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.

Topics - CoxlessPair

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9
21
1L job search / Taking it to the State Supreme Court
« on: April 28, 2006, 08:40:37 PM »
*

22
Studying and Exam Taking / Strict Liability Hypo
« on: April 19, 2006, 01:25:44 PM »
Let's say that I keep a lion in a state of the art cage in my living room.
One night, a man breaks into my house and proceeds to rob the place blind. This is despite the fact that I have large signs saying "Warning: Lion" and him seeing the actual cage when he reaches the living room.
In his thieving, he somehow opens the lion cage and the lion then mauls him.

In terms of tort liability, I am a bit confused how this would play out.

Keeping a lion, a wild animal, in a cage is a strict liability action. I'm liable for anything that happens as a result of keeping this animal.
That fact would mean that I would be liable for his injury.

He is a trespasser though and I only owe him a duty to refrain from willful and wanton conduct. The lion was not serving as a spring-gun, merely my animal companion.
The man also may have assumed the risk by voluntarily entering into my house and then choosing to remain into the house despite clear indications that a lion was contained therein.

Is my strict liability trumped by my Land Owner's Duty Limitation or the Assumption of the Risk?

Any help is welcomed, thanks in advance.
2-

23
Studying and Exam Taking / Nominal Consideration in Ks
« on: April 17, 2006, 08:50:49 PM »
I've got conflicting notes on nominal payment to show consideration in a K.

One bullet I have is that a $1 benefit to the promisor is invalid for purposes of proving consideration.

I have another bullet, quoting an unknown Restatement section, that a transaction that is 99% gift and 1% consideration is valid.

Anyone able to clear this up for me?


Thanks in advance,
2-

24
General Board / Judicial Internship
« on: February 22, 2006, 07:24:44 PM »
*

25
Studying and Exam Taking / Legislation
« on: January 28, 2006, 05:17:29 PM »
I know this isn't the most common class to take but does anyone know of a worthwhile supplement for it? My prof is a bit of a lunatic and I'd like to have something beyond him and the case book.

26
Transferring / The paperwork
« on: January 19, 2006, 11:36:46 AM »
For those of you who transferred, how did you go about actually getting the application, transcripts, LORs, etc to the new school?

I've read of a few people who simply sent everything they could to the law school, bypassing LSDAS. Anyone willing to offer their advice on the purely procedural elements of this process?

If I have to do LSDAS again, what do I need to do? I've somehow forgotten everything that I did in my original application process.

Thanks,
2-

27
Transferring / Too good to be true?
« on: January 17, 2006, 10:57:39 AM »
*

28
Transferring / The raised bar
« on: January 02, 2006, 12:52:47 PM »
*

29
General Board / Supplement Advice
« on: December 21, 2005, 03:43:57 PM »
I'm looking for some imput on the best supplements for 2nd sem. classes. 1st semester I went out and got f-ing flashcards, E&E, etc for everything and it was a waste of money. Any advice you have on the best supplement you came across would be welcomed.

The courses I need: 
Crim Pro
Contracts
Legislation


Thanks

30
Studying and Exam Taking / IIED
« on: December 07, 2005, 03:04:46 PM »
Re: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress of a 3rd person.

My teacher focuses heavily (almost exclusively) on the Restatement so bearing that in mind, I have two contradictory things in my outline and need to resolve it.

#1: For a third party to recover for IIED
1. Must be family member
2. Must be witnessed
3. No physical harm be manifested OR knowledge of defendant that family member was present OR that family member was in fact a family member.

#2:
1. Must be family member.
2. Must be witnessed
3. Must result in bodily harm
4. Defendant must be ware third person is present and is a close relation.


Are we saying #1 or #2?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9