer Law

From what I understand, they typically test on Article 3 and 9. A year ago, they threw everyone for a loop when they broke out article 2 instead of an Article 9 essay.

That's really shitty.

[Prime]

Hm. This is making me heavily consider not spending the day studying Commercial Paper. I can't imagine most bar associations care about something so monumentally outdated. (Seriously, who writes "to bearer" on their check, ever?)

Any idea where we can find the breakdown of how often each state has tested certain topics?

Texas:

(2) Texas Real Property
Oil and Gas
(2) Business Associations
(2) UCC
Articles 2 & 2A (Sales & Leases)
Articles 3 & 4(Payment Systems)
Article 9(Secured Transactions)
(2) Family Law
Marital Property
(2) Wills & Estates
(1) Trusts or Guardianship
(1) Consumer Law

From what I understand, they typically test on Article 3 and 9. A year ago, they threw everyone for a loop when they broke out article 2 instead of an Article 9 essay.

That's really shitty.

[Tanicius]

I just can't understand all this Commercial Paper crap. It's so abstract. I can't keep track of the parties and understand who's asserting causes of action and defenses against each other, or why. I could memorize all of these rules and still not know how to answer an essay.

[Bigbub75]

I wish the handouts were not fill in the blank. Because this is annoying as hell.

Has anyone just correlated the long outlines to the handouts? I am so over spending time watching 5 million segments on essay topics that may or may not show up on the bar exam.

You can ask your adviser to email you the completed "fill in the blanks" handouts. I complained that it is distracting trying to fill them out while watching the lectures, and she sent me the handouts already filled in. Makes watching and retaining the lecture much better.


Not to mention that some of the professors really don't follow the handouts very well.

Has anyone else had luck with this? I'm doing NY/NJ and when I emailed my adviser this was the response I got:

"Unfortunately, lecture handouts with the answers completed are not available.
Themis Professors create the handouts with the blanks so that students can complete them/take notes while they watch the lectures. There isn't much value to the handouts if you did not complete the information yourself."

At this point I just don't see me watching 14 NYCPL videos. I'm not super behind I just want to prioritize how I use my time for the next few weeks. I think the completed handouts work well with the short outlines they provide, and I use them both to study. Themis should make the completed ones available for those who request them and not treat us like children.

[071816]

Can someone explain why B is correct here (I picked A btw). This explanation just isn't cutting it for me. I had no idea I could commit an assault by simply soliciting some stranger in a bar to commit a battery. Am I insane or does this explanation make no sense??:

A woman discovered that her boyfriend was cheating on her. She approached the bartender at her local bar, who she had heard was a member of a biker gang, and offered him $500 to beat up her boyfriend. The bartender agreed immediately. The bartender was actually an undercover officer, however, and he did not intend to beat up the boyfriend. The woman was arrested the next day and charged with solicitation, conspiracy, and assault. The jurisdiction recognizes the common law regarding these crimes.

Are the charges against the woman proper?
A. Yes as to solicitation, but no as to assault and conspiracy.
B. Yes as to solicitation and assault, but no as to conspiracy.
C. Yes as to solicitation and conspiracy, but no as to assault.
D. No as to all charges.
Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. Solicitation is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime with the intent that the other person commit the crime. The woman was guilty of solicitation when she encouraged the bartender to beat up her boyfriend. It is irrelevant that the bartender never intended to commit the crime. Assault is an attempt to commit a battery (the unlawful application of force to the person of another, which can be applied through a third person acting under the defendant’s direction). Attempt requires a substantial step toward the commission of a crime, such as solicitation of an innocent agent to engage in criminal conduct, coupled with intent to commit that crime. Both elements are satisfied in this case. Thus, the woman may be charged with both solicitation and assault. Answer choice A is incorrect because the elements of assault are satisfied. Answer choices C is incorrect because there was no agreement, and thus no conspiracy. Conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons. When only one party has the intent to agree, there is no conspiracy. In this case, the bartender never intended to agree, and thus there was no conspiracy. Answer choice D is incorrect because the woman can be properly charged with both solicitation and assault.

[bobanderson]

I wish the handouts were not fill in the blank. Because this is annoying as hell.

Has anyone just correlated the long outlines to the handouts? I am so over spending time watching 5 million segments on essay topics that may or may not show up on the bar exam.

You can ask your adviser to email you the completed "fill in the blanks" handouts. I complained that it is distracting trying to fill them out while watching the lectures, and she sent me the handouts already filled in. Makes watching and retaining the lecture much better.


Not to mention that some of the professors really don't follow the handouts very well.

Has anyone else had luck with this? I'm doing NY/NJ and when I emailed my adviser this was the response I got:

"Unfortunately, lecture handouts with the answers completed are not available.
Themis Professors create the handouts with the blanks so that students can complete them/take notes while they watch the lectures. There isn't much value to the handouts if you did not complete the information yourself."

At this point I just don't see me watching 14 NYCPL videos. I'm not super behind I just want to prioritize how I use my time for the next few weeks. I think the completed handouts work well with the short outlines they provide, and I use them both to study. Themis should make the completed ones available for those who request them and not treat us like children.

I'm more than happy to send you my completed outlines if you want them.

[Tanicius]

Can someone explain why B is correct here (I picked A btw). This explanation just isn't cutting it for me. I had no idea I could commit an assault by simply soliciting some stranger in a bar to commit a battery. Am I insane or does this explanation make no sense??:

A woman discovered that her boyfriend was cheating on her. She approached the bartender at her local bar, who she had heard was a member of a biker gang, and offered him $500 to beat up her boyfriend. The bartender agreed immediately. The bartender was actually an undercover officer, however, and he did not intend to beat up the boyfriend. The woman was arrested the next day and charged with solicitation, conspiracy, and assault. The jurisdiction recognizes the common law regarding these crimes.

Are the charges against the woman proper?
A. Yes as to solicitation, but no as to assault and conspiracy.
B. Yes as to solicitation and assault, but no as to conspiracy.
C. Yes as to solicitation and conspiracy, but no as to assault.
D. No as to all charges.
Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. Solicitation is the encouragement of another person to commit a crime with the intent that the other person commit the crime. The woman was guilty of solicitation when she encouraged the bartender to beat up her boyfriend. It is irrelevant that the bartender never intended to commit the crime. Assault is an attempt to commit a battery (the unlawful application of force to the person of another, which can be applied through a third person acting under the defendant’s direction). Attempt requires a substantial step toward the commission of a crime, such as solicitation of an innocent agent to engage in criminal conduct, coupled with intent to commit that crime. Both elements are satisfied in this case. Thus, the woman may be charged with both solicitation and assault. Answer choice A is incorrect because the elements of assault are satisfied. Answer choices C is incorrect because there was no agreement, and thus no conspiracy. Conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons. When only one party has the intent to agree, there is no conspiracy. In this case, the bartender never intended to agree, and thus there was no conspiracy. Answer choice D is incorrect because the woman can be properly charged with both solicitation and assault.

Hm, that does seem wrong. I thought assault was attempted battery PLUS an act that puts a person in reasonable fear. So if you try to hit someone on the head with a baseball bat but they have their back turned to you and accidentally step out of the way of the bat, I thought that means you can't be guilty of assault.

[shemori]

" In 1945 Owen, owner of both Blackacre and Whiteacre, executed and delivered two separate deeds by which he conveyed the two tracts of land as follows: Blackacre was conveyed “To Alpha and his heirs as long as it is used exclusively for residential purposes, but if it is ever used for other than residential purposes to the American Red Cross.” Whiteacre was conveyed “To Beta and her heirs as long as it is used exclusively for residential purposes, but if it is used for other than residential purposes prior to 1965, then to the Salvation Army.” In 1950 Owen died leaving a valid will by which he devised all his real estate to his brother, Bill. The will had no residuary clause. Owen was survived by Bill and by Owen's daughter, Delia who was Owen's sole heir. For the purpose of this set of questions, it may be assumed that the common law Rule Against Perpetuities applies in the state where the land is located and that the state also has a statute providing that, “All future estates and interests are alienable, descendable, and devisable in the same manner as possessory estates and interests.”

Question 23
In 1955, Alpha and Delia entered into a contract with John whereby Alpha and Delia contracted to sell Blackacre to John in fee simple. After examining title. John refused to perform on the ground that Alpha and Delia could not give good title. Alpha and Della joined in an action against John for specific performance. Prayer for specific performance will be
A. granted, because Alpha and Delia together own a fee simple absolute in Blackacre
B. granted, because Alpha alone owns the entire fee simple in Blackacre
C. denied, because Bill has a valid interest in Blackacre
D. denied, because the American Red Cross has a valid interest in Blackacre

Question 24
In 1946, the interest of the American Red Cross in Blackacre could best be described as a
A. valid contingent remainder
B. void executory interest
C. valid executory interest
D. void contingent remainder

Can someone please help me on this reasoning of the above answers for this fact pattern? I have missed patterns similar to this multiple times :/ I only have the answers and not the reasoning available.

Not sure here is what i think. The perpetuity period starts when the conveyance effective. Since the conveyance was by deed and not by will , the period would have started in 1945. Now do some hypothetical killing of the lives in being: O,A,. Assume O,A, would have died the day after the conveyance. Would it be possible for Blackacre to be used for non residential purposes after life in being plus 21 years (yes). Therefore, the gift to the American Red Cross is void and stricken from the conveyance and O (estate) would have a possibility of reverter (Because A has a fee simple determinable interest after gift to American Red Cross is gone) that is freely assignable/alienable/ devisable to BILL make sense?

[Bigbub75]

I wish the handouts were not fill in the blank. Because this is annoying as hell.

Has anyone just correlated the long outlines to the handouts? I am so over spending time watching 5 million segments on essay topics that may or may not show up on the bar exam.

You can ask your adviser to email you the completed "fill in the blanks" handouts. I complained that it is distracting trying to fill them out while watching the lectures, and she sent me the handouts already filled in. Makes watching and retaining the lecture much better.


Not to mention that some of the professors really don't follow the handouts very well.

Has anyone else had luck with this? I'm doing NY/NJ and when I emailed my adviser this was the response I got:

"Unfortunately, lecture handouts with the answers completed are not available.
Themis Professors create the handouts with the blanks so that students can complete them/take notes while they watch the lectures. There isn't much value to the handouts if you did not complete the information yourself."

At this point I just don't see me watching 14 NYCPL videos. I'm not super behind I just want to prioritize how I use my time for the next few weeks. I think the completed handouts work well with the short outlines they provide, and I use them both to study. Themis should make the completed ones available for those who request them and not treat us like children.

I'm more than happy to send you my completed outlines if you want them.

Thanks! I pm'd you my email address.

[puttycake]

Can someone explain why B is correct here (I picked A btw). This explanation just isn't cutting it for me. I had no idea I could commit an assault by simply soliciting some stranger in a bar to commit a battery. Am I insane or does this explanation make no sense??

Remember that there are two kinds of assault. One kind, is a general intent crime, the other kind is a specific intent crime of attempt.

She is not guilty of the general intent crime of assault. She is guilty of the specific intent crime of assault with attempt to commit a battery (think of it as assault via the attempt to commit a battery). Her "attempt" is in soliciting the bartender (that would count as a substantial step).

[Kiwi917]

Can someone explain why B is correct here (I picked A btw). This explanation just isn't cutting it for me. I had no idea I could commit an assault by simply soliciting some stranger in a bar to commit a battery. Am I insane or does this explanation make no sense??

Remember that there are two kinds of assault. One kind, is a general intent crime, the other kind is a specific intent crime of attempt.

She is not guilty of the general intent crime of assault. She is guilty of the specific intent crime of assault with attempt to commit a battery (think of it as assault via the attempt to commit a battery). Her "attempt" is in soliciting the bartender (that would count as a substantial step).

This question annoyed me too. I never learned the distinction between criminal assault and the tort rule; I sort of glossed over the outline mentioning the two different forms of the crime and just assumed reasonable fear was always required. I guess one way I am remembering it is that even though you couldn't be sued in tort by the intended victim for the "attempt" form in this scenario because the person never knew about it, you could still be prosecuted since society generally doesn't want people going around attempting battery (even if they fail and the victim never finds out). I also sort of like the outline's terms "attempted-battery assault" and "fear-of-harm assault" - even if not technical, they at least stick in my head and remind me there's a difference in required intent.

[071816]

Can someone explain why B is correct here (I picked A btw). This explanation just isn't cutting it for me. I had no idea I could commit an assault by simply soliciting some stranger in a bar to commit a battery. Am I insane or does this explanation make no sense??

Remember that there are two kinds of assault. One kind, is a general intent crime, the other kind is a specific intent crime of attempt.

She is not guilty of the general intent crime of assault. She is guilty of the specific intent crime of assault with attempt to commit a battery (think of it as assault via the attempt to commit a battery). Her "attempt" is in soliciting the bartender (that would count as a substantial step).

Hmm ok. So, in essence, any solicitation of battery (no matter if any attempt to actually carry out that battery occurs on the part of the person being solicited) can be prosecuted as the specific intent crime of attempted-battery assault??

[dreakol]

Can someone explain why B is correct here (I picked A btw). This explanation just isn't cutting it for me. I had no idea I could commit an assault by simply soliciting some stranger in a bar to commit a battery. Am I insane or does this explanation make no sense??

Remember that there are two kinds of assault. One kind, is a general intent crime, the other kind is a specific intent crime of attempt.

She is not guilty of the general intent crime of assault. She is guilty of the specific intent crime of assault with attempt to commit a battery (think of it as assault via the attempt to commit a battery). Her "attempt" is in soliciting the bartender (that would count as a substantial step).

This question annoyed me too. I never learned the distinction between criminal assault and the tort rule; I sort of glossed over the outline mentioning the two different forms of the crime and just assumed reasonable fear was always required. I guess one way I am remembering it is that even though you couldn't be sued in tort by the intended victim for the "attempt" form in this scenario because the person never knew about it, you could still be prosecuted since society generally doesn't want people going around attempting battery (even if they fail and the victim never finds out). I also sort of like the outline's terms "attempted-battery assault" and "fear-of-harm assault" - even if not technical, they at least stick in my head and remind me there's a difference in required intent.

so basically, in crim law, attempted battery is assault through the general intent doctrine or whatever? So immediate apprehension is only necessary for tort law?

[Tanicius]

Why they're even testing us on common law crimes, I really don't understand. The MPC is more universally used and makes far more sense on this issue:

Did you do an act to somebody?
Was it purposeful/knowingly/reckless/negligent?

K, you're guilty of whatever act + mental state combo that qualifies for.

None of this transferred intent bullshit where the crime you're guilty of uses a different word from another crime.

[puttycake]

Hmm ok. So, in essence, any solicitation of battery (no matter if any attempt to actually carry out that battery occurs on the part of the person being solicited) can be prosecuted as the specific intent crime of attempted-battery assault??

I... think so. I think solicitation is an attempt.

But I think that solicitation also merges with attempt, so the question, upon thinking about it further, is weird.

Now I can't remember if a person can be charged both with a crime that will merge and the crime that would be merged into, but can't be convicted of both, or if they can't be charged with both. In looking it up, I think it's just conviction.

If so, she could be charged with solicitation AND attempted battery (aka assault) but could only be convicted of one or the other.

Honestly, now I'm getting confused. Apologies if I'm making your understanding worse.

[northwood]

Why they're even testing us on common law crimes, I really don't understand. The MPC is more universally used and makes far more sense on this issue:

Did you do an act to somebody?
Was it purposeful/knowingly/reckless/negligent?

K, you're guilty of whatever act + mental state combo that qualifies for.

None of this transferred intent bullshit where the crime you're guilty of uses a different word from another crime.

there are a few MBE questions that ask you to determine what the crimes are/ if a person is guilty of a crime in a common law jurisdiction- so you do need to know them ( same as there are 4 different insanity tests and MBE, which likes to use McNautin can also test you on the other ones).. I guess their rationale is well- we expect you to know the kitchen sink worth of law subjects, and we can test you on anything in those subjects so why should we ( MBE makers) settle for a basic entry level model when we can upgrade our expectations and test you on distinctions or excpetions to the excpetion to the antiquidated common law rule that has been overruled by a newer rule which has its own exceptions?


blubberin crazies they are

[071816]

Hmm ok. So, in essence, any solicitation of battery (no matter if any attempt to actually carry out that battery occurs on the part of the person being solicited) can be prosecuted as the specific intent crime of attempted-battery assault??

I... think so. I think solicitation is an attempt.

But I think that solicitation also merges with attempt, so the question, upon thinking about it further, is weird.

Now I can't remember if a person can be charged both with a crime that will merge and the crime that would be merged into, but can't be convicted of both, or if they can't be charged with both. In looking it up, I think it's just conviction.

If so, she could be charged with solicitation AND attempted battery (aka assault) but could only be convicted of one or the other.

Honestly, now I'm getting confused. Apologies if I'm making your understanding worse.

haha it's all good. Your first explanation was actually helpful. What crimes merge into what other crimes and when is still a bit confusing for me though. I think my issue with this question was just that I forgot attempted-battery assault was even a thing. I'm just gonna chalk this one up to a weird question and move on. Never worth dwelling on minutia when it comes to studying for this stupid test.

[Kiwi917]

Can someone explain why B is correct here (I picked A btw). This explanation just isn't cutting it for me. I had no idea I could commit an assault by simply soliciting some stranger in a bar to commit a battery. Am I insane or does this explanation make no sense??

Remember that there are two kinds of assault. One kind, is a general intent crime, the other kind is a specific intent crime of attempt.

She is not guilty of the general intent crime of assault. She is guilty of the specific intent crime of assault with attempt to commit a battery (think of it as assault via the attempt to commit a battery). Her "attempt" is in soliciting the bartender (that would count as a substantial step).

This question annoyed me too. I never learned the distinction between criminal assault and the tort rule; I sort of glossed over the outline mentioning the two different forms of the crime and just assumed reasonable fear was always required. I guess one way I am remembering it is that even though you couldn't be sued in tort by the intended victim for the "attempt" form in this scenario because the person never knew about it, you could still be prosecuted since society generally doesn't want people going around attempting battery (even if they fail and the victim never finds out). I also sort of like the outline's terms "attempted-battery assault" and "fear-of-harm assault" - even if not technical, they at least stick in my head and remind me there's a difference in required intent.

so basically, in crim law, attempted battery is assault through the general intent doctrine or whatever? So immediate apprehension is only necessary for tort law?

I think apprehension of harm matters in criminal law, too, it's just a second type of assault. You can still be convicted of the crime of assault for putting someone in fear of imminent bodily harm, it would just be the fear-of-harm kind, not necessarily the attempted-battery kind (though I'm pretty sure some actions qualify under both - like throwing a punch at a person is both an attempt to commit a battery and also puts them in fear of imminent harm). In the punch example, I think you could end up with both criminal and civil liability. The attempted battery type seems less likely to give rise to tort liability simply because of the broad definition of attempt and what kinds of "substantial step" could count - it includes a lot of stuff that wouldn't cause apprehension.

Not sure about the merger question, but I think attempted battery doesn't merge with solicitation here because for both, the completed crime would be the battery. The best distinction I can come up with is that defendant wasn't soliciting assault, they were soliciting a completed battery. No idea if that is right, just taking a guess.

All in all, I think you are right not to worry about this...

[Prime]

From what I understand, they typically test on Article 3 and 9. A year ago, they threw everyone for a loop when they broke out article 2 instead of an Article 9 essay.

Speaking of which, just happened in my Article 3 practice essay. Slipped an article 2 problem into the article 3 practice session. Yippie!

Then again, they slipped a surprise LLC question into my corporations practice set before LLC's were even covered in the Agency/Partnership lectures.

[bport hopeful]

In a civil action, the plaintiff sued a decedent's estate to recover damages for the injuries she suffered in a collision between her car and one driven by the decedent. At trial, the plaintiff introduced undisputed evidence that the decedent's car swerved across the median of the highway, where it collided with an oncoming car driven by the plaintiff. The decedent's estate introduced undisputed evidence that, prior to the car's crossing the median, the decedent suffered a fatal heart attack, which she had no reason to foresee, and that, prior to the heart attack, the decedent had been driving at a reasonable speed and in a reasonable manner. A statute makes it a traffic offense to cross the median of a highway.
In this case, for whom should the court render judgment?
A. The decedent's estate, because its evidence is undisputed
B. The decedent's estate, because the plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of liability.
C. The plaintiff, because the accident was of a type that does not ordinarily happen in the absence of negligence on the actor's part.
D. The plaintiff, because the decedent crossed the median in violation of the statute.


Incorrect: Answer choice A is correct as the plaintiff's evidence that the decedent violated the statute and crossed over into her lane of traffic does establish a prima facie case of negligence. However, the decedent's estate successfully rebutted the plaintiff's evidence by providing an undisputed explanation of how the accident happened that is inconsistent with a finding of negligence (the decedent's unforeseeable heart attack made her unable to comply with the statute, or indeed with any standard of care). Answer choice B correctly states that the decedent's estate will prevail, but it misstates the legal basis for this conclusion. The plaintiff's evidence that the decedent violated the statute and crossed over into her lane of traffic does establish a prima facie case of negligence. Answer choice C is not correct because it may or may not be true that accidents of this type do not ordinarily happen in the absence of negligence, but that is beside the point. Answer choice D is incorrect for the reasons stated in correct answer choice A.

I picked D because I thought that there was prima facie liability because of the statute. Someone.