Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[Nebby]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm terrified of failing, so I'm studying balls to the wall. But this doesn't mean 12 hours a day. I take a ton of breaks to go run and watch TV. But I'm always looking at flash cards, doing AdaptiBar, or looking at Themis outlines. I don't wanna be that guy in October who fails by less than 10 points. I'd much rather be the guy who gets a 160 on the MBE and a reasonable, respectable score for an essay bullshitter and passes comfortably so I don't have to study for this bullshit again during my clerkship.

That said, yeah 5 hours seems lite for July 9th, but that's me. I'm closer to 7-8 hours, and I'm sure it'll ramp up this week.

I don't know. 5 hours seems fine so long as you started on-time and are mostly on track. I'm planning on doing about 5 to 6 hours a day until the test. I'm sitting at 78% on Themis so now I am focused on: (1) maintaining MBE proficiency; (2) reviewing MEE subjects and memorizing the most commonly tested issues and accompanying rule statements.

[Easy-E]

I love when MC questions turn on the definition of "reasonable". Torts, vegetable oil car:

[+] Spoiler

An environmentalist purchased an alternative fuel vehicle from an automobile manufacturer who specialized in eco-friendly cars. The alternative fuel vehicle’s engine was based upon a diesel engine, but was designed to run on vegetable oil instead of diesel fuel. Per the detailed instructions given by the manufacturer, the vegetable oil needed to be heated, filtered, and then mixed with a blend of chemical additives in order for it to be safely used in the vehicle’s engine. An engine that would safely combust untreated vegetable oil was possible, but the cost was prohibitive to the manufacturer. Instead, the manufacturer provided the equipment, the blend of chemicals additives, and instructions necessary to convert the untreated vegetable oil into a usable form of fuel. The environmentalist read the instructions but did not use the chemical additives because he did not want to disturb the natural state of the vegetable oil. While driving his vehicle for the first time, the engine started smoking and then caught on fire. The environmentalist sued the manufacturer for damages under a theory of strict liability based on a design defect.

Is the environmentalist likely to succeed in a jurisdiction that applies the risk-utility test?

A No, because the environmentalist‘s failure to use the chemical additives will bar his action.
B No, because the cost of a reasonable alternative engine design was prohibitive to the manufacturer.

Answer choice B is correct. Using the risk-utility test, to prevail on a claim under a strict-products-liability-design-defect theory, the jury must determine whether the risks posed by the product outweigh its benefits. A plaintiff generally must prove that a reasonable alternative design was available to the defendant and the failure to use that design has rendered the product not reasonably safe. The alternative design must be economically feasible. Here, the manufacturer could have made an engine that could combust untreated vegetable oil, but it would not have been economically feasible. Accordingly, the environmentalist’s claim will not succeed.

Answer choice A is incorrect because foreseeable misuse, alteration, or modification usually does not preclude recovery. Here, the environmentalist’s misuse of the vehicle’s engine by failing to use the chemical additives was foreseeable enough to warrant a manufacturer’s warning and detailed instructions.

Sure, B is right. But if they're going to say A is wrong, don't they need to give us more than just "oh well it's foreseeable that someone wouldn't follow explicit instructions for fueling an engine, I mean, people are fucking morons, right?

[Nebby]

I love when MC questions turn on the definition of "reasonable". Torts, vegetable oil car:

[+] Spoiler

An environmentalist purchased an alternative fuel vehicle from an automobile manufacturer who specialized in eco-friendly cars. The alternative fuel vehicle’s engine was based upon a diesel engine, but was designed to run on vegetable oil instead of diesel fuel. Per the detailed instructions given by the manufacturer, the vegetable oil needed to be heated, filtered, and then mixed with a blend of chemical additives in order for it to be safely used in the vehicle’s engine. An engine that would safely combust untreated vegetable oil was possible, but the cost was prohibitive to the manufacturer. Instead, the manufacturer provided the equipment, the blend of chemicals additives, and instructions necessary to convert the untreated vegetable oil into a usable form of fuel. The environmentalist read the instructions but did not use the chemical additives because he did not want to disturb the natural state of the vegetable oil. While driving his vehicle for the first time, the engine started smoking and then caught on fire. The environmentalist sued the manufacturer for damages under a theory of strict liability based on a design defect.

Is the environmentalist likely to succeed in a jurisdiction that applies the risk-utility test?

A No, because the environmentalist‘s failure to use the chemical additives will bar his action.
B No, because the cost of a reasonable alternative engine design was prohibitive to the manufacturer.

Answer choice B is correct. Using the risk-utility test, to prevail on a claim under a strict-products-liability-design-defect theory, the jury must determine whether the risks posed by the product outweigh its benefits. A plaintiff generally must prove that a reasonable alternative design was available to the defendant and the failure to use that design has rendered the product not reasonably safe. The alternative design must be economically feasible. Here, the manufacturer could have made an engine that could combust untreated vegetable oil, but it would not have been economically feasible. Accordingly, the environmentalist’s claim will not succeed.

Answer choice A is incorrect because foreseeable misuse, alteration, or modification usually does not preclude recovery. Here, the environmentalist’s misuse of the vehicle’s engine by failing to use the chemical additives was foreseeable enough to warrant a manufacturer’s warning and detailed instructions.

Sure, B is right. But if they're going to say A is wrong, don't they need to give us more than just "oh well it's foreseeable that someone wouldn't follow explicit instructions for fueling an engine, I mean, people are fucking morons, right?

Assume any misuse is foreseeable unless the fact pattern says it is not foreseeable or the person misuses the product in a way completely unrelated to its purpose. Strict liability attaches even if the harm was due to misuse, so long as it is foreseeable.

[NaeDeen]

According to a majority of you, I fit into all of your pretty fucked up ass categories.

I wake up around 5:30-6:30 and I sit here (as best as I can) and I read my outline (1.5-2.5 hours), do 20 Emanuel MBE Qs on that topic (40 minutes), add any notes that I need to add while reviewing my answers (2 hours), then do 2 essays on the same topic + create an outline from the Bar Examiner's essay explanation for each essay BY HAND (another 2-3 hours). I do this for 2-3 subjects per day.

For you all that's overkill, for me, it's knowing and understanding that what I put into this is exactly what I'm going to get out of it: A PASSING SCORE.

This isn't law school and I can't rely on the mercy of my professor...this is a ridiculously expensive exam that I've earned the right to take and I'm not taking it lightly. Fun can wait, it's go time.

[1down1togo]

According to a majority of you, I fit into all of your pretty fucked up ass categories.

I wake up around 5:30-6:30 and I sit here (as best as I can) and I read my outline (1.5-2.5 hours), do 20 Emanuel MBE Qs on that topic (40 minutes), add any notes that I need to add while reviewing my answers (2 hours), then do 2 essays on the same topic + create an outline from the Bar Examiner's essay explanation for each essay BY HAND (another 2-3 hours). I do this for 2-3 subjects per day.

For you all that's overkill, for me, it's knowing and understanding that what I put into this is exactly what I'm going to get out of it: A PASSING SCORE.

This isn't law school and I can't rely on the mercy of my professor...this is a ridiculously expensive exam that I've earned the right to take and I'm not taking it lightly. Fun can wait, it's go time.

PREACH

[Easy-E]

I love when MC questions turn on the definition of "reasonable". Torts, vegetable oil car:

[+] Spoiler

An environmentalist purchased an alternative fuel vehicle from an automobile manufacturer who specialized in eco-friendly cars. The alternative fuel vehicle’s engine was based upon a diesel engine, but was designed to run on vegetable oil instead of diesel fuel. Per the detailed instructions given by the manufacturer, the vegetable oil needed to be heated, filtered, and then mixed with a blend of chemical additives in order for it to be safely used in the vehicle’s engine. An engine that would safely combust untreated vegetable oil was possible, but the cost was prohibitive to the manufacturer. Instead, the manufacturer provided the equipment, the blend of chemicals additives, and instructions necessary to convert the untreated vegetable oil into a usable form of fuel. The environmentalist read the instructions but did not use the chemical additives because he did not want to disturb the natural state of the vegetable oil. While driving his vehicle for the first time, the engine started smoking and then caught on fire. The environmentalist sued the manufacturer for damages under a theory of strict liability based on a design defect.

Is the environmentalist likely to succeed in a jurisdiction that applies the risk-utility test?

A No, because the environmentalist‘s failure to use the chemical additives will bar his action.
B No, because the cost of a reasonable alternative engine design was prohibitive to the manufacturer.

Answer choice B is correct. Using the risk-utility test, to prevail on a claim under a strict-products-liability-design-defect theory, the jury must determine whether the risks posed by the product outweigh its benefits. A plaintiff generally must prove that a reasonable alternative design was available to the defendant and the failure to use that design has rendered the product not reasonably safe. The alternative design must be economically feasible. Here, the manufacturer could have made an engine that could combust untreated vegetable oil, but it would not have been economically feasible. Accordingly, the environmentalist’s claim will not succeed.

Answer choice A is incorrect because foreseeable misuse, alteration, or modification usually does not preclude recovery. Here, the environmentalist’s misuse of the vehicle’s engine by failing to use the chemical additives was foreseeable enough to warrant a manufacturer’s warning and detailed instructions.

Sure, B is right. But if they're going to say A is wrong, don't they need to give us more than just "oh well it's foreseeable that someone wouldn't follow explicit instructions for fueling an engine, I mean, people are fucking morons, right?

Assume any misuse is foreseeable unless the fact pattern says it is not foreseeable or the person misuses the product in a way completely unrelated to its purpose. Strict liability attaches even if the harm was due to misuse, so long as it is foreseeable.

I suppose that makes sense. People ignoring warning labels/instructions does seem pretty foreseeable.

[Chardee_MacDennis]

I love when MC questions turn on the definition of "reasonable". Torts, vegetable oil car:

[+] Spoiler

An environmentalist purchased an alternative fuel vehicle from an automobile manufacturer who specialized in eco-friendly cars. The alternative fuel vehicle’s engine was based upon a diesel engine, but was designed to run on vegetable oil instead of diesel fuel. Per the detailed instructions given by the manufacturer, the vegetable oil needed to be heated, filtered, and then mixed with a blend of chemical additives in order for it to be safely used in the vehicle’s engine. An engine that would safely combust untreated vegetable oil was possible, but the cost was prohibitive to the manufacturer. Instead, the manufacturer provided the equipment, the blend of chemicals additives, and instructions necessary to convert the untreated vegetable oil into a usable form of fuel. The environmentalist read the instructions but did not use the chemical additives because he did not want to disturb the natural state of the vegetable oil. While driving his vehicle for the first time, the engine started smoking and then caught on fire. The environmentalist sued the manufacturer for damages under a theory of strict liability based on a design defect.

Is the environmentalist likely to succeed in a jurisdiction that applies the risk-utility test?

A No, because the environmentalist‘s failure to use the chemical additives will bar his action.
B No, because the cost of a reasonable alternative engine design was prohibitive to the manufacturer.

Answer choice B is correct. Using the risk-utility test, to prevail on a claim under a strict-products-liability-design-defect theory, the jury must determine whether the risks posed by the product outweigh its benefits. A plaintiff generally must prove that a reasonable alternative design was available to the defendant and the failure to use that design has rendered the product not reasonably safe. The alternative design must be economically feasible. Here, the manufacturer could have made an engine that could combust untreated vegetable oil, but it would not have been economically feasible. Accordingly, the environmentalist’s claim will not succeed.

Answer choice A is incorrect because foreseeable misuse, alteration, or modification usually does not preclude recovery. Here, the environmentalist’s misuse of the vehicle’s engine by failing to use the chemical additives was foreseeable enough to warrant a manufacturer’s warning and detailed instructions.

Sure, B is right. But if they're going to say A is wrong, don't they need to give us more than just "oh well it's foreseeable that someone wouldn't follow explicit instructions for fueling an engine, I mean, people are fucking morons, right?

Assume any misuse is foreseeable unless the fact pattern says it is not foreseeable or the person misuses the product in a way completely unrelated to its purpose. Strict liability attaches even if the harm was due to misuse, so long as it is foreseeable.

I suppose that makes sense. People ignoring warning labels/instructions does seem pretty foreseeable.

Also, if you see risk-utility & economically unfeasible in the fact pattern, your alarm should go off

[bsktbll28082]

Fun can wait, it's go time.

The reason why I have not downloaded Pokemon Go. Just need to focus for another 20 days.

[unidentifiable]

Fun can wait, it's go time.

The reason why I have not downloaded Pokemon Go. Just need to focus for another 20 days.

yep. downloaded it the other day. big mistake.

[NaeDeen]

Fun can wait, it's go time.

The reason why I have not downloaded Pokemon Go. Just need to focus for another 20 days.

[NaeDeen]

Fun can wait, it's go time.

The reason why I have not downloaded Pokemon Go. Just need to focus for another 20 days.

yep. downloaded it the other day. big mistake.

Just downloaded it just to see what it's about--I used to love Pokemon. I'll add it to my list of games that I use to wind down at night before bed.

[PotLuck]

Just got a 49% on ME #2. I feel so defeated god damn. 2 1/2 weeks out and i cant even get half of the questions right.

[Nebby]

Just got a 49% on ME #2. I feel so defeated god damn. 2 1/2 weeks out and i cant even get half of the questions right.

I got 51% on ME 1 and 49% on ME 2. I kicked it into gear, started making flash cards to summarize each rule statement for multiple choice questions, review every flash card before doing a PQ set, and was able to improve to 73% on the simulated MBE (146/200). I hand wrote the flashcards because it personally helps me. Maybe flash cards will help you like they helped me.

[1down1togo]

Fun can wait, it's go time.

The reason why I have not downloaded Pokemon Go. Just need to focus for another 20 days.

yep. downloaded it the other day. big mistake.

Just downloaded it just to see what it's about--I used to love Pokemon. I'll add it to my list of games that I use to wind down at night before bed.

Pokemon Go requires that you literally travel around in the real world. Not the best game for winding down

[ndp1234]

Just for S&G, from my horoscope today:

"You may feel a sense of restriction to the day, but in truth, this is for your own good, Libra. You'll find that your acute sense of discipline comes in handy today as you tackle work with incredible enthusiasm. Your goals aren't far from your grasp. Stay focused, and don't let the ticking clock pressure you. Hastiness will lead to careless mistakes. If you're going to do a job, do it right."

[unidentifiable]

Just for S&G, from my horoscope today:

"You may feel a sense of restriction to the day, but in truth, this is for your own good, Libra. You'll find that your acute sense of discipline comes in handy today as you tackle work with incredible enthusiasm. Your goals aren't far from your grasp. Stay focused, and don't let the ticking clock pressure you. Hastiness will lead to careless mistakes. If you're going to do a job, do it right."

Hey not bad. I'm a fellow libra.

My "acute sense of discipline" was lacking today, but its all good. Tackling this shit with incredible enthusiasm is just silly.

[Chardee_MacDennis]

Doing a mixed set, missed three pretty easy questions because I didn't read all the answer choices

[Easy-E]

Just did the conflicts/civ pro essay...

[+] Spoiler

I get that conflicts is basically part of civ pro, but pretty much the whole answer was in the civ pro materials, right? I mean, I didn't think it was difficult or confusing. Conflicts just seems like it was a waste of time, at least to learn it separately. It's mostly bits and pieces of other materials.

Also, sample answer didn't really address the defendant's contention that the forum selection clause (which supported transfer to B) is invalid under A's law. Does that not matter?

[grizz91]

Heres a tip that may ease a lot of your minds: When you go back and review the mixed sets, look to see the distribution of student responses. I found roughly 5 - 6 questions in one set where the majority of respondents chose the same WRONG answer. You missing that question was more a fault of the writer than your own. So don't be discouraged!

[NaeDeen]

Just for S&G, from my horoscope today:

"You may feel a sense of restriction to the day, but in truth, this is for your own good, Libra. You'll find that your acute sense of discipline comes in handy today as you tackle work with incredible enthusiasm. Your goals aren't far from your grasp. Stay focused, and don't let the ticking clock pressure you. Hastiness will lead to careless mistakes. If you're going to do a job, do it right."

LOVE THIS!!

[NaeDeen]

Fun can wait, it's go time.

The reason why I have not downloaded Pokemon Go. Just need to focus for another 20 days.

yep. downloaded it the other day. big mistake.

Just downloaded it just to see what it's about--I used to love Pokemon. I'll add it to my list of games that I use to wind down at night before bed.

Pokemon Go requires that you literally travel around in the real world. Not the best game for winding down

oh boy. I'm not going to open the app until tonight, as I'm sure I'll get distracted.

[kishy]

Themis keeps giving me a torts question about a husband feeding his pregnant vegetarian wife meat and I keep getting it wrong!

I remember that one. I got it wrong, too. Twice!

[Vantwins]

Themis keeps giving me a torts question about a husband feeding his pregnant vegetarian wife meat and I keep getting it wrong!

I remember that one. I got it wrong, too. Twice!

I guess if it's IIED and it's a pregnant women, we should assume she is legally distressed!

[ndp1234]

Mixed Set 11 has a lot of questions with the disclaimer: "The foregoing NCBE MBE question has been modified to reflect current NCBE stylistic approaches; the NCBE has not reviewed or endorsed this modification." This disclaimer almost automatically means I get it wrong...

[hogfan1991]

How are people keeping track of all these Uniform codes in Family Law and Wills? It's so overwhelming.

i'm not. idgaf if a question says "This jurisdiction follows the UCCJEA." I just apply what I know and hope for the best.

Thankfully in my Dom Rel class we had to learn UIFSA and the UCCJEA and in Wills we learned the distinctions that the MPC had. I wasn't thrilled at the time, but will likely come in handy on the bar exam.