Adaptibar Forum

[Amy wineBerry]

I used this code I found on RetailMeNot for $60 off. RMNTF

[Calicakes]

I do not get this question. I don't agree with the answer. I dont think this would be the answer in "real life".

QUESTION:

The day after a seller completed the sale of his house and moved out, one of the slates flew off the roof during a windstorm. The slate struck a pedestrian who was on the public sidewalk. The pedestrian was seriously injured.

The roof is old and has lost several slates in ordinary windstorms on other occasions when the seller was present. The pedestrian was also aware that past windstorms had blown slates off the roof.

If the pedestrian sues the seller to recover damages for his injuries, will the pedestrian prevail?
A. Yes, because the roof was defective when the seller sold the house.
B. Yes, because the seller should have been aware of the condition of the roof and should have realized that it was dangerous to persons outside the premises.
C. No, because the seller was neither the owner nor the occupier of the house when the pedestrian was injured.
D. No, because the pedestrian knew that in the past slates had blown off the roof during windstorms.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.B is correct. The seller had a duty of reasonable care for the safety of those outside the land to prevent harm resulting from conditions on the land. The facts indicate that ordinary windstorms had previously caused tile loss. Despite the fact that the seller just sold the home, he was or should have been aware of the dangerous condition of the roof and the foreseeability of harm to persons outside the premises from windswept falling tiles. Instead, he left the dangerous conditions without taking precautionary measures to protect against dislodged tiles. It is irrelevant that the seller was no longer the owner or occupier of the house; the seller's negligent conduct was a breach of his duty of care and proximately caused the pedestrian's injuries, thus choice C is incorrect.

How long would the seller be liable? Wouldn't the home inspector be liable instead? What does the pedestrian knowing about the tiles have anything to do with this?

[3|ink]

Bro. Copyright.

[3|ink]

I'd answer your question but I haven't gotten to torts yet.

[3|ink]

Question about adaptibar product. Does it give you questions from one subject at a time? Or multiple? Or can you choose?

[Kage3212]

Question about adaptibar product. Does it give you questions from one subject at a time? Or multiple? Or can you choose?

You choose. They suggest you do 50 questions for each subject at first (by choosing only one subject within the tech.). But you can pick any subject or group of subjects that you wish to be tested on.

[LawIsPrettyCool]

Question about adaptibar product. Does it give you questions from one subject at a time? Or multiple? Or can you choose?

I mix them up, since that's how it will come up on the exam. The civpro questions are a B&*#$.

If you or anyone else needs a discounted membership to AdaptiBar send me a pm, I have some coupon codes.

[RaiRai]

Is it just my internet or is Adaptibar laggy tonight?

[Amy wineBerry]

I do not get this question. I don't agree with the answer. I dont think this would be the answer in "real life".

[deleted; refer to original post]

How long would the seller be liable? Wouldn't the home inspector be liable instead? What does the pedestrian knowing about the tiles have anything to do with this?

Just an attempt to answer the questions you posed...

No clue how long the seller would be liable; I imagine that hinges on a question of how long would seem reasonable. Since this question nor answers mention a home inspector, you should not be thinking of any liability that a home inspector may have. (In my mind, I ask whether, "Wouldn't the new homeowner be liable instead?," which would lead me to not pick B.) The pedestrian's knowledge about the tiles is thrown in there in an effort to get you to pick D, as you're suppose to think the pedestrian assumed the risk in walking by the house and should be denied recovery. Answer A points to products liability, so that cannot work here.

I'm with you, though. I would have chosen C. Does it matter that the seller had only just completed the sale and there had not yet been closing? Does it matter that the buyer may not have had time to either be aware of or prevent any harm to those off the property? I just don't know...

[MaroPolo]

I do not get this question. I don't agree with the answer. I dont think this would be the answer in "real life".

QUESTION:

The day after a seller completed the sale of his house and moved out, one of the slates flew off the roof during a windstorm. The slate struck a pedestrian who was on the public sidewalk. The pedestrian was seriously injured.

The roof is old and has lost several slates in ordinary windstorms on other occasions when the seller was present. The pedestrian was also aware that past windstorms had blown slates off the roof.

If the pedestrian sues the seller to recover damages for his injuries, will the pedestrian prevail?
A. Yes, because the roof was defective when the seller sold the house.
B. Yes, because the seller should have been aware of the condition of the roof and should have realized that it was dangerous to persons outside the premises.
C. No, because the seller was neither the owner nor the occupier of the house when the pedestrian was injured.
D. No, because the pedestrian knew that in the past slates had blown off the roof during windstorms.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.B is correct. The seller had a duty of reasonable care for the safety of those outside the land to prevent harm resulting from conditions on the land. The facts indicate that ordinary windstorms had previously caused tile loss. Despite the fact that the seller just sold the home, he was or should have been aware of the dangerous condition of the roof and the foreseeability of harm to persons outside the premises from windswept falling tiles. Instead, he left the dangerous conditions without taking precautionary measures to protect against dislodged tiles. It is irrelevant that the seller was no longer the owner or occupier of the house; the seller's negligent conduct was a breach of his duty of care and proximately caused the pedestrian's injuries, thus choice C is incorrect.

How long would the seller be liable? Wouldn't the home inspector be liable instead? What does the pedestrian knowing about the tiles have anything to do with this?

AGREED! I got this Q wrong and immediately thought -- WTF!? I don't see a rule that would allow someone who has sold their property to still be liable for tort. It would be interesting to see a good explanation because I haven't a clue as to why B and not C is correct.

[waxecstatic]

I've seen more than a few questions from Adaptibar that don't make sense. Sometimes it's the explanation that doesn't make sense in that it will explicitly disregard a relevant fact or will mischaracterize what an answer choice says. It only makes me more confused.

[lacrossebrother]

Bro. Copyright.

it's a single question and i don't even know whose copyright is being infringed here. it's an official ncbe question. and the explanation is being copied for clarification purposes.

anyways this question appears on the more prestigious law message board.
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?threa ... forum_id=2
B is absolutely correct.
and this guy does the correct job explaining

You're always liable for unreasonable conduct that results in reasonably foreseeable harm. The land here is a red herring. There are a whole mess of fiddly little rules about landowner liability to different classes of people; but this guy isn't a landowner, just a dude who didn't fix a shitty roof when he should have.

put another way, if you own a house and you know that the roof flies off all the time and can hurt someone, you have a duty to fix that. should transferring the title of the property to someone else but doing nothing else to ensure that the roof doesnt hit anyone really be enough to satisfy your care obligations?

[shn823]

Hey, if anybody is interested in Adaptibar, I have a $50 off code. Code: KTJY

[RaiRai]

QUESTION# 1099 / Torts - "A and C were both given credit by the Examiners." - didn't know that was a possibility. oh well.

[Calicakes]

Bro. Copyright.

it's a single question and i don't even know whose copyright is being infringed here. it's an official ncbe question. and the explanation is being copied for clarification purposes.

anyways this question appears on the more prestigious law message board.
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?threa ... forum_id=2
B is absolutely correct.
and this guy does the correct job explaining

You're always liable for unreasonable conduct that results in reasonably foreseeable harm. The land here is a red herring. There are a whole mess of fiddly little rules about landowner liability to different classes of people; but this guy isn't a landowner, just a dude who didn't fix a shitty roof when he should have.

put another way, if you own a house and you know that the roof flies off all the time and can hurt someone, you have a duty to fix that. should transferring the title of the property to someone else but doing nothing else to ensure that the roof doesnt hit anyone really be enough to satisfy your care obligations?

I'm sorry, but that explanation is just plain stupid. If this was "real life" and not the bar exam, you'd sue the pants off the home inspector for not informing you before you purchased the property. This is my real life question. I just sold a car to someone, I told them that it will need the timing belt replaced soon( who knows when, the car had 85k miles and I never replaced the timing belt). I am responsible to them because I know the car will need a timing belt? What if the timing belt went the day after we signed the contract?

[Calicakes]

Here is another one that I DO NOT GET. Con Law is killing me.

A state statute requires each insurance company that offers burglary insurance policies in the state to charge a uniform rate for such insurance to all of its customers residing within the same county in that state. So long as it complies with this requirement, a company is free to charge whatever rate the market will bear for its burglary insurance policies.

An insurance company located in the state files suit in federal district court against appropriate state officials to challenge this statute on constitutional grounds. The insurance company wishes to charge customers residing within the same county in the state rates for burglary insurance policies that will vary because they would be based on the specific nature of the customer's business, on its precise location, and on its past claims.

In this suit, the court should
A. hold the statute unconstitutional, because the statute deprives the insurance company of its liberty or property without due process of law.
B. hold the statute unconstitutional, because the statute imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce.
C. hold the statute constitutional, because the statute is a reasonable exercise of the state's police power.
D. abstain from ruling on the merits of this case until the state courts have had an opportunity to pass on the constitutionality of this state statute.
.
.
.
.
.
Answer is C.

How does this fall under the state's police power?

[Nelson]

Here is another one that I DO NOT GET. Con Law is killing me.

A state statute requires each insurance company that offers burglary insurance policies in the state to charge a uniform rate for such insurance to all of its customers residing within the same county in that state. So long as it complies with this requirement, a company is free to charge whatever rate the market will bear for its burglary insurance policies.

An insurance company located in the state files suit in federal district court against appropriate state officials to challenge this statute on constitutional grounds. The insurance company wishes to charge customers residing within the same county in the state rates for burglary insurance policies that will vary because they would be based on the specific nature of the customer's business, on its precise location, and on its past claims.

In this suit, the court should
A. hold the statute unconstitutional, because the statute deprives the insurance company of its liberty or property without due process of law.
B. hold the statute unconstitutional, because the statute imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce.
C. hold the statute constitutional, because the statute is a reasonable exercise of the state's police power.
D. abstain from ruling on the merits of this case until the state courts have had an opportunity to pass on the constitutionality of this state statute.
.
.
.
.
.
Answer is C.

How does this fall under the state's police power?

States have power to regulate insurance. The police power is not limited to the police. It's plenary power to legislate to promote health and welfare.

You can also get this one because you can eliminate the other three. A: There is no property or liberty interest being deprived to trigger procedural due process. B: the statute does not discriminate against out of state corps or otherwise burden interstate commerce. D: if there was a federal constitutional violation the federal court could not abstain, regardless of a state constitutional violation.

[anon sequitur]

Just bought adaptibar, the coupon code someone listed above wasn't working for me, but a $60 off coupon was available just by googling "adaptibar coupon code".

Anyway, it looks pretty slick, I really like having the percentages for each answer chosen for the questions, lets me know how difficult the questions are. Do you all find that the explanations are generally pretty good? Looks good so far, but I've heard complaints (aside from Civ Pro, which it seems everyone's unhappy with).

[old_soul]

Am I the only one who has this issue? I feel like I suck at adaptibar because I can't pay attention to read the question on screen, so I have to "read" it several times.

It's weird because I don't have attention issues when I'm solving qs on paper.

[RaiRai]

Seems i read slower on the screen than on paper as well. Been consistently going over on my minutes.

[gaagoots]

What I like about Adaptibar on the iPad is how it allows the user to click the text of the wrong answers so by process of elimination the 'darker text' sticks out and allows you to focus on those last two.

I also like the timer feature, next feature should be the jeopardy music

[RaiRai]

How many Q's have you guys done so far and what %? All user stats is 284 at 60.4%

[anon sequitur]

What I like about Adaptibar on the iPad is how it allows the user to click the text of the wrong answers so by process of elimination the 'darker text' sticks out and allows you to focus on those last two.

Yeah, that is cool, I tried it out on the desktop and it works there too.

[gaagoots]

How many Q's have you guys done so far and what %? All user stats is 284 at 60.4%

Civil Procedure (73 of 144) 50%
Constitutional Law (213 of 272) 78%
Contracts (66 of 106) 62%
Criminal Law (183 of 218) 83%
Evidence (89 of 119) 74%
Real Property (96 of 141) 68%
Torts (124 of 150) 82%

Total (1150) 73.4%


I have to really step up my game for real property,and contracts. Its hit and miss for civ pro, they are fake questions, the real ones have short one answer (one word/sentence) not 3-4 sentences of the same thing with one or two distractors.

[teeshtee]

Seems i read slower on the screen than on paper as well. Been consistently going over on my minutes.

I'm taking Themis (nearly every question is online), so this aspect of Adaptibar has not impacted my timing, but I do remember reading a study which found that the average individual reads 25% slower on a computer than on paper. Hope that helps.