I am trying to get ahead and starting my torts outline after only 1 week of classes. Please keep in mind that i am not even really sure what an outline is to encompass at this point.
I am following along with the table on contents of my torts materials and listing each case that was assigned under each heading... than i write VERY brief reminder of what the case was about... and the rule... as sumarized from lexis case-brief headnotes...
Garratt v Dailey (1955)
Defendant, a child under the age of six, was visiting plaintiff's adult sister at plaintiff's home. Plaintiff alleged that she came out into the backyard to talk with sister and that, as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair, defendant deliberately pulled it out from under her.
Rule: It is not enough that the act itself is intentionally done and this, even though the actor realizes or should realize that it contains a very grave risk of bringing about the contact or apprehension. Such realization may make the actor's conduct negligent or even reckless but unless he realizes that to a substantial certainty, the contact or apprehension will result, the actor has not that intention which is necessary to make him liable in tort.
Am I on the right track with this? Is it unnecessary to do this for each case or is it advantagous...
If you have any wholesale tips for me on outlining or comments on the method i have chosen PLEASE do not hesitate...
In holding with the "work smarter not harder" approach, does anyone have any suggestions on how to improve my outline technique?
Thank you in advance