Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[tirakon]

For the MEE, I've seen this prediction floating around:
Civil Procedure
Property
Contracts / UCC Sales
Trusts
Corporations
Family Law
Conflict of Laws
------------------------

Anyone know how accurate such predictions have been in the past? To what extent can I rely on this?

[BigZuck]

Under the common law, are undiscovered/unanticipated trespassers owed a duty of care?

The outline says:

c) Undiscovered trespassers
Land possessors generally owe no duty to undiscovered trespassers, nor do they have a duty to inspect their property for evidence of trespassers.

The VERY SAME OUTLINE, a few paragraphs away, states:

"1) Traditional approach
A landowner is obligated to refrain from willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional misconduct toward trespassers."

Furthermore, some of the themis answers state no duty is owed, and some state a duty is owed. This is driving me nuts.

the outline sucks

the first rule you quoted is about undiscovered trespassers

the second rule is about discovered or known trespassers

The rule for discovered/known trespassers is to warn/remedy about artificial and hidden dangers I thought?

it seemed like you hit four rules in one sentence.

there's the attractive nuisance doctrine - where you have to make unreasonable dangerous artificial conditions on your property safe if you know children will be trespassing.

then no willful/wanton misconduct (traps and shit) for discovered/expected trespassers

then duty to inspect, fix, and protect business guests (invitees)

and a duty to warn about concealed dangers for your friends (licensees)

For attractive nuisance, do you actually have to fix the condition or can you just warn?

Which one is the thing that a reasonable person would do?

[ndp1234]

Under the common law, are undiscovered/unanticipated trespassers owed a duty of care?

The outline says:

c) Undiscovered trespassers
Land possessors generally owe no duty to undiscovered trespassers, nor do they have a duty to inspect their property for evidence of trespassers.

The VERY SAME OUTLINE, a few paragraphs away, states:

"1) Traditional approach
A landowner is obligated to refrain from willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional misconduct toward trespassers."

Furthermore, some of the themis answers state no duty is owed, and some state a duty is owed. This is driving me nuts.

the outline sucks

the first rule you quoted is about undiscovered trespassers

the second rule is about discovered or known trespassers

The rule for discovered/known trespassers is to warn/remedy about artificial and hidden dangers I thought?

it seemed like you hit four rules in one sentence.

there's the attractive nuisance doctrine - where you have to make unreasonable dangerous artificial conditions on your property safe if you know children will be trespassing.

then no willful/wanton misconduct (traps and shit) for discovered/expected trespassers

then duty to inspect, fix, and protect business guests (invitees)

and a duty to warn about concealed dangers for your friends (licensees)

For attractive nuisance, do you actually have to fix the condition or can you just warn?

No, I double checked my Critical Pass cards and Lean Sheets and you're separating it out into an extra category.

Undiscovered TPs: No duty of care, but no willful and wanton behavior (LS says no traps)

Discovered TPs: Duty to warn of concealed unsafe dangers where P has to show 1) artificial condition; 2) highly dangerous; 3) concealed; and 4)prior knowledge

Attractive nuisance: P must show that (i) an artificial condition exists where the LP knows or has reason to know children are likely to trespass; (ii) the LP knows or has reason to know the condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury; (iii) the children, because of their youth, do not discover or cannot appreciate the danger presented by the condition; (iv) the condition’s utility to the LP and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared to the risk to children; and (v) the LP fails to exercise reasonable care to protect children. (Based on Themis Sample answer from Torts Essay #3564).

The rules about licensees and invitees that you stated are correct. This is consistent with the reply that the previous poster said that they received from Themis when they asked about it.

Rahviveh - So for Attractive Nuisances, the duty to warn by itself is not enough if remedial measures are less costly than the risk of danger and/or the landowner didn't act reasonably to protect children (i.e. blocking the area off with a locked gate).

[NaeDeen]

Last day before game time! I want to wish you all the best! Many of you have made me laugh so hard it hurt, others have shown me that I'm not the only one suffering from bouts of doubt, and the rest have asked questions/given explanations that have helped me understand things in a different light. We are all going to be more than ok, WE ARE GOING TO PASS. No matter what is going on around you, keep calm and carry on. Thanks for the insight and a very welcoming forum!!!!! <3

[Virindi]

Under the common law, are undiscovered/unanticipated trespassers owed a duty of care?

The outline says:

c) Undiscovered trespassers
Land possessors generally owe no duty to undiscovered trespassers, nor do they have a duty to inspect their property for evidence of trespassers.

The VERY SAME OUTLINE, a few paragraphs away, states:

"1) Traditional approach
A landowner is obligated to refrain from willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional misconduct toward trespassers."

Furthermore, some of the themis answers state no duty is owed, and some state a duty is owed. This is driving me nuts.

the outline sucks

the first rule you quoted is about undiscovered trespassers

the second rule is about discovered or known trespassers

The rule for discovered/known trespassers is to warn/remedy about artificial and hidden dangers I thought?

it seemed like you hit four rules in one sentence.

there's the attractive nuisance doctrine - where you have to make unreasonable dangerous artificial conditions on your property safe if you know children will be trespassing.

then no willful/wanton misconduct (traps and shit) for discovered/expected trespassers

then duty to inspect, fix, and protect business guests (invitees)

and a duty to warn about concealed dangers for your friends (licensees)

For attractive nuisance, do you actually have to fix the condition or can you just warn?

it depends

1 artifical condition on land
2 unreasonably dangerous
3 know or should know children likely to trespass
4 because of their age they don't know it's dangerous
5 the burden of avoiding the harm (warn or fix) is worth it given the likely harm to result (cost-benefit - this is where you get the "depends")
6 and it wasn't fixed

[Kragoth180]

Under the common law, are undiscovered/unanticipated trespassers owed a duty of care?

The outline says:

c) Undiscovered trespassers
Land possessors generally owe no duty to undiscovered trespassers, nor do they have a duty to inspect their property for evidence of trespassers.

The VERY SAME OUTLINE, a few paragraphs away, states:

"1) Traditional approach
A landowner is obligated to refrain from willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional misconduct toward trespassers."

Furthermore, some of the themis answers state no duty is owed, and some state a duty is owed. This is driving me nuts.

the outline sucks

the first rule you quoted is about undiscovered trespassers

the second rule is about discovered or known trespassers

The rule for discovered/known trespassers is to warn/remedy about artificial and hidden dangers I thought?

it seemed like you hit four rules in one sentence.

there's the attractive nuisance doctrine - where you have to make unreasonable dangerous artificial conditions on your property safe if you know children will be trespassing.

then no willful/wanton misconduct (traps and shit) for discovered/expected trespassers

then duty to inspect, fix, and protect business guests (invitees)

and a duty to warn about concealed dangers for your friends (licensees)

For attractive nuisance, do you actually have to fix the condition or can you just warn?

it depends

1 artifical condition on land
2 unreasonably dangerous
3 know or should know children likely to trespass
4 because of their age they don't know it's dangerous
5 the burden of avoiding the harm (warn or fix) is worth it given the likely harm to result (cost-benefit - this is where you get the "depends")
6 and it wasn't fixed

My understanding with attractive nuisance is that the landowner also has a duty of reasonable care (last element), and in knowing/not-fixing the situation/or not implementing safeguards (i.e. locked fence & signs), that duty is breached.

[not guilty]

UBE takers..

How much are essays worth? 50%

[JoeySkoko]

UBE takers..

How much are essays worth? 50%

50% MBE
30% MEE
20% MPT

[Sheeit]

Any idea whether we're allowed to wear jewelry for NY? I'm not sure whether I should wear my necklace, and I'd rather not take it off if I didn't have to. It's not on the list of permitted shit, and the list of prohibited stuff doesn't mention jewelry.

[barprep1980]

For the MEE, I've seen this prediction floating around:
Civil Procedure
Property
Contracts / UCC Sales
Trusts
Corporations
Family Law
Conflict of Laws
------------------------

Anyone know how accurate such predictions have been in the past? To what extent can I rely on this?

Bump. Would also like to know.

[ndp1234]

For the MEE, I've seen this prediction floating around:
Civil Procedure
Property
Contracts / UCC Sales
Trusts
Corporations
Family Law
Conflict of Laws
------------------------

Anyone know how accurate such predictions have been in the past? To what extent can I rely on this?

Bump. Would also like to know.

There's a former TLS'er who predicted all the topics for February except one (5/6). These were her predictions as well.

[Sheeit]

For the MEE, I've seen this prediction floating around:
Civil Procedure
Property
Contracts / UCC Sales
Trusts
Corporations
Family Law
Conflict of Laws
------------------------

Anyone know how accurate such predictions have been in the past? To what extent can I rely on this?

Bump. Would also like to know.

This is the prediction from efficient bar prep. They got 5 out of 6 in July 2015 and 5 out of 6 in Feb 2016.

http://www.efficientbarprep.com/mee-predictions/

[ChocolateTruffle]

For the MEE, I've seen this prediction floating around:
Civil Procedure
Property
Contracts / UCC Sales
Trusts
Corporations
Family Law
Conflict of Laws
------------------------

Anyone know how accurate such predictions have been in the past? To what extent can I rely on this?

Bump. Would also like to know.

This is the prediction from efficient bar prep. They got 5 out of 6 in July 2015 and 5 out of 6 in Feb 2016.

http://www.efficientbarprep.com/mee-predictions/

I hope they are wrong about property or corporations and we get Criminal instead! Please, God....

[ndp1234]

I hope they are wrong about property or corporations and we get Criminal instead! Please, God....

I think Crim was the wildcard so maybe! Fingers crossed because I'd much rather that than property as well

[Tyler_Durden]

the bar examiners did not include cash or credit card on the list of permitted items. However, it seems pretty obvious that these are necessary for transportation if you're in a metro area like NYC. The rational answer is that they're not prohibited, but they are not on the list of permitted items, and the list says that "all other items are prohibited." Anyone have insights on this?

[ndp1234]

the bar examiners did not include cash or credit card on the list of permitted items. However, it seems pretty obvious that these are necessary for transportation if you're in a metro area like NYC. The rational answer is that they're not prohibited, but they are not on the list of permitted items, and the list says that "all other items are prohibited." Anyone have insights on this?

Someone in another thread said that he/she had those items in the baggie and it wasn't a problem.

[Virindi]

god speed to all of you for the next three days.

<3

[Easy-E]

For the MEE, I've seen this prediction floating around:
Civil Procedure
Property
Contracts / UCC Sales
Trusts
Corporations
Family Law
Conflict of Laws
------------------------

Anyone know how accurate such predictions have been in the past? To what extent can I rely on this?

Bump. Would also like to know.

This is the prediction from efficient bar prep. They got 5 out of 6 in July 2015 and 5 out of 6 in Feb 2016.

http://www.efficientbarprep.com/mee-predictions/

Yeah they have been pretty accurate. I am giving those topics a little extra review today, but I would prefer pretty much any other MBE topic to property.

[ndp1234]

Are you guys excited to finally take your last (and second to last) clear plastic food baggie walk of shame?

[NaeDeen]

There's is no way in hell that exam was legal under any law in any state . I hope the MBE is a bit more forgiving. I really do.

[NaeDeen]

Are you guys excited to finally take your last (and second to last) clear plastic food baggie walk of shame?

[Nebby]

For the MEE, I've seen this prediction floating around:
Civil Procedure
Property
Contracts / UCC Sales
Trusts
Corporations
Family Law
Conflict of Laws
------------------------

Anyone know how accurate such predictions have been in the past? To what extent can I rely on this?

Not accurate

[Vantwins]

There's is no way in hell that exam was legal under any law in any state . I hope the MBE is a bit more forgiving. I really do.

Specifically didn't want corporations or secured transactions - almost funny that that was our first two essays! Meanwhile, those weren't so bad, it was property and con law that kicked my butt! The afternoon was pretty brutal.

[Rahviveh]

Yeah, those predictions sucked but it was for the better anyways.

[NaeDeen]

There's is no way in hell that exam was legal under any law in any state . I hope the MBE is a bit more forgiving. I really do.

Specifically didn't want corporations or secured transactions - almost funny that that was our first two essays! Meanwhile, those weren't so bad, it was property and con law that kicked my butt! The afternoon was pretty brutal.

First. Two. LOL

When I saw the length of the extract I think I passed out a little bit.