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 - TheNewGuy
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 39
« on: December 21, 2007, 02:46:35 AM »
What is VT has a rule [statute?]?
What is VT stand for here?
thanks to let me know
VT = Vermont --- apparently, there's an example on the last Seinfeld episode, where they all got arrested in Vermont for watching someone get robbed, hehe...
ok, I'm not being pranked, am I?
« on: December 21, 2007, 12:35:05 AM »
Yikes... yeah language is crazy..
Here's my guess for DUTY OF DUE CARE (law-based issue - for court):
General rule: NO DUTY for failure to act
Courts are making acautious movement away from this (another example: VT has a rule [statute?] that a duty is owed to rescue someone in peril if no unreasonable risk to rescuer)
Other situs in which courts have tended to extend DUTY: (none specifically apply to case)
1-Special relationship (between P and D, or between D and another D)
2- Instrumentality under D's care (e.g. a store escalator)
3- Assumption / undertaking of a duty (e.g. said you would help but didn't)
---underlying factors in these and other extension of duty situs: (all of these can probably be applied)
*CONTROL (more control of D over P, more likely to extend duty)
*COST/BENEFIT (e.g. B<PL, etc)
*FAIRNESS TO PARTIES / PUBLIC POLICY
ALSO: Some state statutes provide that a Dr. may NOT be sued for negligence as a result of attempting a rescue -- policy to keep drs. from shying away due to fear of lawsuits (seems like a key factor here). I don't know whether any of them might go so far is to say "a DOCTOR must attempt to rescue"... I guess that's a colorable(?) possibility, but off the top of my head I don't think it's likely.
conclusion: Dr Joe probably doesn't owe a duty...
I'm assuming "discuss only duty" here-- If you wanted me to discuss prox. cause with a "duty" analysis like cardozo, sorry, I can't continue this endeavor...
« on: December 20, 2007, 12:06:39 AM »
ok I've read this thread and I don't think anyone's way out of line...
Accomodations -- geez, that has to be a touchy subject though.
Re: ADD (can't resist the topic) -- I think I am a fairly obvious example of someone with the disorder...
I will not use this as a way to acquire any leeway in life...ok, except for maybe personal relationships (e.g. "sometimes I space out when..."). I couldn't imagine making a substantial excuse based on the diagnosis... especially in school.
Then again, I never really know what it is like to be someone else --- what's going on with another individual. ADD, I think, is classified as a "normative" disorder... But that doesn't mean everyone's going to fall in perfectly on one objective scale. Additionally, disorders like ADD are often coupled with other disorders, which may or may not be diagnosed. For example, I think another poster said he had dyslexia as well?
I try to excercise a good deal of deferrence on the ADD issue with regard to others...
(that one story about the student with extra special accomodations sounded pretty bad though)...
« on: December 19, 2007, 12:21:05 AM »
I liked the acronyms idea for just memorizing rules...
I also like that someone cautioned about memorizing --- that is still an understanding that I really need to master...
but yeah my civpro prof was excellent... he had stuff like:
For class actions: you need C-A-N-T to certify it: Commonality, Numerousity, Adaquacy, Typicality... to file a complaint, it must be "Well Pleaded" plus you need short and plain statements of (1)jurisdiction, (2) claim (3) prayer
I made a little mini outline with all summaries of the points of law (1 page) -- I think that helped just to get the association down and not forget to brush over certain points of law in the analysis...
But yeah don't listen too much to me--- this might as well be entitled "How I Got a 'C'" (j/k), but I'm still waiting on those grades at this point.
« on: December 18, 2007, 06:09:32 PM »
omg i wish i got my grades already... prbly have another 4 weeks!!!
I bombed an essay question that I had specifically asked myself and thought about for HOURS during the school year... and then I came to the wrong conclusion (funny how easy it was to get the "answer" after the test).
At this point I could point fingers (this was the one BAD prof I had -- neither he or his tutor answered questions clearly, and it was a shame becuase the material was plenty interesting...), but it was my fault. And timing was another big issue -- it was just a lack of discipline on my part.
But hey, the grade hasn't come out yet. If I get above a C on that test I'll be ecstatic.
What's worst is I got an A in legal writing, which ended earlier for us... so it will only get worse from here...
« on: December 14, 2007, 09:55:17 PM »
anyone ever not finish / have to outline an entire essay question when it appeared that the rest of the section didn't have that much of a timecrunch and still turn out ok...
I'll latch onto any success stories in ignorance until grades come out...
« on: December 13, 2007, 05:57:25 PM »
...I would seriously consider withdrawing if say, I was in the 50% rank.
How do we know grades before the Spring semester? It's like they try to take your money for the second semester when we don't even know how we performed this semester.....
I'm kind of telling myself the same thing. I'd like to think that if any law student set his/her mind to it, getting in the top half of the class isn't too hard to do... yes, ok I realized the odds are 50/50 - but you're in complete control of how hard you work.
What do I know though? Just a 1L --- I didn't finish a couple exams... if I'm around the median, fine, I'll tell myself "I can be more disciplined and make adjustments." If I really F'd up, then, yeah I'll want to know about it before paying for another semester. Paying a ton of money to get mediocre grades is not a good thing, right?
« on: December 13, 2007, 12:20:30 PM »
*GENERALLY*, say you got a D or a C in a class...
would a law school let you take it again and then take the 2nd grade?
« on: December 13, 2007, 12:16:49 PM »
I have ADD. I didn't finish 2 out of 3 exams. Maybe I should have asked for extra time --- ha, everyone would hate me for sure.
« on: October 25, 2007, 01:22:33 AM »
Will do - thanks...
Is this on target??
Cardozo doesn't trust juries on proximate cause --- even though they typically make the calll b/c prox. cause is a factual issue. So he came up w/ the "duty-based approach" - treats it more like the "duty element...", decides as a matter of law
Andrews = "the norm" - right?
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 39