. Forum

[landshoes]

also note that wild animals in a circus (which people like!) are not SL, despite being wild animals, because people like that shit

if people generally like an activity and/or think they'll want to do that activity themselves, they tend to be fine with the damages falling where they lay (unless there's negligence) UNLESS damages falling where they lay will lead to the underprovision of something people might want to use later.

^^^^^^least clear sentence I have ever written

[xael]

Ah, but wasn't it a pre-party cavity stretching? But I guess cavities can also exist in a mouth, i'll still take the L for reading comp. i've never had a tooth cavity so i mostly operate under the presumption of a body cavity definition.

edit: fantastic stuff xael but how's bk working out for you? did you end up finding practice exams? when is it?

a wonderful TLSer who I am sure would make a FANTASTIC op of the 2L thread gave me several exams with answers

I only study from about 8 am until 8 pm so I'm all done for tonight but tomorrow i'm gonna take those exams and go wild

[Big Red]

Torts is one of those classes that can go a hundred different ways depending on your prof

we are all over the place guys

[BVest]

torts mastermen/masterwomen, i need a tl;dr on strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities

Abnormally dangerous activities are those that:
Have High Degree of Risk (i.e. likely to cause harm) and/or the Risk is of Injury is Severe (i.e. even if likelihood is low, injury would be really bad)
Cannot be made safe by reasonably means
Are not common usage in the context where it is found
Don't have a high value to the community as a whole
(Note: Those are factors, not elements)

That's one of the restatements as I remember it; our prof liked teaching both restatements and a minority view and having us write on the distinctions.

One of the most important things to remember is that the injury experienced by the Plaintiff must be the type of injury that makes the activity abnormally dangerous. For example, blasting is almost always an abnormally dangerous activity. We read a case though where blasting in the area near a mink farm caused one mink to freak out and kill the other minks. That was not subject to strict liability. Had the explosion flattened the mink house and killed all the minks, that would have been (or would more likely have been) subject to strict liability.

BTW, here are my outlines that I posted a couple years back; they were group made and, with the exception of crim, are fairly compact and accessible. Personally, I still turn to them from time to time. It looks like the strict liability section is only a few pages, and abnormally dangerous activities is only about a page.

[Big Red]

Just to throw out the two restatement takes since they're getting blended:

o RT2: Abnormally dangerous activities test (§ 520)
• In determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous, the following factors are to be considered:
• 1. Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land, and chattels of others
• 2. Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great
• 3. Inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care
• 4. Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage
• 5. Inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on
• 6. Extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes

o RT3: SL for physical harm applies if:
• 1. Activity creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors, AND
• 2. The activity is not one of common usage

(BTW, no recovery for emotional harm on SL)


One of the things that kind of bothers me about the SL does not apply when the ultrahazardous activity is not the same as the type of harm, is that this seems like more of a proximate cause issue, but I've only ever seen it discussed as an SL doctrinal issue. w/e

[KMart]

Torts is one of those classes that can go a hundred different ways depending on your prof

we are all over the place guys

Tbf landshoes and I, I think, have the same prof. So it's a bit disconcerting if she and I are off .

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

thank you tls torts mastermen. i also have a question about a hypo that i read.

if D is not 100% sure if he has STD (test still pending from doctor), and D has sex with his girlfriend P, without D saying anything about the pending STD test, does P have a claim against D for sexual battery, even if it turns out a month later when D gets the results back and he doesnt have STD?

also i dont get wtf the difference is between trespass to chattels and conversion. is conversion just way more extreme version of trespass to chattels?

[xael]

thank you tls torts mastermen. i also have a question about a hypo that i read.

if D is not 100% sure if he has STD (test still pending from doctor), and D has sex with his girlfriend P, without D saying anything about the pending STD test, does P have a claim against D for sexual battery, even if it turns out a month later when D gets the results back and he doesnt have STD?

also i dont get wtf the difference is between trespass to chattels and conversion. is conversion just way more extreme version of trespass to chattels?

the difference between trespass to chattel and conversion is that in trespass to chattel you intentionally damage or temporarily steal something. The person’s inability to use it is temporary. Conversion it is gone forever. trespass to chattel is an offense to the possessor but conversion is to the owner

most things are both conversion and trespass to chattel.

something that would be conversion but not trespass to chattel is if someone stole your artwork from a third party

[from my outline, I don't remember the exact differences anymore]

[pancakes3]

thank you tls torts mastermen. i also have a question about a hypo that i read.

if D is not 100% sure if he has STD (test still pending from doctor), and D has sex with his girlfriend P, without D saying anything about the pending STD test, does P have a claim against D for sexual battery, even if it turns out a month later when D gets the results back and he doesnt have STD?

also i dont get wtf the difference is between trespass to chattels and conversion. is conversion just way more extreme version of trespass to chattels?

1) What are the elements of sexual battery?

2) Pretty much. The crux of Conversion stems from the property itself so if the thief either can't or won't give the stolen object back it's conversion. With trespass it's not so much about getting it back [possession], but the opportunity cost of not having it when the owner wanted/needed it.

e: scooped by scoobs again. I remember the "against the possessor" vs "against the owner" argument but never understood it either.

[legit]

If you're a woman: a conservative dress, low heels, some simple jewelry, a scarf if you want. They know you're a broke student. A nice-ish sweater and a decent skirt would probably be fine too. Black suit rule doesn't apply.

If you're a guy, nice pants, a nice button down, and a nice sweater. Idk about guy shoes.

That's assuming business casual. Don't go if its formal.

Thank you!

Quick follow-up question: Does the color have to be conservative, or will women wear red in the Christmas spirit?

[legit]

If you're a woman: a conservative dress, low heels, some simple jewelry, a scarf if you want. They know you're a broke student. A nice-ish sweater and a decent skirt would probably be fine too. Black suit rule doesn't apply.

If you're a guy, nice pants, a nice button down, and a nice sweater. Idk about guy shoes.

That's assuming business casual. Don't go if its formal.

What exactly are these things? Are they just receptions or are they holiday parties? At my old job the holiday party was black-tie.

Consider the events at firms as receptions, elsewhere as holiday parties.

[landshoes]

If you're a woman: a conservative dress, low heels, some simple jewelry, a scarf if you want. They know you're a broke student. A nice-ish sweater and a decent skirt would probably be fine too. Black suit rule doesn't apply.

If you're a guy, nice pants, a nice button down, and a nice sweater. Idk about guy shoes.

That's assuming business casual. Don't go if its formal.

Thank you!

Quick follow-up question: Does the color have to be conservative, or will women wear red in the Christmas spirit?

Red is conservative enough for business casual. My only worry in terms of fabric for business casual would be glitter fabric or animal prints or sequins. And that it isn't showing your underwear because it's tight/clingy/thin fabric.

[NoBladesNoBows]

[landshoes]

Torts is one of those classes that can go a hundred different ways depending on your prof

we are all over the place guys

Tbf landshoes and I, I think, have the same prof. So it's a bit disconcerting if she and I are off .

Levmore? That's Levmore for you.

[cannibal ox]

I'm not sure if I'm impressed or offended that so many of the 2Ls in this topic remember stuff from 1L. My mind is a wasteland. Nothing has survived.

[DJM]

Can someone please explain adequate assurances for contracts? When to get them? Why not just wait and sue when they breach? And whatever else I should know about them?

[pancakes3]

Can someone please explain adequate assurances for contracts? When to get them? Why not just wait and sue when they breach? And whatever else I should know about them?

adequate assurances is a required step for anticipatory repudiation aka anticipatory breach. You don't want to wait and sue because litigation is expensive and drawn out. If I promise to buy a box of apples from you but I'm shady as hell and the check for my down payment of the apples bounced, do you still want to hand me over your box of apples so you can wait and see, or would you rather try for anticipatory repudiation - get out of having to give me the box, and then still have the opportunity to sell that box to someone else?

[Gray]

.

[Hikikomorist]

.

[unsweetened]

I just got reminded that I'll probably have to buy a suit before I even know if I'll be making any money this summer. That sucks.

You don't already have at least one?

[Hikikomorist]

.

[Hand]

I just got reminded that I'll probably have to buy a suit before I even know if I'll be making any money this summer. That sucks.

You don't already have at least one?

They're about a decade old, when I used to weight 80 lbs. more.

Hm, could be worse; the only suit I own is from when I weighed 25 lbs less. Which was considerably less than a decade ago.

[03282016]

[NoBladesNoBows]

[Kinky John]

I just got reminded that I'll probably have to buy a suit before I even know if I'll be making any money this summer. That sucks.

Dude, just PW already.

PW?

Power wash. Hikko's patio is filthy.