Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[ndp1234]

Also, where did I get the idea that the last clear chance doctrine was no longer relevant? It's not in the handout, but if that's some editorializing by Torts guy, I'm going to be very pissed.

It was in the handout under contributory negligence (page 31). It's only a minority of jurisdictions that still place a complete bar on recovery if the P was even a little negligent. The last clear chance doctrine is sort of a softening of that rule so you don't have negligent defendants off the hook when they could have avoided the accident/injury.

[xdeuceswild81xx]

For those falling behind or thinking they are, just remember, it is a seriously diminished return for many states past 75% completion.

Wouldn't only completing 75% mean you miss some topics?

I will literally be done with all outlines (meaning all topics will be covered in some extent) and I'm at 51%. I'm liable to believe that 75% means you're DEEP into review territory.

Yeah makes sense. Obviously, not true for all jurisdictions, but for me (PA), at 75%, I'm confident I will have been reviewing for some time. Anything after 75% is mastering the concepts, which is obviously necessary, but I'll probably do on my own some w/o Themis

[rambleon65]

Don't take the grader's notes/grades on the graded essays for their word. If you really disagree with something (like, you think the law is applied x, and the grader thinks y), go ahead email. Long story short, I was pretty sure I had applied the law correctly so I emailed Themis and they confirmed it.

I think the problem is that some of the graders are basing the evaluations off of how far a response deviates from the sample answer they're given. Problem is, some of the sample responses are not quite on point (others are quite good).

Which leads me to a slightly unrelated question: I wonder, who are the people that evaluate these answers? JDs? Former attorneys? Also, who grades the essays for the actual bar exam?

[rambleon65]

So, for the first MBE Milestone

[+] Spoiler

Anyone else figured having an electrified river on a mini-golf course qualified as abnormally dangerous?

This explanation doesn't really do it for me: Answer choice C is incorrect because the creek is not abnormally dangerous. Abnormally dangerous activities are those that create a risk of foreseeable harm even when reasonable care is exercised. Here, the creek, even with a live wire that could have been discovered with reasonable care, does not meet that definition.

So there is a fence, which an adult can open. I don't really understand how maintaining an electrified river doesn't meet the definition. I guess I just need to get my definition in line with the examiners'.

I understood that question as: the creek itself is not abnormally dangerous because it was not supposed to be an electrified creek. There just happened to be a live wire. So it was not strict liability. The golf-course met their burden by having a gate up. Lady exceed the scope of her consent to enter the property.

I see what you're saying, and I think I accidentally thought that they knew about the condition. Leaving strict liability aside, I understand why that's the answer.

It would cool if Themis had a message board function. My LSAT prep course had that, and I found it very helpful.

Also, where did I get the idea that the last clear chance doctrine was no longer relevant? It's not in the handout, but if that's some editorializing by Torts guy, I'm going to be very pissed.

[+] Spoiler

I also thought attractive nuisance doctrine only applied to artificial objects that attract kids, not some creek. Classic examples were things like abandoned cars, etc. Maybe a jurisdictional variation, but I don't think the attractive nuisance doctrine works that well. Also, wouldn't a electric fence be akin to spring-gun or trap? (An abstention of which is required against trespassers)

[Rahviveh]

When do options need to be supported by consideration?

Edit: I don't really understand the diff between an open offer and an option

[Nebby]

When do options need to be supported by consideration?

Edit: I don't really understand the diff between an open offer and an option

An option supported by consideration creates a irrevocable offer (compared to open offer)

[Chardee_MacDennis]

When do options need to be supported by consideration?

Edit: I don't really understand the diff between an open offer and an option

An option is an independent promise supported by consideration to keep the underlying offer irrevocable for the term. Otherwise, it's an open offer than can be revoked by the offeror before acceptance.

[unidentifiable]

Property MBE PQs Session 4 was ridiculous.

So much rage. These questions are insane. Minimal competency my ass. Still got the goal, but not by much. Looks like I'll have to read these big ass outlines.

[bsktbll28082]

[+] Spoiler

I also thought attractive nuisance doctrine only applied to artificial objects that attract kids, not some creek. Classic examples were things like abandoned cars, etc. Maybe a jurisdictional variation, but I don't think the attractive nuisance doctrine works that well. Also, wouldn't a electric fence be akin to spring-gun or trap? (An abstention of which is required against trespassers)

I don't think the creek qualified as an attractive nuisance. It's just a creek on a golf course. I also understood it as, the creek was not suppose to be electrified. Plus, even if it was classified as an attractive nuisance, the fact there was a gate around it might satisfy the landowner's obligation of protecting it from children (remember one of the PQs where a dad unlocked a child-proof gate at a trampoline park? Gate was evidence of fulfilling their obligation to child trespassers). If it was some type of electrified moat around the golf course to keep people out, then it would be akin to a spring-gun and illegal.

[Easy-E]

So, for the first MBE Milestone

[+] Spoiler

Anyone else figured having an electrified river on a mini-golf course qualified as abnormally dangerous?

This explanation doesn't really do it for me: Answer choice C is incorrect because the creek is not abnormally dangerous. Abnormally dangerous activities are those that create a risk of foreseeable harm even when reasonable care is exercised. Here, the creek, even with a live wire that could have been discovered with reasonable care, does not meet that definition.

So there is a fence, which an adult can open. I don't really understand how maintaining an electrified river doesn't meet the definition. I guess I just need to get my definition in line with the examiners'.

I understood that question as: the creek itself is not abnormally dangerous because it was not supposed to be an electrified creek. There just happened to be a live wire. So it was not strict liability. The golf-course met their burden by having a gate up. Lady exceed the scope of her consent to enter the property.

I see what you're saying, and I think I accidentally thought that they knew about the condition. Leaving strict liability aside, I understand why that's the answer.

It would cool if Themis had a message board function. My LSAT prep course had that, and I found it very helpful.

Also, where did I get the idea that the last clear chance doctrine was no longer relevant? It's not in the handout, but if that's some editorializing by Torts guy, I'm going to be very pissed.

[+] Spoiler

I also thought attractive nuisance doctrine only applied to artificial objects that attract kids, not some creek. Classic examples were things like abandoned cars, etc. Maybe a jurisdictional variation, but I don't think the attractive nuisance doctrine works that well. Also, wouldn't a electric fence be akin to spring-gun or trap? (An abstention of which is required against trespassers)

It would be, but the facts are an electric river, not an electric fence. Plus it's electrification was due to an accident.

For these facts, I figured attractive nuisance was out because the owner took reasonable care, at least with regard to children (though I think all the other elements are met). That's why my mind went to strict liability.

Edit: Bsktbll basically covered it.

[Easy-E]

When do options need to be supported by consideration?

Edit: I don't really understand the diff between an open offer and an option

My understanding

Open offer = Really just an offer. Can revoke at any time, even if you set a time limit. However, offer terminates automatically after the time period.

Option = I think of it as a mini-contract to leave the big offer open. Must be consideration. I will give you $5.00 in exchange for leaving the offer open for 30 days. Now we have a contract. Even if the party accepting the $5.00 dies the next day, the option contract stands, and the "big" offer can be accepted. Hope that doesn't make things worse.

[Easy-E]

Also, where did I get the idea that the last clear chance doctrine was no longer relevant? It's not in the handout, but if that's some editorializing by Torts guy, I'm going to be very pissed.

It was in the handout under contributory negligence (page 31). It's only a minority of jurisdictions that still place a complete bar on recovery if the P was even a little negligent. The last clear chance doctrine is sort of a softening of that rule so you don't have negligent defendants off the hook when they could have avoided the accident/injury.

Yeah, I just mixed something up in my notes, and I thought "last clear chance" was basically mostly disused, but that was referring to contributory negligence in general. My fault, not the Sherminator.

[bsktbll28082]

CrimPro lady's videos are waaayy too long. 28min?

[ndp1234]

Oh dear. The last graded essay made me realize how little I know about mortgages and remedies

[Fivedham]

So, for the first MBE Milestone

[+] Spoiler

Anyone else figured having an electrified river on a mini-golf course qualified as abnormally dangerous?

This explanation doesn't really do it for me: Answer choice C is incorrect because the creek is not abnormally dangerous. Abnormally dangerous activities are those that create a risk of foreseeable harm even when reasonable care is exercised. Here, the creek, even with a live wire that could have been discovered with reasonable care, does not meet that definition.

So there is a fence, which an adult can open. I don't really understand how maintaining an electrified river doesn't meet the definition. I guess I just need to get my definition in line with the examiners'.

I understood that question as: the creek itself is not abnormally dangerous because it was not supposed to be an electrified creek. There just happened to be a live wire. So it was not strict liability. The golf-course met their burden by having a gate up. Lady exceeded the scope of their consent to enter the property.

I got it right, but it was because I analogized it to the question about

[+] Spoiler

the ball pit/child playland question we had done earlier - the one involving a kid whose dad opens a door with warnings, and there's a dangerous machine behind it. It's essentially the same exact question and facts with different window dressing. Anytime you see a business invitee exceed the scope of their invitation, treat them like trespassers and see what kind of hazard they run into.

[Easy-E]

So, for the first MBE Milestone

[+] Spoiler

Anyone else figured having an electrified river on a mini-golf course qualified as abnormally dangerous?

This explanation doesn't really do it for me: Answer choice C is incorrect because the creek is not abnormally dangerous. Abnormally dangerous activities are those that create a risk of foreseeable harm even when reasonable care is exercised. Here, the creek, even with a live wire that could have been discovered with reasonable care, does not meet that definition.

So there is a fence, which an adult can open. I don't really understand how maintaining an electrified river doesn't meet the definition. I guess I just need to get my definition in line with the examiners'.

I understood that question as: the creek itself is not abnormally dangerous because it was not supposed to be an electrified creek. There just happened to be a live wire. So it was not strict liability. The golf-course met their burden by having a gate up. Lady exceeded the scope of their consent to enter the property.

I got it right, but it was because I analogized it to the question about

[+] Spoiler

the ball pit/child playland question we had done earlier - the one involving a kid whose dad opens a door with warnings, and there's a dangerous machine behind it. It's essentially the same exact question and facts with different window dressing. Anytime you see a business invitee exceed the scope of their invitation, treat them like trespassers and see what kind of hazard they run into.

[+] Spoiler

Yeah it definitely reminded me of that one, which I got right. I don't know, I saw the "abnormally dangerous" choice, thought of the test, and the electrified river just seemed to qualify in my mind. But yeah, I think the question stated "traditional rule" which should have clued me into trespasser.

[ChocolateTruffle]

CrimPro lady's videos are waaayy too long. 28min?

She talks very slowly. Just speed it up to 2x with captions and it'll be fine.

[ronrust88]

Hi all, is anyone located in the Washington, DC area and interested or already involved in group study? I currently live here, please let me know if anyone is interested. Thank you.

[bsktbll28082]

CrimPro lady's videos are waaayy too long. 28min?

She talks very slowly. Just speed it up to 2x with captions and it'll be fine.

I've been watching every video at 2x. Actually considering that chrome extension which was mentioned a few pages back to make the videos even faster. I can't see how anyone would watch the videos at normal speed.

[Nebby]

Hi all, is anyone located in the Washington, DC area and interested or already involved in group study? I currently live here, please conract me at if anyone is interested. Thank you.

You should probably delete your email address and instead just have people private message you on here, and then you can give them your email.

[Nebby]

Starting Sec Trans today. I just want a day where I don't have to watch lectures. It's the fifth day in a row of watching lectures

[Fivedham]

Starting Sec Trans today. I just want a day where I don't have to watch lectures. It's the fifth day in a row of watching lectures

Looking at the recommended schedule, it looks like we get a lot of that starting in a week or two (depending on what state you're in).

[Easy-E]

I don't think it was bothering anyone but me, but here's the response I got from Themis regarding Cardozo/Andrews.

I wouldn't spend a lot of time on this. The key for exam purposes is to understand that the majority rule is what they might test on the MBE. If you have to address it on an essay, it really is more about the issue of proximate cause. I've been doing this for a long time and they never ask you to identify the Cardozo vs. Andrews standards. Rather you might get an issue of whether there is proximate cause. Does that make sense? Look at the outline on page 31 and it kind of walks you through what you need to know. Focus on the majority rule, though.

[rambleon65]

[+] Spoiler

I also thought attractive nuisance doctrine only applied to artificial objects that attract kids, not some creek. Classic examples were things like abandoned cars, etc. Maybe a jurisdictional variation, but I don't think the attractive nuisance doctrine works that well. Also, wouldn't a electric fence be akin to spring-gun or trap? (An abstention of which is required against trespassers)

I don't think the creek qualified as an attractive nuisance. It's just a creek on a golf course. I also understood it as, the creek was not suppose to be electrified. Plus, even if it was classified as an attractive nuisance, the fact there was a gate around it might satisfy the landowner's obligation of protecting it from children (remember one of the PQs where a dad unlocked a child-proof gate at a trampoline park? Gate was evidence of fulfilling their obligation to child trespassers). If it was some type of electrified moat around the golf course to keep people out, then it would be akin to a spring-gun and illegal.

Unless we're talking about a different question, it did qualify as an attractive nuisance. The answer was that the owner of land was not liable because even though it was considered an attractive nuisance, he took reasonable steps to protect children.

My argument was that i don't think the attractive nuisance doctrine should apply here because usually natural objects (creeks, rivers, etc) do not qualify as attractive nuisance.

*Edit* I was correct in what their answer was. See explanation below:

[+] Spoiler

"...The duty of reasonable care owed to an invitee does not generally extend to trespassers, but because the creek would qualify as an attractive nuisance, the center did have to exercise reasonable care in protecting children from the danger. It did so by including the childproof locked fence and warnings."

[ndp1234]

Question about Property MBE Q's Set 3 about the husband and wife owning the cabin w/ the mistress added in there:

[+] Spoiler

A husband was having an extramarital affair and was contemplating leaving his wife for his mistress. The husband and wife owned a beach house as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. The husband’s mistress loved the beach house and did not want the wife to have any rights to it. The husband and mistress came up with a plan to sell the beach house to try to eliminate the wife’s interest in the house. Without informing his wife, the husband sold his interest in the beach house to his mistress. One week later, the mistress sold the house back to the husband. One month later, the husband unexpectedly died of a heart attack. In his will, he devised the entirety of his estate to his cousin. The wife and the mistress have challenged the disposition in the will. What interest do the parties involved have in the beach house?

The answer was the the cousin and the wife each own a one-half interest in the beach house as tenants in common. Why was the severance effected in the first place? Doesn't a tenancy in the entirety require consent by the other party to alienate? The big outline says "tenancy by the entirety is a joint tenancy between married persons..." Were we just supposed to know that it wasn't a tenancy by the entirety instead of a regular joint tenancy.

Uggh so annoying that they put that red herring in the question and didn't even explain why it's not correct