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.
― burt_stanton, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 01:35 (fifteen years ago) link
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?
― burt_stanton, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 01:36 (fifteen years ago) link
hold the truck driver and drunk driver joint and severally liable?
― burt_stanton, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 01:37 (fifteen years ago) link
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
― burt_stanton, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 01:41 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 10 December 2008 02:29 (fifteen years ago) link
sorry truck I mean
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 10 December 2008 02:30 (fifteen years ago) link
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).
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 10 December 2008 02:33 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 10 December 2008 02:40 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― B.L.A.M., Wednesday, 10 December 2008 04:49 (fifteen years ago) link
But I have CIVPRO tomorrow. CIVPRO. Help me with CIVPRO
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 10 December 2008 04:50 (fifteen years ago) link
Stanton, just remember this:
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 10 December 2008 15:50 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― cutty, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 15:51 (fifteen years ago) link
or the test-taking geniuses. IT'S ALL ABOUT TEST TAKING.
― cutty, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 15:52 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― burt_stanton, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 16:12 (fifteen years ago) link
Well, that was stupid. I was wayyyyyy overprepared. Conversely, I don't think I did all that well. :[] We'll see.
― burt_stanton, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 23:56 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― burt_stanton, Wednesday, 10 December 2008 23:59 (fifteen years ago) link
Go get some sleep. Wake up tomorrow, start studying for the next one. Overprepared is NEVER a bad thing.
― B.L.A.M., Thursday, 11 December 2008 00:01 (fifteen years ago) link
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?
― burt_stanton, Thursday, 11 December 2008 00:05 (fifteen years ago) link
Like, motion to dismiss due to no duty ... or no breach ... nor no causation.
Google searchNo results found for "affirmative duty to party down".
― burt_stanton, Thursday, 11 December 2008 00:28 (fifteen years ago) link
this is the thread where I say that I am drunk and everyone stands up and applauds
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Thursday, 11 December 2008 01:22 (fifteen years ago) link
*applauding*
Seriously...first one down, fellas. Well done.
― B.L.A.M., Thursday, 11 December 2008 01:28 (fifteen years ago) link
honestly, I do believe I rocked that shit
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Thursday, 11 December 2008 01:30 (fifteen years ago) link
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
― burt_stanton, Thursday, 11 December 2008 03:38 (fifteen years ago) link
i finished trial practice final and now i am a little tiny bit durrnkkkk. doing a self-scheduling take-home exam tomorrow and friday :((((
― harbl, Thursday, 11 December 2008 03:40 (fifteen years ago) link
:((((((( what subjects you got?
― burt_stanton, Thursday, 11 December 2008 03:40 (fifteen years ago) link
family lawinternational laweducation law (lol)
― harbl, Thursday, 11 December 2008 03:56 (fifteen years ago) link
basically i'm taking crap classes
― harbl, Thursday, 11 December 2008 03:57 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Thursday, 11 December 2008 10:50 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Thursday, 11 December 2008 17:07 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― B.L.A.M., Thursday, 11 December 2008 17:16 (fifteen years ago) link
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!
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 18:52 (fifteen years ago) link
International Shoe and the Erie Doctrine are my bains right now. Joinder might be a little iffy as well. :{
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 18:53 (fifteen years ago) link
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, Friday, 12 December 2008 19:06 (fifteen years ago) link
johnny crunch, esq.
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 19:49 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Friday, 12 December 2008 21:25 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Friday, 12 December 2008 21:26 (fifteen years ago) link
Here's the shit I"ve got to get down for Tuesday's exam:
International Shoe stuff... not so bad. Erie Doctrine - Fuck noJoinders - I might be OK with these. Interjurisdictional claim prelcusion - OK, I guess.
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 21:44 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Friday, 12 December 2008 22:24 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 22:47 (fifteen years ago) link
Barbri CD featuring that Frier dude
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 22:49 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Friday, 12 December 2008 22:52 (fifteen years ago) link
yeah, it was fairly pricey for a bunch of audio CDS ... $60
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 22:53 (fifteen years ago) link
get some steroids
― cutty, Friday, 12 December 2008 23:03 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 23:04 (fifteen years ago) link
im pretty glad i didnt know of ilx as a 1L
― johnny crunch, Friday, 12 December 2008 23:06 (fifteen years ago) link
i did but i certainly didn't document my life here
― cutty, Friday, 12 December 2008 23:19 (fifteen years ago) link
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.
― burt_stanton, Saturday, 13 December 2008 23:07 (fifteen years ago) link