Horror Tales of Bargression Forum

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this 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."
User avatar
Tanicius

Gold
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by Tanicius » Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:51 pm

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.
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.

User avatar
SilverE2

Silver
Posts: 929
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:04 pm

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by SilverE2 » Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:53 pm

Tanicius wrote:
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.
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.
Oh boy. You're right. All this law getting jumbled in my head. :-/ I confused a snake problem with a porcupine problem.

*edit*

Oh right, the snake problem was the dude getting scared by the snake and hurting himself, I think. And that was SL.

User avatar
northwood

Platinum
Posts: 5036
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by northwood » Tue Jul 22, 2014 1:09 pm

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)

User avatar
jigglypuffdreams

New
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by jigglypuffdreams » Tue Jul 22, 2014 1:17 pm

Tanicius wrote:
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.
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.

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.

Law-So-Hard

Bronze
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:00 pm

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by Law-So-Hard » Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:25 pm

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

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


harmonep07

New
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:48 am

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by harmonep07 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:40 pm

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)
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.

User avatar
Georgia Avenue

Bronze
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 9:42 am

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by Georgia Avenue » Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:43 pm

harmonep07 wrote:
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)
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.
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.

Law-So-Hard

Bronze
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:00 pm

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by Law-So-Hard » Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:44 pm

Georgia Avenue wrote:
harmonep07 wrote:
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)
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.
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.
+ Indemnity

harmonep07

New
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:48 am

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by harmonep07 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:13 pm

Law-So-Hard wrote:
Georgia Avenue wrote:
harmonep07 wrote:
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)
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.
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.
+ Indemnity
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.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Law-So-Hard

Bronze
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:00 pm

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by Law-So-Hard » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:30 pm

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.
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:
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.

harmonep07

New
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:48 am

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by harmonep07 » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:43 pm

Law-So-Hard wrote:
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.
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:
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.

Law-So-Hard

Bronze
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:00 pm

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by Law-So-Hard » Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:52 pm

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

Law-So-Hard

Bronze
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:00 pm

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by Law-So-Hard » Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:33 pm

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!


User avatar
Tanicius

Gold
Posts: 2984
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by Tanicius » Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:37 pm

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.
Hahaha-- ...yes.

User avatar
beachbum

Gold
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by beachbum » Wed Jul 23, 2014 11:45 pm

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.
I've been getting uncharacteristically nostalgic. Been watching lots of Will Ferrell-era SNL.

Also been having lots of daydreams about becoming a day laborer.

User avatar
LAWYER2

Silver
Posts: 580
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 9:15 pm

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by LAWYER2 » Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:14 am

I dream about MBE's every night

LSATNightmares

Silver
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 10:29 pm

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by LSATNightmares » Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:22 am

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.
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.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Law-So-Hard

Bronze
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:00 pm

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by Law-So-Hard » Thu Jul 24, 2014 1:23 am

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 :|

LSATNightmares

Silver
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 10:29 pm

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by LSATNightmares » Thu Jul 24, 2014 11:32 am

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 :|
Haha, I'm glad I'm not alone! The trauma from this exam.

VermiciousKnid

New
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:18 am

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by VermiciousKnid » Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:36 pm

LAWYER2 wrote:I dream about MBE's every night
Last night I had a dream where I finally figured out the Rule Against Perpetuities.

User avatar
northwood

Platinum
Posts: 5036
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Horror Tales of Bargression

Post by northwood » Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:58 pm

VermiciousKnid wrote:
LAWYER2 wrote:I dream about MBE's every night
Last night I had a dream where I finally figured out the Rule Against Perpetuities.


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!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”