Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - aldicarb

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6
1
Current Law Students / Re: Torts hypo
« on: September 04, 2006, 03:16:28 PM »
It would be hard to prove substantial certainty. In fact it would be very naerly impossible, but this is irrelevant. Your hypo states that he wanted to see if anyone would fall in. By his own admission, he DESIRED to cause the contact when someone falls into the hole. This is a cut and dry desire, fulfilling intent. And once again it does NOT matter whether he intended it on a specific person or not, Restatement of Torts tells us that intent is fulfilled by the desire or purpose to caues the consequences of your act. He did DESIRE or have the PURPOSE to cause someone to fall, and thus a contact. This is a battery by the strictest definition.

Intent (2nd Restatement) = A desire or purpose .. OR... a substantial certainty that certain consequences would result due to the actor's actions.

If your actor clearly expressed a desire to bring about a contact, don't even bother looking into substantial certainty. Desire is the highest level of intent, and your hypo clearly indicates that he has this.

2
Current Law Students / Re: Torts hypo
« on: September 04, 2006, 02:36:31 PM »
 I feel pretty strongly that the guy that set the trap would surely by found liable for battery. First of all, it does not matter if he did not specifically target anyone, if he intended the consequences of his actions.. no matter on who.   It does not matter if it is possible that someone may not fall, it is important what his intent was. In fact, it does not really matter, now that I think about it, whether he was subst. certainty. In truth, he had a DESIRE to bring about a harmful or offensive contact with someone, i.e. he desired the consequences to result from his actions. To draw anything else fromt he purpose of him digging a hole in the ground and covering it up would be pretty difficult and likely fail in court.

Also, I do not see negligence here. This was carried out with an intent to "see if anyone would fall". This is quite different from, oops I dug this hole and forgot about it, I used it as a garbage can while camping. That would be negligence. Here he clearly intended the result of his actions, the absolute meaning of an intentional tort.

3
Current Law Students / More torts stuff
« on: September 04, 2006, 02:25:54 PM »
 So how come no one seems to have heard that transferred intent can transfer between people (as everyone knows), but ALSO between torts. The  book Understanding Torts and E&E by Glannon point this out. One book cites the case Etcher v. Blitch among other case law.

Also... in terms of battery and assault in which offensive/harmful contact and apprehension are needed, respectively. I was taught in class and it seems pretty obvious to me that we look into the P subjectively. That is, we apply a reasonable person standard to what an offensive contact is- would a reasonable persno find this contact offensive? This applies to apprehension as well- would a reasonable person apprehend a harmful/offensive contact?

example: A touches taps B on shoulder to ask a question about a flight arrival time. B is severely offended and sues A for battery.
Under the reasonable person test, this is not actionable, as a reasonable person in our society would not find such a contact as offensive... as opposed to a push, punch, etc.

Glannon in his EandE point this reasonable person standard out and so do other books, and my professor. However, some people on other boards seem to be completely baffled by this pretty obvious idea. Most of these scholars and judges pull this standard from the language of the Restatement of "offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity".

4
Current Law Students / Transferred intent hypo
« on: September 04, 2006, 01:39:59 AM »
This part of a hypo given by my torts professor.

Slamming down the receiver, Angie screamed "I've had it with you, and Im going to get you!". John sat stunned at his secretary station outisde Angie's office. She had been angry at him before, John thought, but never this angry. John was terrified, he decided to call security.


Before John could call security, Angie's door swung open. Scowling, she headed for John, carrying a heavy stack of filesin her hands. She held the files as she approached John, and prepared to slam them down on John's desk for filing. John, however, was sure Angie was going to slam the files on his head. To avoid the result, John quickly dropped under his desk.


Angie, still holding the files, realized what had happened and laughed. "Im not going to get you now. Youll regret your behavior. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life. Now file these." She slammed the files down on the desk, just above John's head, and walked away. John had heard what Angie said, but was shocked by the sudden crack of the files slamming on the desk. His head jolted upward, striking hte metal underside of the desk.


Discuss the claims for John v. Angie for battery and assault
-----

Firstly, I believe John has a good claim for assault. Angie should have been substantially certain that her screaming at John from her office and scowling while coming out at him with a heavy stack of files would cause an apprehension of offensive/harmful contact, particularly considering that she has been "angry" in the past.


I am unsure about the battery. Under transferred intent, the intent from the assault would transfer to a battery (when John hit his head). But the problem is that the contact did not occur until after Angie had explained that she wasn't going to hurt him, at least not until until the future. And future threats do not count as an assault. So basically, I am concerned with the fact that the real assault, of Angie coming out with the files only caused John to go under his desk. The contact was caused, however, by the stack of files hitting his desk, scaring him. But by this time Angie had explained to him what she said and I doubt she had substantial certainty that he would hit his head by her dropping the files on the desk. So I would say he wouldn't have a claim for battery, even under transferred intent.

what do you guys think?

5
Current Law Students / Re: Torts starting point
« on: August 20, 2006, 12:33:09 AM »
Starts with intentional torts. "Torts Cases, Problems, and Exercises" 2nd Ed. RL Weaver, JH Bauman , published by Lexis Nexis

6
Current Law Students / Some things about LS Confidential
« on: February 18, 2006, 12:57:50 PM »
 I have delved into Law School Confidential recently and have a few things to bring up and see if anyone else feels this way. First of all does anyone else feel who has read it that it definitely has a slant.. in the sense that this guy thinks that getting 4 B's in your first semester of 1L is just horrid? I mean come on.. the book gives the sense that anything except mostly As and a B+ is bad and makes it unable for you to find a 1L summer position.


Blegh... and the highlighter trick? Im not sure how I feel about highlighting my books in a rainbow of colors.

What do you guys think of this book and its particular study methods?

7
hamboy - are you applying Full time or part time? If you are applying full time, your chances are fairly low of getting in, unfortunately. If you call and ask to go part time, for at least a year, you would have a much better chance. I ran into Dean Barrett today and he said they have a lot of people waitlisted this year. Your GPA is barely at the 25th percentile and your LSAT is below the 25th percentile. McGeorge is trying to raise and keep its up numbers up... so I strongly suggest you call them and ask to be considered for evening and I know you would get a spot.

8
Likely not - but what is your GPA/LSAT?

9
Incoming 1Ls / Re: Working for a firm as a 1L
« on: June 18, 2007, 12:35:21 PM »
If you are going full-time, forget about it. It won't be allowed. The ABA mandates no more than 20 hours of work per week, and you definitely can't reach 1650 hours. I would also not even recommend it for part time. Law school is very hard, and some people naturally do well - 80 percent struggle like hell. If you do PT, get a job that is 9-5, salaried that doesn't require such hours.

10
Incoming 1Ls / Re: what to do before law school?
« on: June 18, 2007, 12:31:36 PM »
You guys are so silly, but it reminds me of myself a year ago. Please DON'T read pre-law books. Unless you are talking about something general that talks about the law school experience. Anything that attempts to teach substantive law is a total waste of time and is likely to be harmful to your edification. Take the time to have a relaxing summer. Please forget about the legal terminology book. Total waste of time. You will learn terms as it goes in each class. Please, I beg of you - enjoy your free summer ;]

Oh and besides the coffee + scotch, develop a taste for the cold and mushy cuisine of naivete. ;p

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6