BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 (UBE -NY) Forum

[mvp99]

On the nuisance/dog question:

[+] Spoiler

It's explained that "It is not an inconvenience because it disturbs the specialized use of the land." I think it depends on how you frame it. A nuisance affects the use and enjoyment of a person's land. The fact that the guy trained champion dogs is completely irrelevant. The average person has dogs. Although it's a nuisance to the average dog owner, it is not a nuisance this guy because he happens to specialize in breeding champion dogs? Having dogs is not a specialized use of the land and it affects his enjoyment of the land. Had his complaint been that the sounds affect the dogs training, then yea not within the scope of nuisance.

[jj252525]

on today's torts set, I think some of the explanations are wrong at least in one aspect.

[+] Spoiler

construction/powder question, the explanation is using a subjective standard for foreseeable plaintiffs when it should be objective. Why does it matter in a negligence case whether the contractor knew if someone was a foreseeable plaintiff? Knowing of a foreseeable plaintiff is sufficient but the duty also extends to plaintiffs he should've guarded against, and simply concluding "no one will be in the house because the owner is out of town" is seems unreasonable. I think maybe the case really turns on causation (the type of harm the contractor should have guarded against was the type of harm that occurred). Anyway, I'm not satisfied with the explanation so if anyone could explain it better that would be great.

I similarly thought that question was weak

[+] Spoiler

guy leaves highly dangerous powder on ground because he doesn't think anyone will come over until tomorrow? Seems pretty negligent.

+1

[jj252525]

By show of hands, do we all buy that the practice MBE is harder than the actual thing?

[ArtistOfManliness]

By show of hands, do we all buy that the practice MBE is harder than the actual thing?

*hand*... Barbri did maths. I trust maths.

[KRose04]

Checking in. 152/200. All the subjects I did well on were the ones I've traditionally been bombing on, so not sure what that's about.

Anyone else see the NY Bar Examination Security Policy Email from Barbri today? Please tell me I'm misreading it and that you can leave to go the bathroom and still re-enter the exam room. The "After you leave the exam room, you may not re-enter until the next testing session" line is worrying me, though I can't imagine that's applicable to using the bathroom. If there's one thing I learned from the Simulated MBE, it's that I both have time, and need to, take lots of breaks just to clear my head if I'm to survive 200 questions.

They mean once you're done. To go to the bathroom you just have to ask the proctor

Ok cool, that's what I thought, but it just seemed poorly written and unclear.

Lmao, like everything else in the law!

[mvp99]

By show of hands, do we all buy that the practice MBE is harder than the actual thing?

I counted maybe like 10 really easy, 0L-level-of-difficulty questions and apparently the real exam has a few dozen really easy questions.

[KRose04]

By show of hands, do we all buy that the practice MBE is harder than the actual thing?

Definitely. I always do better on questions from actual past exams

[WahooLaw24]

Wish I had realized we couldn't bring in highlighters earlier -- black or blue pens only apparently. Would've practiced that way.

[sublime]

What is the scratch paper situation like?

[LionelHutzJD]

By show of hands, do we all buy that the practice MBE is harder than the actual thing?

Yes. But apparently when we leave the MBE we will feel like it was harder because the questions will be worded differently.

FWIW, I felt this way on the MPRE and ended up with a great score. I believe it is the same writers who write the MPRE and MBE.

Also, just look at other bar exam waiting threads. SO many posts of people posting higher actual MBE scores than their simulated scores.

[LionelHutzJD]

What is the scratch paper situation like?

Wondering as well. Also, it says only foam ear plugs. I actually have NON foam ear plugs. What do, what do...

[KRose04]

By show of hands, do we all buy that the practice MBE is harder than the actual thing?

Yes. But apparently when we leave the MBE we will feel like it was harder because the questions will be worded differently.

FWIW, I felt this way on the MPRE and ended up with a great score. I believe it is the same writers who write the MPRE and MBE.

Also, just look at other bar exam waiting threads. SO many posts of people posting higher actual MBE scores than their simulated scores.

Yea, I felt like shit walking out of the MPRE, but I passed. I'm hoping it'll be the same with the bar. But I do remember the wording of the questions throwing me off

[jj252525]

By show of hands, do we all buy that the practice MBE is harder than the actual thing?

Yes. But apparently when we leave the MBE we will feel like it was harder because the questions will be worded differently.

FWIW, I felt this way on the MPRE and ended up with a great score. I believe it is the same writers who write the MPRE and MBE.

Also, just look at other bar exam waiting threads. SO many posts of people posting higher actual MBE scores than their simulated scores.

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. Pretty much my case as well.

[WahooLaw24]

Are there just extra full and half day practice exams in the back of our MBE book? I don't see them anywhere as part of our PSP.

[Bacon]

A little confused on the explanation of question 16 (the question where the husbands wife was squished by the artwork).

[+] Spoiler

The critical pass card for by stander claims for emotional distress specifically requires that: 1) D knew that the P is closely related to the injured person and 2) the D knew that P was present when the injury occurred. The barbri explanation specifically classifies this as a bystander claim. But the barbri explanation for question 16 doesn't mention this knowledge requirement like the critical pass card does at all. So is this knowledge requirement on the part of the D not actually a thing?? If so, how can the husband recover here without the bank knowing of this?

[mvp99]

A little confused on the explanation of question 16 (the question where the husbands wife was squished by the artwork).

[+] Spoiler

The critical pass card for by stander claims for emotional distress specifically requires that: 1) D knew that the P is closely related to the injured person and 2) the D knew that P was present when the injury occurred. The barbri explanation specifically classifies this as a bystander claim. But the barbri explanation for question 16 doesn't mention this knowledge requirement like the critical pass card does at all. So is this knowledge requirement on the part of the D not actually a thing?? If so, how can the husband recover here without the bank knowing of this?

[+] Spoiler

What are you describing IIED? I think the question here involves NIED.

1. That [name of defendant] negligently caused [injury to/the death of] [name of injury victim];

2. That [name of plaintiff] was present at the scene of the injury when it occurred and was aware that [name of injury victim] was being injured;

3. That [name of plaintiff] suffered serious emotional distress; and

4. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s serious emotional distress.

[Bacon]

A little confused on the explanation of question 16 (the question where the husbands wife was squished by the artwork).

[+] Spoiler

The critical pass card for by stander claims for emotional distress specifically requires that: 1) D knew that the P is closely related to the injured person and 2) the D knew that P was present when the injury occurred. The barbri explanation specifically classifies this as a bystander claim. But the barbri explanation for question 16 doesn't mention this knowledge requirement like the critical pass card does at all. So is this knowledge requirement on the part of the D not actually a thing?? If so, how can the husband recover here without the bank knowing of this?

[+] Spoiler

What are you describing IIED? I think the question here involves NIED.

1. That [name of defendant] negligently caused [injury to/the death of] [name of injury victim];

2. That [name of plaintiff] was present at the scene of the injury when it occurred and was aware that [name of injury victim] was being injured;

3. That [name of plaintiff] suffered serious emotional distress; and

4. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s serious emotional distress.

Yeah, so maybe I'm off, but I thought the possible types of emotional distress claims were: Intentional infliction, bystander, and negligent infliction.

[+] Spoiler

According to what I've been going off of, (on the critical pass cards), it says to have NIED, you need zone of danger, and here, the P isn't in the zone of danger. And then on the bottom of the card, it says that bystanders may be able to recover as well, but it directs you to the bystander claims under IIED, which requires the D to know that the P is watching basically, which we also don't have in these facts. Is there some sort of NIED claim that I'm missing here, or am I going crazy haha.

(Also, if you don't have these cards, then what I'm referring to above will probably make zero sense).

[ArtistOfManliness]

A little confused on the explanation of question 16 (the question where the husbands wife was squished by the artwork).

[+] Spoiler

The critical pass card for by stander claims for emotional distress specifically requires that: 1) D knew that the P is closely related to the injured person and 2) the D knew that P was present when the injury occurred. The barbri explanation specifically classifies this as a bystander claim. But the barbri explanation for question 16 doesn't mention this knowledge requirement like the critical pass card does at all. So is this knowledge requirement on the part of the D not actually a thing?? If so, how can the husband recover here without the bank knowing of this?

[+] Spoiler

What are you describing IIED? I think the question here involves NIED.

1. That [name of defendant] negligently caused [injury to/the death of] [name of injury victim];

2. That [name of plaintiff] was present at the scene of the injury when it occurred and was aware that [name of injury victim] was being injured;

3. That [name of plaintiff] suffered serious emotional distress; and

4. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s serious emotional distress.

Yeah, so maybe I'm off, but I thought the possible types of emotional distress claims were: Intentional infliction, bystander, and negligent infliction.

[+] Spoiler

According to what I've been going off of, (on the critical pass cards), it says to have NIED, you need zone of danger, and here, the P isn't in the zone of danger. And then on the bottom of the card, it says that bystanders may be able to recover as well, but it directs you to the bystander claims under IIED, which requires the D to know that the P is watching basically, which we also don't have in these facts. Is there some sort of NIED claim that I'm missing here, or am I going crazy haha.

(Also, if you don't have these cards, then what I'm referring to above will probably make zero sense).

[+] Spoiler

According to Barbri, CritPass just made that shit up. You need only (1) closely related (2) present and (3) perceived the event. I'm inclined to believe Uncle B.

[mvp99]

A little confused on the explanation of question 16 (the question where the husbands wife was squished by the artwork).

[+] Spoiler

The critical pass card for by stander claims for emotional distress specifically requires that: 1) D knew that the P is closely related to the injured person and 2) the D knew that P was present when the injury occurred. The barbri explanation specifically classifies this as a bystander claim. But the barbri explanation for question 16 doesn't mention this knowledge requirement like the critical pass card does at all. So is this knowledge requirement on the part of the D not actually a thing?? If so, how can the husband recover here without the bank knowing of this?

[+] Spoiler

What are you describing IIED? I think the question here involves NIED.

1. That [name of defendant] negligently caused [injury to/the death of] [name of injury victim];

2. That [name of plaintiff] was present at the scene of the injury when it occurred and was aware that [name of injury victim] was being injured;

3. That [name of plaintiff] suffered serious emotional distress; and

4. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s serious emotional distress.

Yeah, so maybe I'm off, but I thought the possible types of emotional distress claims were: Intentional infliction, bystander, and negligent infliction.

[+] Spoiler

According to what I've been going off of, (on the critical pass cards), it says to have NIED, you need zone of danger, and here, the P isn't in the zone of danger. And then on the bottom of the card, it says that bystanders may be able to recover as well, but it directs you to the bystander claims under IIED, which requires the D to know that the P is watching basically, which we also don't have in these facts. Is there some sort of NIED claim that I'm missing here, or am I going crazy haha.

(Also, if you don't have these cards, then what I'm referring to above will probably make zero sense).

Got my flash cards and I think you're right in that the fact pattern doesn't fit under any bystander situation according to Critical Pass.

[+] Spoiler

So the question is classified under negligence so its NIED. But the husband was not in the zone of danger so that's not it (Flash card 33) and it's also not congruent with flash card 6 bystander actions requirements because D didn't know of elements 2) and 3). So the issue here is that Barbri's black letter law doesn't require that D knew of the relationship between the victim and the plaintiff or that he was aware the plaintiff was present.

[mvp99]

A little confused on the explanation of question 16 (the question where the husbands wife was squished by the artwork).

[+] Spoiler

The critical pass card for by stander claims for emotional distress specifically requires that: 1) D knew that the P is closely related to the injured person and 2) the D knew that P was present when the injury occurred. The barbri explanation specifically classifies this as a bystander claim. But the barbri explanation for question 16 doesn't mention this knowledge requirement like the critical pass card does at all. So is this knowledge requirement on the part of the D not actually a thing?? If so, how can the husband recover here without the bank knowing of this?

[+] Spoiler

What are you describing IIED? I think the question here involves NIED.

1. That [name of defendant] negligently caused [injury to/the death of] [name of injury victim];

2. That [name of plaintiff] was present at the scene of the injury when it occurred and was aware that [name of injury victim] was being injured;

3. That [name of plaintiff] suffered serious emotional distress; and

4. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s serious emotional distress.

Yeah, so maybe I'm off, but I thought the possible types of emotional distress claims were: Intentional infliction, bystander, and negligent infliction.

[+] Spoiler

According to what I've been going off of, (on the critical pass cards), it says to have NIED, you need zone of danger, and here, the P isn't in the zone of danger. And then on the bottom of the card, it says that bystanders may be able to recover as well, but it directs you to the bystander claims under IIED, which requires the D to know that the P is watching basically, which we also don't have in these facts. Is there some sort of NIED claim that I'm missing here, or am I going crazy haha.

(Also, if you don't have these cards, then what I'm referring to above will probably make zero sense).

[+] Spoiler

According to Barbri, CritPass just made that shit up. You need only (1) closely related (2) present and (3) perceived the event. I'm inclined to believe Uncle B.

+1. Although I'll be on the look out for a similar question on Adaptibar.

[Bacon]

A little confused on the explanation of question 16 (the question where the husbands wife was squished by the artwork).

[+] Spoiler

The critical pass card for by stander claims for emotional distress specifically requires that: 1) D knew that the P is closely related to the injured person and 2) the D knew that P was present when the injury occurred. The barbri explanation specifically classifies this as a bystander claim. But the barbri explanation for question 16 doesn't mention this knowledge requirement like the critical pass card does at all. So is this knowledge requirement on the part of the D not actually a thing?? If so, how can the husband recover here without the bank knowing of this?

[+] Spoiler

What are you describing IIED? I think the question here involves NIED.

1. That [name of defendant] negligently caused [injury to/the death of] [name of injury victim];

2. That [name of plaintiff] was present at the scene of the injury when it occurred and was aware that [name of injury victim] was being injured;

3. That [name of plaintiff] suffered serious emotional distress; and

4. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s serious emotional distress.

Yeah, so maybe I'm off, but I thought the possible types of emotional distress claims were: Intentional infliction, bystander, and negligent infliction.

[+] Spoiler

According to what I've been going off of, (on the critical pass cards), it says to have NIED, you need zone of danger, and here, the P isn't in the zone of danger. And then on the bottom of the card, it says that bystanders may be able to recover as well, but it directs you to the bystander claims under IIED, which requires the D to know that the P is watching basically, which we also don't have in these facts. Is there some sort of NIED claim that I'm missing here, or am I going crazy haha.

(Also, if you don't have these cards, then what I'm referring to above will probably make zero sense).

[+] Spoiler

According to Barbri, CritPass just made that shit up. You need only (1) closely related (2) present and (3) perceived the event. I'm inclined to believe Uncle B.

+1. Although I'll be on the look out for a similar question on Adaptibar.

Yeah, I think I'm going to have to give the nod to barbri on this, its just a little troublesome that there is a discrepancy with something like this. I got this question wrong (more importantly I would have gotten it wrong on the bar) because it didn't fit into anything according to the CP flash cards, and I was looking for an element which is apparently unnecessary.

[WahooLaw24]

A little confused on the explanation of question 16 (the question where the husbands wife was squished by the artwork).

[+] Spoiler

The critical pass card for by stander claims for emotional distress specifically requires that: 1) D knew that the P is closely related to the injured person and 2) the D knew that P was present when the injury occurred. The barbri explanation specifically classifies this as a bystander claim. But the barbri explanation for question 16 doesn't mention this knowledge requirement like the critical pass card does at all. So is this knowledge requirement on the part of the D not actually a thing?? If so, how can the husband recover here without the bank knowing of this?

[+] Spoiler

What are you describing IIED? I think the question here involves NIED.

1. That [name of defendant] negligently caused [injury to/the death of] [name of injury victim];

2. That [name of plaintiff] was present at the scene of the injury when it occurred and was aware that [name of injury victim] was being injured;

3. That [name of plaintiff] suffered serious emotional distress; and

4. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s serious emotional distress.

Yeah, so maybe I'm off, but I thought the possible types of emotional distress claims were: Intentional infliction, bystander, and negligent infliction.

[+] Spoiler

According to what I've been going off of, (on the critical pass cards), it says to have NIED, you need zone of danger, and here, the P isn't in the zone of danger. And then on the bottom of the card, it says that bystanders may be able to recover as well, but it directs you to the bystander claims under IIED, which requires the D to know that the P is watching basically, which we also don't have in these facts. Is there some sort of NIED claim that I'm missing here, or am I going crazy haha.

(Also, if you don't have these cards, then what I'm referring to above will probably make zero sense).

[+] Spoiler

According to Barbri, CritPass just made that shit up. You need only (1) closely related (2) present and (3) perceived the event. I'm inclined to believe Uncle B.

+1. Although I'll be on the look out for a similar question on Adaptibar.

Yeah, I think I'm going to have to give the nod to barbri on this, its just a little troublesome that there is a discrepancy with something like this. I got this question wrong (more importantly I would have gotten it wrong on the bar) because it didn't fit into anything according to the CP flash cards, and I was looking for an element which is apparently unnecessary.

I actually thought I remembered something similar from the Torts lecture (the bit about defendant knowing of the relationship as an element)?

[sublime]

I haven't looked at the Spoilers or done the set but, if you are talking about bystander IIED, I think I had an adaptibar question that said that the tortfeasor has to know of the relationship and know the bystander is watching. I thought it was weird bc I never heard of anything like that.

[Bacon]

I haven't looked at the Spoilers or done the set but, if you are talking about bystander IIED, I think I had an adaptibar question that said that the tortfeasor has to know of the relationship and know the bystander is watching. I thought it was weird bc I never heard of anything like that.

Exactly what we're talking about. I don't want to really get too far into it before you do the question in set 5, but basically, I'm confused about whether there is a NIED bystander claim or only IIED bystander claims. CP says its gotta be knowing, barbri disagrees, and it sounds like adaptibar is taking CPs side.

[sublime]

I haven't looked at the Spoilers or done the set but, if you are talking about bystander IIED, I think I had an adaptibar question that said that the tortfeasor has to know of the relationship and know the bystander is watching. I thought it was weird bc I never heard of anything like that.

Exactly what we're talking about. I don't want to really get too far into it before you do the question in set 5, but basically, I'm confused about whether there is a NIED bystander claim or only IIED bystander claims. CP says its gotta be knowing, barbri disagrees, and it sounds like adaptibar is taking CPs side.

I'm not THAT worried about one practice set question, although I appreciate it, but I think it was IIED, not NIED. Let me see if I can find where I read that.