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 - Dean Prosser
« on: December 15, 2004, 01:52:11 AM »
I'm not in Con law either, but, a guess:
A human being is one who is self reliant for living, as in breathing, not attached to mother, etc. It sounds more "philosophical" than legal though...
« on: December 13, 2004, 07:05:58 PM »
You know what though, that you recognized that trick probably means you did okay - how many students do you think overlooked that both tenants signed the mortgage? I was told, the more you more, the worst you think you did because you start to think of all the issues you missed... if you didn't know so much, would you even think of it?
At any rate, I have property Thursday and am DREADING it! I hear it's the class that makes or breaks a 1L, that is, F's are common, and one F equals goodbye. Although, mine is only up to the RAP, I have another semester to look forward to (if I am so fortunate).
5 hours of Property? That is worse than Abu Grahib prison!
« on: December 08, 2004, 03:04:49 AM »
I know this is a Contracts thread, but I just had Torts tonight, and coming from Prosser, it was a challenge!
Just so you know, please watch out for your time, because if your Torts exam is anything like mine, you can write forever, and half the battle (okay, maybe 20 percent of the battle) is time management! Good luck all!
« on: December 02, 2004, 02:06:04 PM »
It's official, you are all getting A's in torts! Now it's time to study your theories...
« on: December 02, 2004, 01:00:32 PM »
I was just grappling with the reason for it - it's completely public policy. How could it be an intentional if I aimed at A and I hit B? I did not "intend" to hit B, nor was I substantially certain I would hit B! If your reason for hitting "A" was unlawful, why would you think your reason for hitting "B" was not unlawful? Remeber, the fundamental reason for a battery claim is one’s rights to his body integrity. Why shouldn't the law protect B, even if you didn't mean to hurt them?
Because if hitting A was the only intended contact, and hitting B was *un*intended, perhaps something like Negligence would be the remedy without a Transferred Intent doctrine. What I want to know is, if I never saw B there, and swung at A, and could never be substantially certain that my act against A might hit B, would this be negligence or Battery? In other words, even though one intends an itort contact on one individual, must he be substantially certain that his volitional act could cause a consequence in another in order for Transferred Intent, or is it just an automatic battery to B?
Also regarding damages, in ITorte, one is liable for all forseen and unforeseen results from their Intentional Tort. What happens if my battery to B causes him to land on a ship, which is a trespass, which causes the ship to crash into city hall, which causes the city to fall into financial destruction, which causes Dr. Phil to punch one of his guests?
« on: December 02, 2004, 11:53:30 AM »
Thanks a lot for your help.
I was just grappling with the reason for it - it's completely public policy. How could it be an intentional if I aimed at A and I hit B? I did not "intend" to hit B, nor was I substantially certain I would hit B! Society wants the intentional tortfeasor punished regardless of who is intended. What a great legal system we have!
BTW: Go Arizona Basketball!
« on: December 01, 2004, 05:31:18 PM »
Can someone supply a "good-for-exam" definition of Transferred Intent?
If A assaults B, which subsequently makes her fall onto C's property, which causes damages, will A be responsible *by way of* the doctrine of Transferred Intent (C can assert a cause of action against A for Trespass to Land)?
Thanks a lot!
« on: November 29, 2004, 03:04:03 PM »
I agree with you completely! Practice exams remind me of studying for the LSAT, once you look at the answer, it's an automatic "Duh! That's easy!" However, I think law exams are so much better because you have more flexibility, as long as you are analytical and methodical. In fact, they are a bit fun as we get to be the Judge.
For contracts, I am going to just move down like this:
Decide if an offer has been made and where (UCC, Restatement, common law to Facts) ---> Determine whether offer is irrevocable ---> Was the offer accepted (UCC, Restatement, Common law to Facts) ---> If so, what are the terms (UCC, Restatement, Common Law to Facts)... The same for Consideration, P.E., et al.
There is so much information, so many rules, that you just have to take it one at a time and not get overwhelmed.
Perhaps you have a better method. My problem right now is not with the material or rules, it's with the organization and making it a "nice" looking, lawyer-like answer. Also, I have noticed my number one mistake is not reading in-between the lines, the minute facts that is, such as the date, or the jurisdiction, the exact wording in a statute... however, I feel that if you know your weaknesses, you will watch out for them on the exam. Thus, it's such a positive to reveal your weaknesses and be frustrated by them, that way you can correct them.
« on: November 20, 2004, 02:20:17 PM »
Yea, click the self-discipline button, you know, right underneath the I am dummy hear me roar button!
« on: November 19, 2004, 03:57:27 AM »
There's also a small issue (but worth mentioning, I think) of whether Alex is liable to Sally. She was injured on his property. If she's in a state that distinguishes between invitees and licensees/trespassers, then Alex's duty was not to be reckless, and he probably is not liable. If she's in a state that's switched to a single standard of care for landowners, then Alex's duty is not to be negligent regardless of Sally's designation.
So then the question would be whether a reasonable person would have placed the tree so close to the road knowing that motorists could potentially hit it. Again, I think not liable, but worth discussing just to establish that he's not.
Great call!!! For reference, what is your authority for the landowner duty?