Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread Forum

[LionelHutzJD]

Does someone have examples of a superseding cause that would cut off liability from a tortfeasor except criminal acts?

I was going to type something, but when I checked to make sure I was right I saw that Wikipedia actually has a couple good examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervening_cause

And I may be misremembering from Torts, but hospital negligence is foreseeable, so while it's intervening and introduces other possible defendants (usually with deep pockets), some other things may not be.

Example 1:
Defendant negligently crashes into Plaintiff's car, injuring plaintiff leg. Ambulance takes plaintiff to the hospital. Doctor orders 10 cc of drug; nurse administers 100 cc. Plaintiff is left in permanent vegetative state. Defendant can be on the hook for the damages caused at the hospital because, even though the hospital was negligent, hospital negligence is foreseeable. (Of course, hospital gets added as a defendant here as well).

Example 2:
Defendant negligently crashes into Plaintiff's car, injuring plaintiff leg. Ambulance takes plaintiff to the hospital. On the way to the hospital, a giant sinkhole opens in the road in front of the ambulance. Ambulance falls in and Plaintiff is left in permanent vegetative state. I'm pretty sure that would qualify as superseding.

I'm not so sure as to your second example. A sinkhole could be foreseeable. Think of a plane falling from the sky and hitting the ambulance or lightning striking the ambulance

[mu13ski]

I think I'm confusing myself on the different jury size and ruling requirements. In what setting does a jury have to be made up of 12? And when do they have to be unanimous?

Federal criminal trials need to be unanimous and have a 12 person jury.

States can do less in criminal trials.

What about civil cases?

[Nebby]

I think I'm confusing myself on the different jury size and ruling requirements. In what setting does a jury have to be made up of 12? And when do they have to be unanimous?

Federal criminal trials need to be unanimous and have a 12 person jury.

States can do less in criminal trials.

What about civil cases?

Civil is unanimous unless otherwise ordered or set by statute.

[mvp99]

I think I'm confusing myself on the different jury size and ruling requirements. In what setting does a jury have to be made up of 12? And when do they have to be unanimous?

Federal criminal trials need to be unanimous and have a 12 person jury.

States can do less in criminal trials.

What about civil cases?

Civil is unanimous unless otherwise ordered or set by statute.

I think it goes like this:

Fed - Criminal = 12 unanimous, Civil = 12 unanimous unless parties agree otherwise as to unanimity or number

State - Criminal = 6 minimum, if 6 must be unanimous, Civil = N/A

[haexam]

Can anyone clarify whether adverse possessors take free of existing easements on the land?

I understand the general rule is that title established through adverse possession is free from encumbrance but does that also include easements, which were granted in writing by the original owner and properly recorded.

I'm a little confused because I've read contradicting information

[criminaltheory]

Can anyone clarify whether adverse possessors take free of existing easements on the land?

I understand the general rule is that title established through adverse possession is free from encumbrance but does that also include easements, which were granted in writing by the original owner and properly recorded.

I'm a little confused because I've read contradicting information

I'd say no, easements are terminated only by the normal methods. So, if adverse possession of the land also adversely held the easement, then it would terminate the easement by prescription. Likewise, adverse possession preserves any covenants unless adverse possession claimed title while violating that covenant. I can't imagine adverse possession would terminate an easement by necessity just because title changed hands.

[mvp99]

for purposes of the Erie doctrine, how can I determine what rules are procedural? If its on the FRCP does it mean it's procedural no matter what? is there a list out there?

[ellewoods123]

for purposes of the Erie doctrine, how can I determine what rules are procedural? If its on the FRCP does it mean it's procedural no matter what? is there a list out there?

my understanding is that for purposes of the MBE its procedural unless its (1) SOL (2) elements of a claims or defenses or (3) choice of law rules which I'm sure you know, but in all of the questions I've done in both Barbri and Adaptibar I haven't encountered a question that tested anything beyond that so I think we should be okay.

[mvp99]

for purposes of the Erie doctrine, how can I determine what rules are procedural? If its on the FRCP does it mean it's procedural no matter what? is there a list out there?

my understanding is that for purposes of the MBE its procedural unless its (1) SOL (2) elements of a claims or defenses or (3) choice of law rules which I'm sure you know, but in all of the questions I've done in both Barbri and Adaptibar I haven't encountered a question that tested anything beyond that so I think we should be okay.

So are you saying that if it's on the FRCP it's procedural and federal rules apply?

[ballouttacontrol]

for purposes of the Erie doctrine, how can I determine what rules are procedural? If its on the FRCP does it mean it's procedural no matter what? is there a list out there?

my understanding is that for purposes of the MBE its procedural unless its (1) SOL (2) elements of a claims or defenses or (3) choice of law rules which I'm sure you know, but in all of the questions I've done in both Barbri and Adaptibar I haven't encountered a question that tested anything beyond that so I think we should be okay.

So are you saying that if it's on the FRCP it's procedural and federal rules apply?

Frcp are necessarily procedural bc of the rules enabling act which allows them to be promulgated

[ellewoods123]

Last minute brain blank - for an easement to run with a servient tenement, the subsequent purchaser would need notice of the easement right?

[criminaltheory]

Last minute brain blank - for an easement to run with a servient tenement, the subsequent purchaser would need notice of the easement right?

WITH*N* - yep. Can be constructive, actual or implied.

[ballouttacontrol]

Last minute brain blank - for an easement to run with a servient tenement, the subsequent purchaser would need notice of the easement right?

WITH*N* - yep. Can be constructive, actual or implied.

this is wrong. you are thinking of real covenants. An easement appurtenant is always transferred with the land. The ONLY case where an easement does not transfer is if the buyer of the servient tenement is a BFP without notice.

[JoeySkoko]

Last minute brain blank - for an easement to run with a servient tenement, the subsequent purchaser would need notice of the easement right?

WITH*N* - yep. Can be constructive, actual or implied.

this is wrong. you are thinking of real covenants. An easement appurtenant is always transferred with the land. The ONLY case where an easement does not transfer is if the buyer of the servient tenement is a BFP without notice.

yes WITN and WITV are for the covenants (either benefit or burden) to run with the land.