Actually the rule in that case is the opposite. The question was about tripping over a porcupine and breaking your wrist. No strict liability because the porcupine's dangerous nature isn't what cause the injury -- it was no different than having a cat or even a rock on your property. Now if you'd gotten punctured with the quills, then it would be SL.SilverE2 wrote:
Wait wait wait (and I hate to kill the good mood of this thread) but wouldn't this still be strict liability? I'm thinking of a Themis practice question where dude was keeping a python in his house, python was hiding in the grass and plaintiff tripped on the python and hurt himself. Python didn't bite him or strangle him or anything, but it was still strict liability just by the virtue that the defendant was keeping a dangerous animal.
Horror Tales of Bargression Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
- Tanicius
- Posts: 2984
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
- SilverE2
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:04 pm
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
Oh boy. You're right. All this law getting jumbled in my head. :-/ I confused a snake problem with a porcupine problem.Tanicius wrote:Actually the rule in that case is the opposite. The question was about tripping over a porcupine and breaking your wrist. No strict liability because the porcupine's dangerous nature isn't what cause the injury -- it was no different than having a cat or even a rock on your property. Now if you'd gotten punctured with the quills, then it would be SL.SilverE2 wrote:
Wait wait wait (and I hate to kill the good mood of this thread) but wouldn't this still be strict liability? I'm thinking of a Themis practice question where dude was keeping a python in his house, python was hiding in the grass and plaintiff tripped on the python and hurt himself. Python didn't bite him or strangle him or anything, but it was still strict liability just by the virtue that the defendant was keeping a dangerous animal.
*edit*
Oh right, the snake problem was the dude getting scared by the snake and hurting himself, I think. And that was SL.
- northwood
- Posts: 5036
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
if the gasoline inside the tanker exploded and injured a passenger or a car, then the tanker is strictly liable because the gasoline was the cause of the accident.
if the tanker simply was involved in a roll over accident and the tanker crushed a car, then the gas company ( for simplicity sake not the same company as the truck) is not strict liable because the gasoline ( dangerous object) was not the casue of the injury.. the truck was...
think about what was the exact reason for the injury... was I thte object inside or something else carrying device. if its the dangerous object inside- strict liability. if its something else( then not)
if the tanker simply was involved in a roll over accident and the tanker crushed a car, then the gas company ( for simplicity sake not the same company as the truck) is not strict liable because the gasoline ( dangerous object) was not the casue of the injury.. the truck was...
think about what was the exact reason for the injury... was I thte object inside or something else carrying device. if its the dangerous object inside- strict liability. if its something else( then not)
- jigglypuffdreams
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 12:03 am
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
Tanicius wrote:Actually the rule in that case is the opposite. The question was about tripping over a porcupine and breaking your wrist. No strict liability because the porcupine's dangerous nature isn't what cause the injury -- it was no different than having a cat or even a rock on your property. Now if you'd gotten punctured with the quills, then it would be SL.SilverE2 wrote:
Wait wait wait (and I hate to kill the good mood of this thread) but wouldn't this still be strict liability? I'm thinking of a Themis practice question where dude was keeping a python in his house, python was hiding in the grass and plaintiff tripped on the python and hurt himself. Python didn't bite him or strangle him or anything, but it was still strict liability just by the virtue that the defendant was keeping a dangerous animal.
Ugh that porcupine question was the absolute worst. "haha, the porcupine is a wild animal and even if it's not thought of as dangerous, it would be subject to strict liability, they're trying to trick me but I got this!" But the porcupine's dangerous propensity didn't cause any of the harm, and it wasn't caused by the guy being scared of the porcupine either because he didn't know it was a porcupine. At least I know that rule really well because that question got me so angry.
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:00 pm
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
You may be bar prepping if....
You switch from hand-written tasks (flashcards, writing rules out, etc) to a computer-based task to give your hands a break.
If you look forward to your "break days" as the days when you tackle a less-difficult subject
When you do Barbri Amps while eating as a break
You switch from hand-written tasks (flashcards, writing rules out, etc) to a computer-based task to give your hands a break.
If you look forward to your "break days" as the days when you tackle a less-difficult subject
When you do Barbri Amps while eating as a break
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:48 am
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
But if the truck company and gas company were separate, the gas company wouldn't be strictly liable even if there were an explosion, unless strict products liability applied (which it obviously wouldn't). The gas company is not engaged in the ultra hazardous activity in that case, the truck company is.northwood wrote:if the gasoline inside the tanker exploded and injured a passenger or a car, then the tanker is strictly liable because the gasoline was the cause of the accident.
if the tanker simply was involved in a roll over accident and the tanker crushed a car, then the gas company ( for simplicity sake not the same company as the truck) is not strict liable because the gasoline ( dangerous object) was not the casue of the injury.. the truck was...
think about what was the exact reason for the injury... was I thte object inside or something else carrying device. if its the dangerous object inside- strict liability. if its something else( then not)
- Georgia Avenue
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:42 am
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
Not necessarily. Remember agency law. A principal is vicariously liable for an independent contractor's torts if the independent contractor is engaged in a highly dangerous activity.harmonep07 wrote:But if the truck company and gas company were separate, the gas company wouldn't be strictly liable even if there were an explosion, unless strict products liability applied (which it obviously wouldn't). The gas company is not engaged in the ultra hazardous activity in that case, the truck company is.northwood wrote:if the gasoline inside the tanker exploded and injured a passenger or a car, then the tanker is strictly liable because the gasoline was the cause of the accident.
if the tanker simply was involved in a roll over accident and the tanker crushed a car, then the gas company ( for simplicity sake not the same company as the truck) is not strict liable because the gasoline ( dangerous object) was not the casue of the injury.. the truck was...
think about what was the exact reason for the injury... was I thte object inside or something else carrying device. if its the dangerous object inside- strict liability. if its something else( then not)
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:00 pm
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
+ IndemnityGeorgia Avenue wrote:Not necessarily. Remember agency law. A principal is vicariously liable for an independent contractor's torts if the independent contractor is engaged in a highly dangerous activity.harmonep07 wrote:But if the truck company and gas company were separate, the gas company wouldn't be strictly liable even if there were an explosion, unless strict products liability applied (which it obviously wouldn't). The gas company is not engaged in the ultra hazardous activity in that case, the truck company is.northwood wrote:if the gasoline inside the tanker exploded and injured a passenger or a car, then the tanker is strictly liable because the gasoline was the cause of the accident.
if the tanker simply was involved in a roll over accident and the tanker crushed a car, then the gas company ( for simplicity sake not the same company as the truck) is not strict liable because the gasoline ( dangerous object) was not the casue of the injury.. the truck was...
think about what was the exact reason for the injury... was I thte object inside or something else carrying device. if its the dangerous object inside- strict liability. if its something else( then not)
-
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:48 am
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
Right. But vicarious liability is a different theory of liability. I was pointing out that the gas company would not be strictly liable for the explosion of the gas it sells in itself because it was engaged in an ultra hazardous activity. It wasn't. The truck company was engaged in the ultra hazardous activity.The gas company could also be liable for ordinary negligence if there was negligent entrustment. Also, the gas company could be strictly liable for a product defect, although that seems unlikely.Law-So-Hard wrote:+ IndemnityGeorgia Avenue wrote:Not necessarily. Remember agency law. A principal is vicariously liable for an independent contractor's torts if the independent contractor is engaged in a highly dangerous activity.harmonep07 wrote:But if the truck company and gas company were separate, the gas company wouldn't be strictly liable even if there were an explosion, unless strict products liability applied (which it obviously wouldn't). The gas company is not engaged in the ultra hazardous activity in that case, the truck company is.northwood wrote:if the gasoline inside the tanker exploded and injured a passenger or a car, then the tanker is strictly liable because the gasoline was the cause of the accident.
if the tanker simply was involved in a roll over accident and the tanker crushed a car, then the gas company ( for simplicity sake not the same company as the truck) is not strict liable because the gasoline ( dangerous object) was not the casue of the injury.. the truck was...
think about what was the exact reason for the injury... was I thte object inside or something else carrying device. if its the dangerous object inside- strict liability. if its something else( then not)
The truck company would not be able to be indemnified by the gas company. If vicarious liability applied, the gas company could be indemnified by the truck company, but not vice versa. Indemnity from the gas company to the truck company would only apply were the gas company liable in strict products liability and the explosion was the result of a product defect, and someone sought relief against the trucking company for selling it defective gas.
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:00 pm
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
Assuming the gas company hired a trucking company to transport its gas and the driver negligently caused an accident involving the dangerous nature of the gas itself - an explosion:Right. But vicarious liability is a different theory of liability. I was pointing out that the gas company would not be strictly liable for the explosion of the gas it sells in itself because it was engaged in an ultra hazardous activity. It wasn't. The truck company was engaged in the ultra hazardous activity.The gas company could also be liable for ordinary negligence if there was negligent entrustment. Also, the gas company could be strictly liable for a product defect, although that seems unlikely.
The truck company would not be able to be indemnified by the gas company. If vicarious liability applied, the gas company could be indemnified by the truck company, but not vice versa. Indemnity from the gas company to the truck company would only apply were the gas company liable in strict products liability and the explosion was the result of a product defect, and someone sought relief against the trucking company for selling it defective gas.
1. Gas company is liable on a theory of respondeat superior because truck driver was his agent. Do the employee/independent contractor analysis - master is liable for acts of his servants, not IC. Even if the truck driver was in IC - can't delegate away certain duties for public policy reasons. Likely the harm caused by transporting gas - non-delegable. Gas company would be vicariously liable. Can seek indemnity from trucking co. And yes, as you pointed out, could be liable for negligent entrustment. The master always remains liable for his own personal torts.
2. Gas company may be liable for the ultrahazardous activity of the gas itself. The analysis turns on whether gas is an unreasonably dangerous activity or industry within the community. On the one hand, gas is an industrial/personal necessity and ubiquitous, on the other, it is inherently dangerous b/c of its high flammability and toxicity. The harm it could cause is potentially very great. Can seek indemnity from trucking co.
3. Product liability strict liability theory - this does not apply because the gas company is currently only transporting the gasoline, it has not yet sold it or made it available to consumers. It's still located onboard the trucks.
4. Both trucking co and gas co are liable on negligence theory alone.
-
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:48 am
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
Law-So-Hard wrote:Assuming the gas company hired a trucking company to transport its gas and the driver negligently caused an accident involving the dangerous nature of the gas itself - an explosion:Right. But vicarious liability is a different theory of liability. I was pointing out that the gas company would not be strictly liable for the explosion of the gas it sells in itself because it was engaged in an ultra hazardous activity. It wasn't. The truck company was engaged in the ultra hazardous activity.The gas company could also be liable for ordinary negligence if there was negligent entrustment. Also, the gas company could be strictly liable for a product defect, although that seems unlikely.
The truck company would not be able to be indemnified by the gas company. If vicarious liability applied, the gas company could be indemnified by the truck company, but not vice versa. Indemnity from the gas company to the truck company would only apply were the gas company liable in strict products liability and the explosion was the result of a product defect, and someone sought relief against the trucking company for selling it defective gas.
1. Gas company is liable on a theory of respondeat superior because truck driver was his agent. Do the employee/independent contractor analysis - master is liable for acts of his servants, not IC. Even if the truck driver was in IC - can't delegate away certain duties for public policy reasons. Likely the harm caused by transporting gas - non-delegable. Gas company would be vicariously liable. Can seek indemnity from trucking co. And yes, as you pointed out, could be liable for negligent entrustment. The master always remains liable for his own personal torts.
2. Gas company may be liable for the ultrahazardous activity of the gas itself. The analysis turns on whether gas is an unreasonably dangerous activity or industry within the community. On the one hand, gas is an industrial/personal necessity and ubiquitous, on the other, it is inherently dangerous b/c of its high flammability and toxicity. The harm it could cause is potentially very great. Can seek indemnity from trucking co.
3. Product liability strict liability theory - this does not apply because the gas company is currently only transporting the gasoline, it has not yet sold it or made it available to consumers. It's still located onboard the trucks.
4. Both trucking co and gas co are liable on negligence theory alone.
Yes, as I said, in none if those instances will the trucking company be able to seek indemnity from the gas company.
As to 2., this is not right and was my point in the first place. The gas company cannot be liable for engaging in an ultra hazardous activity. If the trucking company is a separate legal entity, it was the defendant engaged in an ultrahazardous activity, namely transporting gasoline, not the gas company.
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:00 pm
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
Yeah, I see the distinction you're raising. Suffice it to say it's fact-specific and we'll know it when we see it on the MBE/Essay
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:00 pm
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
On an unrelated note, anyone else experiencing really strange psychological issues? Lots of old and sometimes unpleasant memories long-repressed coming up? Random feelings of guilt and shame? Low self esteem? I mean, on top of the usual anxiety and depression.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Tanicius
- Posts: 2984
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
Hahaha-- ...yes.Law-So-Hard wrote:On an unrelated note, anyone else experiencing really strange psychological issues? Lots of old and sometimes unpleasant memories long-repressed coming up? Random feelings of guilt and shame? Low self esteem? I mean, on top of the usual anxiety and depression.
- beachbum
- Posts: 2758
- Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
I've been getting uncharacteristically nostalgic. Been watching lots of Will Ferrell-era SNL.Law-So-Hard wrote:On an unrelated note, anyone else experiencing really strange psychological issues? Lots of old and sometimes unpleasant memories long-repressed coming up? Random feelings of guilt and shame? Low self esteem? I mean, on top of the usual anxiety and depression.
Also been having lots of daydreams about becoming a day laborer.
- LAWYER2
- Posts: 580
- Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:15 pm
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
I dream about MBE's every night
-
- Posts: 535
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 10:29 pm
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
Yes. After reviewing Crim Law, I had a nightmare my family was murdered, with all sorts of gory details. I don't know why I reviewed the elements of murder, since it just makes me more miserable.Law-So-Hard wrote:On an unrelated note, anyone else experiencing really strange psychological issues? Lots of old and sometimes unpleasant memories long-repressed coming up? Random feelings of guilt and shame? Low self esteem? I mean, on top of the usual anxiety and depression.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:00 pm
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
I had a crim dream too - there was a serial killer captured on the day of the bar exam, and the circumstances of his crimes were all really gory - and I dreamed everyone in the exam room turned into the serial killer and I was begging and crying them/him to just let me take the exam.
Lol
Lol

-
- Posts: 535
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 10:29 pm
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
Haha, I'm glad I'm not alone! The trauma from this exam.Law-So-Hard wrote:I had a crim dream too - there was a serial killer captured on the day of the bar exam, and the circumstances of his crimes were all really gory - and I dreamed everyone in the exam room turned into the serial killer and I was begging and crying them/him to just let me take the exam.
Lol
-
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:18 am
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
Last night I had a dream where I finally figured out the Rule Against Perpetuities.LAWYER2 wrote:I dream about MBE's every night
- northwood
- Posts: 5036
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm
Re: Horror Tales of Bargression
VermiciousKnid wrote:Last night I had a dream where I finally figured out the Rule Against Perpetuities.LAWYER2 wrote:I dream about MBE's every night
I always just cross that answer choice off unless it is the last one standing
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login