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 - ginntonic

Pages: [1]
Current Law Students / Re: Wanna succeed in law school? Get M.A.D.!
« on: March 21, 2006, 02:18:44 PM »
According to LSAT "majority" may well mean 50% + 1.


That's the definition for "preponderance of evidence," I believe!

Current Law Students / Wiki's Primer
« on: March 21, 2006, 02:16:28 PM »
Res ipsa loquitur is a legal term from the Latin meaning literally, "The thing speaks for itself". The doctrine is applied to claims which, as a matter of law, do not have to be explained beyond the obvious facts. It is most useful to plaintiffs in negligence cases.

Under the old common law rule, to use res ipsa loquitur in the context of negligence the plaintiff must prove that:

- The harm would not ordinarily have occurred without someone's negligence
- The instrumentality of the harm was under the exclusive control of the defendant at the time of the likely negligent act
- The plaintiff did not contribute to the harm by his own negligence.

The "exclusive control" element has largely given way in modern cases to a less rigid formulation, where the plaintiff must prove that other responsible causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence. As a consequence, the third element, that the plaintiff did not contribute to his injury, is subsumed by the new formulation. In addition, it is important to note that contributory negligence is, in modern case law, reckoned in "comparison" to the injury caused by the other. For example, if the negligence of the other is 95% the cause of the plaintiff's injury, and the plaintiff is 5% responsible, the plaintiff's slight fault will not negate the negligence of the other.

- For instance, plaintiff Doe is injured when an elevator he has entered plunges several floors and stops abruptly.
- Roe Corporation built, and is responsible for maintaining, the elevator.
- Doe sues Roe and during the proceedings, Roe claims that Doe's complaint should be dismissed because he has never proved, or for that matter even offered, a theory as to why the elevator functioned incorrectly. Therefore, argues Roe, there is no evidence that they were at fault in the incident.
- The court may hold that Doe does not have to prove anything beyond the fall itself.
- The elevator malfunctioned, Roe was responsible for the elevator in every respect, so they are responsible for the fall.
- The thing speaks for itself.

Current Law Students / Re: Mutiple Choice - shoot me now.
« on: March 21, 2006, 02:11:25 PM »
When you register for your upper level classes, make sure you find out about the professors' exams.  Obviously, you should not take any class with a multiple choice exam. 

Most of the exams at my school are multiple-choice.

Current Law Students / Re: curves? i dont get it.
« on: March 21, 2006, 02:07:56 PM »
People don't go to law school only for the money. Some go for the education, the connections and the "confirmation from society." Many parents, e.g., are huge believers in advanced degrees, and they push their children to do 'em.

If u go to an American law school for a reason other than money you are stupid.

Pages: [1]