how detailed should your explanations get? Forum

[unclej]

I was looking at sample baby bar essay answers online and I noticed some passing essays are so brief.

Example:
battery is the intentional harmful or offensive touching of another. Here, John punched Kevin. Therefore, John is liable for battery.

my torts teacher would require something like this:
battery is the intentional harmful or offensive touching of another. Harmful means the act is injurious. Offensive means the general society would find the touching offensive. Skin to skin contact is not required. Even contact with an object held by the plainitiff could be harmful or offensive. The act must be volitional. If defendant was sleepwalking, then his act would not be volitional and he would not be liable for battery. Here, John punched Kevin. Therefore, John is liable for battery.

since there is a time limit, I dont want to include things that won't get me points. How do I know how much detail to include?

[law-school-hacker]

Is this an actual example?

I think the second one is too long, describing a lot of the law without doing a real "linking law to fact" analysis. "Skin to skin contact is not required" does not seem useful here as a punch is clearly the "offensive touching." And mentioning an object "
held by the plaintiff" -- that bit of law is irrelevant here, as we are told straight up that John punched Kevin (and not that he, say, kicked Kevin's cane).

The first example, however, is just a touch too brief -- it does not on its face even touch on all of the elements of battery. "John punched Kevin" just reaches "harmful or offensive touching of another." You might add a quick line that there the punch appears not to be an accident or done sleepwalking, and was non-consensual (an element in some places, a defense in others). That would at least cover intent.

[banjo]

The first example, however, is just a touch too brief -- it does not on its face even touch on all of the elements of battery. "John punched Kevin" just reaches "harmful or offensive touching of another." You might add a quick line that there the punch appears not to be an accident or done sleepwalking, and was non-consensual (an element in some places, a defense in others). That would at least cover intent.

+1. Both examples in the OP seem like bad exam writing to me. What the quoted poster is doing -- exploring and rejecting other possibilities -- is what profs want you to do.

e: oops realized this was bar exam stuff. I'll go away now.

[BarZombie]

.