im going to read the buffalo creek disaster and getting to maybe. im not wasting my time with the others.
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.
look at any torts exam. 99% of the time(besides wacko policy obesessed profs) youre given a long fact pattern and then told in one way or another to identify any possible parties and any causes of action they may have.
i think it all comes down to knowing the elements of assault and battery for example, and being able to apply them to the facts, not trying to analogize the facts at hand to those of vosburg v. putney to come up with some kind of argument based on the holding of that case. if the case helps you understand how a rule can be applied, that is great, but beyond that i dont think the cases have any value. its not like the procedural posture of vosburg is going to be worth a damn on the exam. i could be wrong, but i dont think you are expected go off citing cases that you've read in class on an exam.
I totally agree, and that's why I don't devote a lot of time to the briefing process. However, if you are allowed to bring notes to the exam (my Torts class is allowed), it would bolster your answer to be able to say, "The McNight case showed that intent can be transferred..."