ewww, property. [vomit icon would go here if I weren't too lazy to find one]
I'm getting rrrreally concerned about my ability to pass the bar. This thread is depressing.
Girl don't sweat it. Your school has like a 99.999% bar passage rate or something right? You have to pass the bar. There's no option for you. Take the courses and you're good money.
Speaking of the course, DAY 3 - Torts.
Finally, an uncomplicated subject. I ended up getting 41 out of the 50 test questions correct!!! How about that sh!t? You can call your parents back home and ask them torts questions and even though they may not know the legalese terminology they can usually guess correctly as to who is liable. The bar seems to love Strict Liability and Strict Products Liability questions. There were a slew of those. Also, they test big time on the differences between Invitee, Licensee, and Trespasser. They cover your standard intentional and unintentional torts (battery, assault, defamation, negligence, etc.), plus they throw in invasion of privacy actions, which I didn't go over in my torts class so I missed those questions. Oh, and one helpful thing that we learned is that on the bar exam, the bar exam instructions for the MBE tell you that you are to assume that every torts question takes place in a Comparative Negligence jurisdiction, so no contributory negligence stuff.
Torts hypo of the day:
Esteban parked his BMW convertible on a steep hill on California Avenue in San Francisco. He then walked a few blocks to the China Grill to meet a few friends for lunch. While Esteban was at the restaurant, his car rolled down the hill and struck Tiffany as she was walking across the street. Tiffany suffered a fractured leg in the accident.
Tiffany sued Esteban to recover damages for her injury. At trial, Tiffany merely introduced evidence that Esteban parked his car on California Avenue and the vehicle rolled down the street striking her. However, Tiffany did not present any evidence showing negligence on the part of Esteban.At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case-in-chief, both parties move for a directed verdict. The court should
(A) grant plaintiff's motion, because it is more probable than not that defendant was negligent in allowing his car to roll down the street
(B) grant the defendant's motion, because plaintiff did not present any evidence showing negligence on the part of the defendant
(C) deny both motions, because under the circumstances the jury may infer negligence on the part of the defendant
(D) deny the plaintiff's motion, but allow the defendant to present rebuttal evidence before ruling on the defendant's motion