Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - squarre

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11]
101
General Board / Re: Opinions on one of my torts exam question
« on: December 15, 2004, 04:07:28 PM »
Duty depends on which view is taken, Cardozo or Andrews from Palsgraf.  Cardozo says that a duty is owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs adn it is definitely arguable that the lady in the parked car and the child in the house were unforeseeable.  Andrews says that we owe a duty to society as a whole and therefore owe a duty to everyone so in a jurisdiction that follows his opinion everyone is owed a duty.

To establish breach it must be shown that reasonable care was not used to someone to whom a duty was owed.  

If duty and breach were established you could attempt to argue negligence per se. Obviously you would have to establish:

1. That the child or woman were a member of the class the legislature intended to protect (a lot easier for the child than the woman),
2.that the harm is the type of harm the legislature intended to protect against (arguably being struck by a car, or injured as a result of a drunk driver would work, but in opposition the hotel would contend it was being struck by a drunk driver),
3. that it is otherwise appropriate

After this is depends on how the jurisdiction applies neglignece per se, and causation in fact and proximate cause muist be established.

 

102
General Board / Re: offer o r not .......
« on: November 27, 2004, 12:51:28 AM »
I believe he is confusing the two and actually agrees with everybody else.

103
Studying for the LSAT / Re: LR PT 25, Section 2 #23
« on: August 16, 2005, 12:02:47 AM »
I think it's (E).

"If the government steps in and provides the homeless with housing, the problem will disappear."

That sounds like a sufficient, not merely a necessary, measure.

The key is that it says "Only if...", therefore it is C because this wording makes it a necessary condition.

104
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: Legal question
« on: July 16, 2005, 02:42:21 PM »
I don't see why it would be illegal.  Especially since that jurisdiction probably put that law into effect.  As far as I know police can be on the lookout for individuals they feel are prone to commit a given offense. 

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11]