Try thinking about torts as a big check list. You can start with a list of torts - you have your intentional torts, negligence and strict liability torts (which you probably haven't covered yet). Then, you can take each tort and break it down into its elements as a check list for that particular tort.When you look at an exam problem, look at each relationship and action that the professor describes and see if it "looks" like one of the torts you have discussed. If it does, then you have spotted your issue. Next, you will write out the rule (each of the elements of that tort). Then, determine if the particular facts really establish each of those elements. You may spot sub issues within your discussion of a particular tort. You will need to include these sub issues in your rule and analysis discussions, as well, but for the purpose of getting your head around the subject, try to start with each tort and its elements.You may be having trouble now, because there are so many sub-issues in negligence. Therefore, it takes a while to get through all of the elements. Once you do, it will likely become clearer.Red
And also, I feel like this IRAC formula is really helpful -- until I see a model answer, and it doesn't seem like it fits that at all. On a side note, I have the LEEWS tapes, but I'm too scared to use them because I feel like it will confuse me even more since I don't even know how to put a basic exam answer together.
On a side note, I have the LEEWS tapes, but I'm too scared to use them because I feel like it will confuse me even more since I don't even know how to put a basic exam answer together.
Page created in 0.276 seconds with 17 queries.