Going To Law School

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.

I think I rocked Int'l Shoe on the exam because it was also the subject of our memo (of course so did everyone else in my section, probably). People tell me the BarBri lecture for Erie is great. I didn't put down a BarBri deposit, but I looked at notes from it. Glannon is pretty helpful on that too - do you have a Glannon book?

Joinders was something we did less thoroughly. We did a lot of claim and issue preclusion but I don't specifically remember interjurisdictional preclusion as a topic.

I don't have the BarBri lecture ... but I do have the BarBri audio CD for Civ Pro. I've got the Erie CD in and I'm going to listen to it once I get there in my syllabus runthrough.

Barbri CD featuring that Frier dude

yeah, the audio thing is the one everyone liked. The Freer one. Didn't know it was available on CD, but I was honestly a bit broke to go buying more study aids.

yeah, it was fairly pricey for a bunch of audio CDS ... $60

get some steroids

I am so fucking tired right now, but I've got to get this shit done. Maybe now it's time to invest in some yuppie drugs.

im pretty glad i didnt know of ilx as a 1L

i did but i certainly didn't document my life here

Eh, I learned some pretty useful things bantering ideas in here. Isn't that the whole point of the internet? It's easy and quick to share ideas about this shit. What, did you guys get straight As all by yourself? If so, congrats.

Crimmin. Fuck an inchoate offense.

ps never say anything earnest on ilx

yeah. You're just lucky you didn't have to do joinders in Civ Pro. This is the only thing I have a problem with now.