Going To Law School

blam, when you approach these problems ... no matter what, in all circumstances, you first go through: duty. then breach. then causation.

Right?

I cannot even think about a torts hypo right now. I just did a complex 2-hour practice civil procedure fact pattern, and it was probably the greatest mental exertion I have ever made.

Goddamnit, thank GOD I am stubborn and didn't listen to the guy in my study group who kept saying "We don't need that... I'm not putting that in my outline... that's just a minor note case... etc." So far ALL the practice questions I've done hinge on minor stuff from note cases. FUCK I am so glad I am hard-headed.

I hate those stupid note cases.

so easy to forget

Stanton (and anyone else) maybe you can hep me out on civpro. I understand basically how Subject Matter and Personal Jurisdiction work, but we keep getting these questions about what "motions" and "procedural moves" parties can make:

If you're talking SMJ, the only things I can think of are
- Motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
- Motion to remand (to state court)

If it's PJ, I can think of
- motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (12b2 I believe)
- special appearance (state court only)
- don't show up, wait for the default judgment and then attack jurisdiction in the action to enforce the judgment

What else should I be thinking about?

blam, when you approach these problems ... no matter what, in all circumstances, you first go through: duty. then breach. then causation.

Absolutely. With negligence questions, which will undoubtedly be the bulk of your torts exam, ALWAYS run throug

1. Is there a duty? Where does that duty come from? What is the standard of care established by that duty?
2. Was that duty breached, or, was that standard of care not met? The answer to this portion should ALWAYS be "The defendant breached because they failed to meet the standard of care when they [fill in the blank]."
3. Was there a harm caused by that breach? I know this is asked below in the "damages" portion, but its a good thing to look at here - no harm, no negligence. So this can cut off your analysis and you can move on to the next one, if no harm was suffered.
4. Was the breach the actual cause of the harm suffered? Usually the "but for" portion of the program.
5. Was the breach the proximate cause of the harm suffered? Foreseeability, plus all those doctrines that the law has for cutting off liability. The basic proximate cause question is "Is this the type of harm that a person in defendant's position would be found liable for?" This is where intervening causes and all those other things come up.
6. What is the measure of damages suffered by plaintiff?

But you should ALWAYS establish each and every element of a negligence analysis. Just like all the elements on an intentional tort, and all the elements on a criminal law question. Without every one being established, no liability will attach.

tasty. Thanks, I'll tattoo that on my arm

I feel like shit. I'm done studying. If I do OK, I do OK.

good luck burt 'n' hurt

blam, in your hypo above, what recourse does the person have who was hit when the drunk driver crashes into the truck? what's your analysis? I have a bunch of exam problems here that have similar situations.

I mean, the only thing I can get to is "not foreseeable under the scope of the risk, thus truck driver not liable". But what can the person hit by the car do? Recover nothing?

hold the truck driver and drunk driver joint and severally liable?

should the drunk driver be held liable because, under the scope of the risk analysis, crashing into something is foreseeable risk of drunk driving, and a crash is a foreseeble danger to anyone around since it involves high speeds, huge metal things, etc.? Of course the truck driver shouldn't because that's definitely not a foreseeable risk of forgetting to set the brake

A car rolling down the hill and causing an accident is DEFINITELY within the scope of the risk of not setting the brake. That's a classic "manner of harm" example -- it doesn't have to be foreseeable that a drunk driver will crash into the car, just that it will cause an accident.

sorry truck I mean

Even if not, he may be able to recover against either the laundry company for failing to maintain the truck or the truck maker for a defective park gear (if it is in fact defective).

And as for this:

should the drunk driver be held liable because, under the scope of the risk analysis, crashing into something is foreseeable risk of drunk driving, and a crash is a foreseeble danger to anyone around since it involves high speeds, huge metal things, etc.?

I think so. First of all his conduct is a gross breach of the standard of care (drunk-driving, running a red light). Second, he is a but-for cause (the truck would not have been pushed into the pedestrian otherwise), and your argument about proximate cause sounds right.

Interestingly, if the case didn't involve running the red light, it'd probably be harder to prove causation. After all, even a sober, responsible driver might have hit the runaway truck.

I THINK that since they're jointly the but-for cause and neither would be the but-for cause alone, you would hold them jointly and severally liable.

I'm pretty sure you're both going to do fine. Just take your time and run through your negligence analysis on each and every issue. You've hit all the major arguable points.

Go get some sleep. Eat a good breakfast. Rock it. Good luck. Report back to us.

But I have CIVPRO tomorrow. CIVPRO. Help me with CIVPRO

Stanton, just remember this:

I'm pretty sure you're both going to do fine.

doing fine = passing. B+ maybe. the curve is a bitch. only the try-harders will get the A+'s.

or the test-taking geniuses. IT'S ALL ABOUT TEST TAKING.

damn them to hell. Civ Pro's a bitch, good luck... I'm glad I have more time to study for that. 6 days + 12 hours a day = B+ if I'm lucky.

Well, that was stupid. I was wayyyyyy overprepared. Conversely, I don't think I did all that well. :[] We'll see.

all I did was duty. breach. causation. damages. but I didn't mention anything about fancy theories and doctrines and shit the other students were talking about.

I think I'll get a ... B. B-, god help me.

Go get some sleep. Wake up tomorrow, start studying for the next one. Overprepared is NEVER a bad thing.

It was just one huge question asking us to write how a bunch of defendants in a car crash would argue for a motion to dismiss, and then an evaluation on that motion's success. Which is basically just arguing matters of law ... and so I guess you can't really go into fun stuff anyway, right?

Like, motion to dismiss due to no duty ... or no breach ... nor no causation.

Google search
No results found for "affirmative duty to party down".

this is the thread where I say that I am drunk and everyone stands up and applauds

*applauding*

Seriously...first one down, fellas. Well done.

honestly, I do believe I rocked that shit

Awesome. What kind-of stuff was on the exam? I'm going to start studying for my Civ Pro exam tomorrow ... it's on Tuesday. My brain is totally fried, I'm going to have some booze, maybe smoke a little _\|/_ and start the nightmare jourey once more.

Torts I successfully did the whole duty, breach, causation crap, but it seems way looser and up to how well the argument was crafted. Civ Pro seems more structured

i finished trial practice final and now i am a little tiny bit durrnkkkk. doing a self-scheduling take-home exam tomorrow and friday :((((

:((((((( what subjects you got?

family law
international law
education law (lol)

basically i'm taking crap classes

What kind-of stuff was on the exam?

Long ass subject matter jurisdition question, long ass personal jurisdiction question, shorter essays on preclusion, erie doctrine, hard multiple choice qs on application of the rules. There was all kinds of stuff designed to catch people off guard -- for example in personal jurisdiction we spent a ton of time in class doing minimum contacts analysis for out-of-state companies in personal jurisdiction. The fact pattern sounded like a classic minimum contacts set-up and had lots of facts in common with other business cases, but the defendants were actually individuals, so you really had to look for the traditional bases for jurisdiction.

So is there any good reason not to sell any of my textbooks? I wrote in them exclusively in pencil with the hope of resale.

You fail and take it again?

I jest. If you fail a first-year class, you should probably not continue to accrue debt.

I kept most of mine - I still look back at them from time to time, especially Constitutional and Criminal Procedure. My Civ Pro class was such a joke, we didn't even study joinder. I shit you not. SO bad. But money be tight, and books be expensive.

I'm suffering through Civ Pro now. On the exam our professor wants us to explain the the theory behind each answer we give on the exam, so I'm going through all the cases now to get the explanations the courts give for their decisions.barfo. I'm sooooooo fucking tired.

and I still need to get a grasp on the fucking Erie Doctrine. I hate you so much!

International Shoe and the Erie Doctrine are my bains right now. Joinder might be a little iffy as well. :{

bane

uh i would say yes sell back all books. i wish i had. they are totally dead weight & take up a lot of space now (3 yrs out)

johnny crunch, esq.

Fuck Erie doctrine. After reading and re-reading the case book, Glannon, my friend's notes from a bar-bri lecture and REPEATEDLY going through it with my professor, I'm convinced it's a lot of bullshit, and if I had the smarts and the pedigree I'd write a scholarly article explaining why.

Civ Pro is all about taking vague, arbitrary stuff and making it look like it fits some kind of formula that can be put into flowchart form.

Here's the shit I"ve got to get down for Tuesday's exam:

International Shoe stuff... not so bad.
Erie Doctrine - Fuck no
Joinders - I might be OK with these.
Interjurisdictional claim prelcusion - OK, I guess.