. Forum

[landshoes]

In my half of the class, the profs specifically ban outline dumping and copy/pasting (and in one case they say if you're outline dumping you're probably fucking up the test by being too general). I couldn't really see it being useful, but having never taken an exam before I could be wrong.

[Minnietron]

BIGCOOKIELAW I so want this to be real

I would literally (read in Chris Traeger's voice) study for fourteen hours a day, seven days a week if this were a career option.

We have to catch 'em all in three hours!

Are pokemon chattels or are battles not covered by tort law?

I'm going with they fall under Ks.

[unsweetened]

most of the crim outlines that I got from 2L/3L folks are 100+ pages and it's pretty intimidating, considering that I haven't started yet.

lol my class notes won't even be 70 pages

Yeah, my favorite crim. outline is <30 pages.

Civ Pro Prof. limits outlines to a maximum of 5 pages, double-sided. It's fucking glorious. My outline for that class is basically done with the except of a bunch of joiner rules that we're covering next week. I've hung out with him a few times at various school functions, so now I get cold called every week.

Most of my typed class notes are probably going to end up being about 90-100 pages, but that's mainly because I didn't know what the hell I was doing for the first month of school.

[Hand]

No longer premature. Xylo, it's time for a new thread title. Show us what you're made of.

It may be a little premature since we just got a new thread name, but can the next one be "Your mother sucks cocks in 1L"?

[JGMotorsport]

most of the crim outlines that I got from 2L/3L folks are 100+ pages and it's pretty intimidating, considering that I haven't started yet.

lol my class notes won't even be 70 pages

Yeah, my favorite crim. outline is <30 pages.

Civ Pro Prof. limits outlines to a maximum of 5 pages, double-sided. It's fucking glorious. My outline for that class is basically done with the except of a bunch of joiner rules that we're covering next week. I've hung out with him a few times at various school functions, so now I get cold called every week.

Most of my typed class notes are probably going to end up being about 90-100 pages, but that's mainly because I didn't know what the hell I was doing for the first month of school.

In Torts we're allowed 1 piece of paper as an outline

[haus]

most of the crim outlines that I got from 2L/3L folks are 100+ pages and it's pretty intimidating, considering that I haven't started yet.

lol my class notes won't even be 70 pages

Yeah, my favorite crim. outline is <30 pages.

Civ Pro Prof. limits outlines to a maximum of 5 pages, double-sided. It's fucking glorious. My outline for that class is basically done with the except of a bunch of joiner rules that we're covering next week. I've hung out with him a few times at various school functions, so now I get cold called every week.

Most of my typed class notes are probably going to end up being about 90-100 pages, but that's mainly because I didn't know what the hell I was doing for the first month of school.

In Torts we're allowed 1 piece of paper as an outline

Font size 1
Font type condensed
Bring magnifying glass

[Kinky John]

No longer premature. Xylo, it's time for a new thread title. Show us what you're made of.

It may be a little premature since we just got a new thread name, but can the next one be "Your mother sucks cocks in 1L"?

There's more to life than 1L

If you're going through 1L, keep going

Is it too late to take the blue p1ll?

[RCSOB657]

We're allowed to hand-write our outline into our RCP book for CivPro, as far as I know no other class allows anything in class for the finals. We were allowed to use outlines for our Torts midterm though.

Just started Erie doctrine cases this past Friday.

[buckiguy_sucks]

There's more to life than 1L

1/10

If you're going through 1L, keep going

0/10

Is it too late to take the blue p1ll?

6.5/10

[Kinky John]

clearly asking for even shittier thread titles

T1L that law school . . .

T1L death (and 21 years and 9 months) do us part

[Hikikomorist]

I nominate the next thread change to be "A W1LD Ride."

Or "1Ls Gone W1LD," etc. You get the picture.

"Lost in a W1Lderness of Pain."

[Kinky John]

^ ya that's pretty good

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

torts mastermen, plz PM me and lets talk about proximate cause/duty/palsgraf/andrews and wtf is going on

[03152016]

i would b happy to help u in thread b/c i'm sure other ppl r having probs w/ this stuff too

[Hand]

i would b happy to help u in thread b/c i'm sure other ppl r having probs w/ this stuff too

Here's the brilliant explanation of Palsgraf I just PM'd to leo.

Carbozo's view: we only have a duty of reasonable care to people of whom it is true that we can reasonably foresee they might be affected by our actions. So, I can foresee that the dude who I pull onto the train may be harmed in some way, but why think that the lady on the other side of the station might get injured? (I would think that though if, say, I'm the one operating the train--but this guy was just pulling some dude on the train). So, the guy doing the pulling has no duty towards the lady on the other side of the platform; his duty of care only covers those who he can reasonably expect will be affected by what he's doing. Since there was no duty, there is no negligent conduct, and so we don't even get to asking whether his action was the proximate cause of her harms.

Andrews: we owe a duty of reasonable care to anyone, including folks far away that one is not even aware are out there; doesn't matter if I'm just a guy pulling dudes onto the train, or operating the train, or whatever. We may still think that the guy is not liable for the harm to the lady on the other side of the station--but the reason is that his action (pulling the dude onto the train) wasn't the proximate cause of her harm. Why not? Well, he couldn't have reasonably foreseen that his pulling the dude onto the train would affect her in any way, and proximate cause generally requires foreseeability, so there's no prox. cause.

You end up with the same conclusion, but take a different route to get there.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

i would b happy to help u in thread b/c i'm sure other ppl r having probs w/ this stuff too

sup brut. your civ pro outline has been very helpful. any chance you can hook us up with a torts one?

anyway, so in palsgraf, wtf is going on? is cardozo saying that liability should be cut off at duty only (q for the judge) and andrew is saying that nah liability should be cut off at proximate cause (q for the jury)? not sure what the takeaway is.

like they both talk about foreseeability, but cardozo talks about it at duty and andrews talks about it at proximate cause. in an exam setting, are we going into foreseeability at both duty and proximate cause? isnt that redundant? i have no idea wtf is going on :/

[Hand]

they both talk about foreseeability, but cardozo talks about it at duty and andrews talks about it at proximate cause. in an exam setting, are we going into foreseeability at both duty and proximate cause?

You could, but if foreseeability is an issue in the fact pattern that will undercut liability at one point or another, you can just discuss it under "duty" and be done with it, which will save you the time of having to discuss other conditions of negligence.

isnt that redundant?

Well, it would be if you're just saying the same thing twice. If you think 'Dozo's view makes no sense, you can discuss it under the heading of "proximate cause".

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

they both talk about foreseeability, but cardozo talks about it at duty and andrews talks about it at proximate cause. in an exam setting, are we going into foreseeability at both duty and proximate cause?

You could, but if foreseeability is an issue in the fact pattern that will undercut liability at one point or another, you can just discuss it under "duty" and be done with it, which will save you the time of having to discuss other conditions of negligence.

isnt that redundant?

Well, it would be if you're just saying the same thing twice. If you think 'Dozo's view makes no sense, you can discuss it under the heading of "proximate cause".

like can you give me an example of where cardozo and andrews tests would end up with different results? or is it the case that they always end up with the same conclusion?

[Hand]

they both talk about foreseeability, but cardozo talks about it at duty and andrews talks about it at proximate cause. in an exam setting, are we going into foreseeability at both duty and proximate cause?

You could, but if foreseeability is an issue in the fact pattern that will undercut liability at one point or another, you can just discuss it under "duty" and be done with it, which will save you the time of having to discuss other conditions of negligence.

isnt that redundant?

Well, it would be if you're just saying the same thing twice. If you think 'Dozo's view makes no sense, you can discuss it under the heading of "proximate cause".

like can you give me an example of where cardozo and andrews tests would end up with different results? or is it the case that they always end up with the same conclusion?

My prof insisted that they amount to the exact same thing; his take on the opinion struck me as plausible.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

i dont know man. andrews never said there is no proximate cause in palsgraf right? didnt he just say we should be sending this Q to the jury? so in theory, there could have been different conclusions. i might be completely misremembering the case tho

[Hand]

i dont know man. andrews never said there is no proximate cause in palsgraf right? didnt he just say we should be sending this Q to the jury? so in theory, there could have been different conclusions.

Yeah but whether there's a duty and/or what it's content is, is normally a question for the jury as well (setting aside cases of negligence per se). So that in and of itself doesn't make a difference. Don't have my torts book at hand though to check.

[03282016]

[03152016]

palsgraf is a fucking stupid case that profs love but really it just confuses everyone

here's one way to reconcile foreseeability, proximate cause, and duty
but understand that this is only one way of thinking about this
ur prof may have (and probably did) teach it differently, maybe vastly differently

palsgraf represents a foreseeability-based proximate cause analysis that is, for the most part, consistent with R3T
it's the foreseeability-based analysis that's key; the fact he placed it in duty or made it a judge rather than a jury question isn't the key to understanding palsgraf's implications on the doctrine. those latter questions are better explicated thru cases like randi w (validating foreseeability in judge-determined duty analysis) and lancaster (broad duty, fact-intensive foreseeability analysis is a question for the fact-finder).

so then what is the difference between foreseeability in duty and foreseeability in pc? R3T § 29 cmt. f helpfully provides:

Some courts use duty in situations in which other courts would use proximate cause. The classic case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., revealed the potential for interchangeability between duty and scope of liability, although proximate cause was the term employed at the time. Judge Cardozo employed duty, while Judge Andrews employed proximate cause, to determine whether the defendant was liable for harm to a particular plaintiff. Palsgraf's legacy has been a tension in tort law about the proper balance between duty rules and proximate-cause limits to circumscribe appropriately the scope of liability.

One significant difference between these two doctrines is helpful in determining their appropriate spheres of application. Duty is a question of law for the court, see § 7, while scope of liability, although very much an evaluative matter, is treated as a question of fact for the factfinder. Hence, duty is a preferable means for addressing limits on liability when those limitations are clear, when they are based on relatively bright lines, when they are of general application, when they do not usually require resort to disputed facts in a case, when they implicate policy concerns that apply to a class of cases that may not be fully appreciated by a jury deciding a specific case, and when they are employed in cases in which early resolution of liability is particularly desirable. See § 7. Duty is usefully employed when a court seeks to make a telling pronouncement about when actors may or, on the other hand, may not be held liable. Thus, the liability of social hosts for providing alcohol to their guests is best treated as a duty issue, rather than as a matter of scope of liability. On the other hand, when the limits imposed require careful attention to the specific facts of a case, and difficult, often amorphous evaluative judgments for which modest differences in the factual circumstances may change the outcome, scope of liability is a more flexible and preferable device for placing limits on liability. Its use is also consistent with the role of the jury in tort cases.

disclaimer: again, this is just one reconciliation
profs are all over the place in how they teach proximate cause

leo glad ur finding my civ outline helpful
i'm not sure i'm allowed to post my torts outline tho. i booked the class and will be a torts TA next semester, i should, as a courtesy, check w/ my prof to see if he's ok with me distributing to ppl who might end up in his class

[03152016]

by the way r3t is 100% right in how it tackles prox cause

it's obv how not all courts deal w/ it but it does make sense out of a muddled and often-misunderstood doctrine

[jrc223]

leo glad ur finding my civ outline helpful
i'm not sure i'm allowed to post my torts outline tho. i booked the class and will be a torts TA next semester, i should, as a courtesy, check w/ my prof to see if he's ok with me distributing to ppl who might end up in his class

what does one have to do to get a copy of your civ pro outline (or torts if your prof approves)

Edit: found