Law School Discussion

MP's Thread, or how to get paid $75K to sit around: also known as UChicago 2010

No duty without affirmative act except if there's an emergency involving physical harm?  I guess making exceptions doesn't really work when you're trying to find things in common though.

I can do that.

Also, I'm currently reading a Levmore outline in which the poor 2L actually briefed all of Levmore's non-class cases.  To make matters worse, this poor soul bothered to understand the book's reasoning, and omitted everything that Levmore said in class.   :o

Sorry about the law question, but I'm relatively sure that other LSDers are working on this, or something like it, right now:

So there's an affirmative act section in the "Special Duties" unit of Gersen's class, but these affirmative acts make no sense.  What do these five cases have in common?

Yania v. Bagin
Weirum v. RKO Radio
Globe Malleable Iron
Soldano v. O’Daniels
Stangle v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co.

I dunno.  Anyone know?  Am I just supposed to spot a "I have to use the phone . . . someone's about to kill me!" fact on the exam?


Non-Chicago here, but I recognize Weirum and, for reasons unrelated to 1L curriculum, know it very well.  I bet Weirum (and I vaguely remember Yania) stand for the notion that there's no duty to save someone unless you affirmatively act by creating the risk.  I think Yania dealt with something like this.

Having not taken what seems to be a rather eccentric Professor, though, this could be completely wrong.

nerfco

  • ****
  • 730
  • U.Chi '10
    • View Profile
Having not taken what seems to be a rather eccentric Professor, though, this could be completely wrong.

To be fair,

Gersen isn't eccentric. His torts views are pretty standard. (He is an awesome prof.)

Sorry about the law question, but I'm relatively sure that other LSDers are working on this, or something like it, right now:

So there's an affirmative act section in the "Special Duties" unit of Gersen's class, but these affirmative acts make no sense.  What do these five cases have in common?

Yania v. Bagin
Weirum v. RKO Radio
Globe Malleable Iron
Soldano v. O’Daniels
Stangle v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co.

I dunno.  Anyone know?  Am I just supposed to spot a "I have to use the phone . . . someone's about to kill me!" fact on the exam?



I am so glad that I have no idea what any of those cases mean. Before nerfco said something I didn't know if it was Levmore or Gersen.

One more exam - I can't wait for this quarter to be over.

nerfco

  • ****
  • 730
  • U.Chi '10
    • View Profile
I am so glad that I have no idea what any of those cases mean. Before nerfco said something I didn't know if it was Levmore or Gersen.

One more exam - I can't wait for this quarter to be over.

Just to be clear, I don't recall any of these cases, and I only knew it was Gersen because the message says something about Gersen in it.

Affirmative acts was like one or two days more than a year ago. I'd be more concerned if you remembered.

I wouldn't worry overmuch about Globe. The thing to note with that case is the slippage of the notion of "public duty," which usually means no liability.

Yania represents the background CL rule--"a double dog dare does not a duty make"--which courts like to fudge. Weirum is a good exception to the no duty rule because the D increased the underlying risk to Ps AND, more importantly, it created a brand-new risk as to bystanders re: reckless driving. It's a not otherwise deterred case, to import some Levmore into first quarter.

Re: Soldano. I think the fact that O'Daniels owned both the saloon where the threat was issued and the restaurant where the help was requested is more important than the fact that there was a physical threat. (Cf. Stangle.) But I could be wrong.

annonymous

  • ****
  • 1311
  • UChicago c/o 2010
    • View Profile
UCONN/Syracuse! Double OT! FedJur tomorrow at 9am!

annonymous

  • ****
  • 1311
  • UChicago c/o 2010
    • View Profile
UCONN/Syracuse! Double OT! FedJur tomorrow at 9am!

Triple overtime! Jeez.

I swear they're doing this to me on purpose.

annonymous

  • ****
  • 1311
  • UChicago c/o 2010
    • View Profile
Quadruple overtime.

Sigh.

annonymous

  • ****
  • 1311
  • UChicago c/o 2010
    • View Profile
No Thabeet... argh.