Watch Professor Grade Essay
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лют 2018
- Watch a professor grade an essay, going through it line by line. This will allow you to go into the mind of the professor, which can help you on future exams.
Brought to you by Learn Law Better learnlawbetter.com
Newsletter Sign-Up: eepurl.com/cBOaBv
RESOURCES:
Facebook : / learnlawbetter
Twitter: / learnlawbetter
Blog: learnlawbetter.com/blog
Do you wonder what goes through the mind of a
professor when they grade an exam? Watch a law professor grade an actual negligence essay final, explaining what he is thinking as he goes over the final line by line.
Learn Law Better is helping law students get better grades and prepare for the bar exam.
This is such an underrated channel!
Thank you!
@@Learnlawbetter A way to improve this video would be to use another essay. I think you used this essay for another video prevously.
As a Philosophy major watching this I can make a strong connection as to why our professors insist on making our arguments very specific and to the point to avoid deviating into irrelevant aspects and "getting into the weeds," so to speak. I love forming arguments and Philosophy has greatly polished my natural abilities. This video actually gives me confidence to go into Law School. I truly love doing exactly what you have required in this exam. This is an affirmation for me. Thank you.
I have a phil bachelors and when legal eagle said to not info dump i was like “of course i wont”
I'm doing a pre law course for my double major. My first major is Political Science, so the way of writing in exams differ greatly. This video was extremely helpful, thank you so much!
Let me know if you found this useful and whether I should do a few more in other areas of the law.
Learn Law Better yes, please do
Very helpful, I would definitely appreciate another.
Very interesting! Please do more.
Very helpful. One question though: in the US do you not have to cite the law while applying it?
Generally not on a law school exam. This is because in most courses, the cases used in class are there to illustrate a particular law. But in a few courses, especially those involving Constitutional Law, the cases are important and the professors do want case names.
Love this Professor
You are a wonderful teacher.Thank you!
This was really informative, thanks!
Professor, fantastic videos! Thank you for creating this channel!
Thanks for the compliment, and let me know what else I should cover.
Thank you...insightful.
The best channel about law school so far. Love it!
Thanks!
Thank you that was very helpful
I found this incredibly helpful in final preparation for exams
Excellent! Hope you do well on your exams.
Thank you
Thank you, there aren't enough people like you who would help demystify things like exams. I'm currently a 0L information like this is very helpful and makes life much easier. Thank you again!
Hope you do well when you begin that part of your journey.
In my Legal Studies courses of Contract Law, we had a problem similar to this in completing a memorandum and an essay for it. So to see how a professor would grade an essay is very interesting and helpful for future assignments.
I hope I learn a great deal from this channel. Thank you all. If you walk with wise persons you will become wise.
Love it. I'm not highly educated but the song is clear. I will always seek more info on the law.
Thank you.
Definitely do more test evaluations.
Can you do more videos like this one please?
This is great information. Please make more videos like this. Thank you.
Would you like to see me grade a different exam?
Learn Law Better yes! This is very useful to see.
Thank you for your invaluable lesson Prof. Baez! This helps a lot!
Thanks.
Is law school hard because the concepts that law students are required to study are hard or is law school hard because of the amount of information that the professors at a law school require the law school students to study and memorize all at the same time?
@@davidsoto4394 both
A bit of both. But faculty do assign too much content.
Please do videos like this one with multipple choice questions.
Correct me if I’m wrong but The part of this scenario that makes Sam’s actions unreasonable is the fact that “he looked around to make sure no one was looking”- this establishes Sam’s belief and/or knowledge that, if someone saw him slide down the railing, he would be reprimanded for it. He knew that his actions would be unacceptable in the museum and slid down the railing anyway.
Sort of. Reasonableness is an objective standard, which means what Sam believed doesn’t matter for purposes of establishing whether his conduct was unreasonable. But it is good evidence at trial to help the jury make that determination.
Catch up with video as well and I love your video how you put out your tip on It's law school:::::
At about three minutes in I’m wondering why the painting wasn’t protected behind bulletproof glass. That’s negligence on behalf of the plaintiff.
Most art galleries do not have the paintings behind glass.
hey that's my paper haha def could've done a lot better
Miles Justine Rivera HAHAHA
Seriously?
Echosera HAHAHAHAHA
what was your mark?
def?
Hi ! Great video ! I am also a Law Student and I am always wondering whenever I do my exams where the threshold is between A (9/10) and B (8/10) and C(7/10) in grading. I am sure a lot of other students would love to hear this threshold from a Law Professor. Thank you for a great content!
I love the way you went through the exam, but I think it varies by professor. My torts professor would agree to discuss what is relevant. My Crim professor demanded that we explain every element then point to which matters, even if all wouldn't apply. So, would your suggestion be for Torts alone, or across all subjects?
matthew nielsen Great observation. I have a bar exam orientation, so my advice applies to those professors that also have the same approach. When I was an associate Dean I reviewed each faculty member’s exams and grading rubrics. While most of my advice applies across the board, watch out for anything peculiar to a specific professor.
Is law school hard because the concepts that law students are required to learn is hard or is law school hard because of the amount of information that the professors require law students to learn at the same time?
@@davidsoto4394 Law school is hard if you want to be a free-thinker and not be indoctrinated by the faculty. Law schools do not teach the Constitution, just ways to manipulate certain amendments and how to interpret the Constitution in a warped method that makes it fit any situation you want. Most of the faculty are, or were, activists and are only interested in teaching. If you show the slightest difference in thought or ideology, it is quite possible to be the victim of retaliation from the administration. This is what happened to me and my law school willfully and wantonly violated Title VI and Title IX and even allowed a student-run "town hall" in which one of the Constitutional "scholars" professors told students that the 1st amendment stopped at the schoolhouse door and does not apply if you offend anyone with your political beliefs. Further, during this town hall which was hosted on the school's zoom platform, multiple malicious and knowingly false statements were made by the students and supported by faculty about my character with the direct intent to cause actual harm to myself and my reputation.
This town hall took place after I had received multiple threats of violence from students which I had reported to four deans on three separate occassion, and to three professors, to which the response from the school was to encourage the student body to confront me in any mnner possible or the entire student body would be subkect to draconian measures.
In short, be careful. Law schools get away with this sort of thing because noone challenges them and no one listens. Most attorneys do not want to go up against minority-majority law schools when it comes to free speech.
Give me more information on It's and would learn from you
Dear Professor, you’ve graciously allowed me to express my legal theories regarding this negligence question from one of your past exams. Now - with your further indulgence - it is time for me to - fish or cut bait or - answer the question as if I were one of your students.
Introduction
Key words, like - “employee of” - “sent by” - “to cover” - “three blocks from” - tempt you to focus on the issue of ‘vicarious liability’. This, however, would be a mistake akin to focusing on the ‘hole’ of the doughnut and ignoring the ‘whole’ of the doughnut. The hole - while providing symmetry - lacks the substance of the whole - which is the substance required to answer a multi-issue negligence question such as this. Before addressing possible vicarious liability of The Post as Sam’s employer we must first establish Sam’s possible liability along with any possible defences he may have.
Duty of care
Negligence requires the existence of a duty of care and a breach by a defendant that causes actual damage to the claimant that is not too remote from the consequence of the breach. A breach of duty comes about when the defendant falls below the appropriate level of care corresponding to the duty owed and courts have historically fixed the standard of care appropriate to the ‘reasonable man’, see for example, Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66, where Justice Holmes wrote, “In an action for negligence, the question of due care is not left to the jury when resolved by a clear standard of conduct which should be laid down by the courts. … Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do; or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”
To establish liability in negligence there are four hurdles which need to be considered: the defendant (D) owed claimant (C) a duty of care, and that D breached that duty, and that C can prove D’s breach, resulted in the harm sustained and finally, C must prove D’s breach was the legal cause of C’s harm.
The test for causation is divided into two elements factual causation and legal causation and the law must consider whether or not there is a valid claim or not based upon several factors - including - but not limited to: reasonable foreseeability, proximity and whether or not the award of damages might be justifiable. In the majority of tort claims once duty has been established it becomes a case of whether or not there has been a breach of that duty which precedent usually - but not in all cases - determines.
Any damage as a result of negligence must come from defendant’s legal duty to take care. Damage will be too remote and if there is no legal duty to take care - there can be no breach - thus no damage.
The primary judicial purpose when attempting to establish a duty of care - must of necessity - maintain consistency in the legal system as a whole and accordingly, we must ask: “Does the decision conflict with past cases unacceptably or will there be conflicts in the future when new duties arise?”
The question of factual causation is whether D’s breach of duty was the real (factual) cause of the harm to C and where the duty of care is not clear the courts rely on the doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur which provides that the event does not happen without negligence, the event must be under D’s direct control and there is no reasonable alternative explanation for the event.
The Museum v. Sam
Sam entered the museum as a visitor - the call of the question proscribes any discussion of trespass to land and property - here, the museum had a common law duty to Sam to provide a safe environment during the duration of his visit. All venues open to the public like museums are acutely aware of potential law suits if a visitor, for example, trips and fall’s coming down a staircase [the normal way] and suffers personal injury. Their usual defence in those cases is C’s ‘assumption of risk’ or Volenti, which because it is an absolute defence unlike ‘contributory negligence’ [a defence in mitigation], is difficult to prove because it is subjective and courts must decide if at the time D gave any thought to whether he consented to the risk or not. Here, the rail was slicker than Sam thought implying he might not have risked sliding down a slick rail where it would be difficult and dangerous to control his decent and he might be injured, in other words Sam’s main consideration would have been his personal safety and he probably never considered possible damage to museum property in his risk evaluation.
In any case - including this one - the owner of property that is ‘open to the public’ - has the duty that if it is reasonably foreseeable that some harm may come to visitors to prevent the harm by at a minimum warning visitors that the foreseen harm may occur - in this case it is reasonably foreseeable that anyone sliding down a bannister may be injured - yet, here, the museum (according to the facts presented) took no steps to prevent [installing knobs on the rails] or warning [signs - “No Sliding on Bannisters”], this duty to warn is mandated even when the danger, such as a hole in the sidewalk left by the municipal DPW is open and obvious to a reasonable person. In Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., possibly the best known and arguably the most notorious tort case in American jurisprudence, the New York Court of Appeals came to conflicting conclusions - whether proximate cause should be characterized in terms of duty to an unforeseeable plaintiff, or whether proximate cause should more properly be based upon foreseeable or unforeseeable causal consequences. Here, it was foreseeable, 1) that - from time-to-time - some visitors may be tempted to slide down the bannister - as Sam was and indeed did - and 2) if they do slide down the bannister and sustain injuries the museum may only claim the Volenti defence if the injured visitor [Sam] was well aware of the consequences of his action and decided to risk it anyway - here, Sam was not warned of the possible consequences of his reckless action.
The Museum v. The Post
If it can be proved that Sam was liable for the damages then Sam’s employer The Post may be held vicariously liable because employers are expected to control their employees, they have the deepest pockets when it comes to payment of damages, and because the employer stands to benefit from the employee’s work it is fair, just and reasonable to share in the risks of the employee’s possible negligent actions while on the job. Here all of the requirements of vicarious liability are met. Sam is a salaried employee of The Post he committed a tort (negligence) in the course of carrying out his assignment to cover the Presidential Debates and his presence in the museum was a detour on his way to carry out his assignment, however, traveling from home to work is not usually considered to be within the course of employment while traveling from job to job after arriving at the employers place of business is. Did Sam reside at the hotel? If so, The Post may escape liability, but on the other hand Sam received his assignment in advance so he didn’t have to report to the newspaper office prior to carrying it out and if this was simply a detour - The Post is on the hook for the damages caused by Sam. On the other hand, if Sam called out sick, deciding to devote the whole day to touring the museum instead of carrying out his assignment it would be considered a ‘frolic’ on his own and The Post would not be liable because Sam was not acting in the course of employment.
Conclusion
The museum had a common law duty to insure the safety of its visitors and the exhibits on loan to it under the terms of a bailment contract with the exhibit’s owner. The museum’s duty of care included foreseeing possible harm to visitors and exhibits, including, but not limited to accident prevention measures such as warning signs: “Watch Your Step”, “Use Handrails at All Times”, “Do Not Slide Down Bannister”, and placement of a security guard near the head of the staircase to see that the signs were obeyed. If Sam tripped on the bottom step coming down the stairs and crashed into the exhibits it would have been an accident and Sam would not have been liable for the damaged artwork and if Sam was injured the museum would have been liable to Sam and the museum could not avoid liability by merely saying Sam used the stairs at his own risk. Here, on the facts as given there were no signs; no devices on the rails to prevent someone sliding down them - even though it is reasonably foreseeable that someone - especially a child would - slide down them. There was no security in place to prevent such an occurrence, “he looked around and noticed that there was no one looking.” The museum cannot claim the Volenti defence because it was clear from the facts stated that Sam did not realize the full extent of the risk he was taking, “the rail was much slicker than he thought,” implying that had he fully realized the risk he probably would not have done it and Sam must be given the benefit of the doubt - Sam is therefore, not liable and by extension - neither is his employer - The Post.
The threshold question is, would you give me a passing mark or scribble in the margin: "Mr. Gilliam, it is not too late to secure a place in the university's graduate arts and crafts program."
Jim
I don’t think I ever mentioned that this was a 30 minute exam. Your answer was thorough, though the expectations for a half hour exam are different. The reason for such a short amount of time is to prepare law students for the bar exam, where in many States they only have 30 minutes per essay.
In the UK we have 3 hrs to answer 4 questions - in long hand - like this one from my tort exam in May:
Chowan decided to build an extension to her house. She contracted with Premier Construction Ltd (PCL) to carry out the building work. Before the foundations for the building could be laid a deep trench excavation was
required which needed inspection and approval by the Council. At the start of the excavation work PCL erected scaffolding and placed a notice at the entrance to Chowan’s house saying: ‘Danger - No admission to
unauthorised persons’.
Consider the principal issues of law which will arise under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984 if the injured parties attempt to recover the losses arising from the following incidents:
(a) Jin, the two-year-old son of Chowan, was discovered lying badly injured in the excavated trench.
(b) Nadeem, a taxi driver, ignored the sign at the entrance to Chowan’s house and entered the driveway to turn his car around. A piece of scaffolding fell onto his taxi, smashing the windscreen.
(c) Fred, an inspector from the Council, arrived to inspect the trench excavation. Fred had smoked cannabis (an unlawful substance) on his way to Chowan’s house, and even though the trench supports had not yet been fully set up, Fred climbed into the trench to measure its depth. He suffered a broken arm when the trench collapsed.
The paramedics arrived and administered emergency first aid before moving Fred to the ambulance to take him to hospital. The paramedics forgot to warn Fred not to try to stand up as the medicine he had been given was likely to cause drowsiness. Fred was carrying a large quantity of cannabis in his pocket and he was afraid that this might be discovered.
When a paramedic’s attention was focused on packing up the first aid equipment, Fred attempted to climb out of the ambulance to dispose of the cannabis. Fred used the rear door of the ambulance which had a very high step down to the ground and he fell and suffered a broken hip.
I'm a strict time manager on exams and I answered this one completely in about 30 minutes - Introduction - 5 min - Jin - 5 min - Nadeem - 5 min - Fred 5 min - Conclusion - 10 min - 30 min total, and - no brag - I think I nailed it. As you can see in the UK there is a statutory and common law duty of care and in the US counting Federal there are 51 different jurisdictions, Exam taking skills apply to both systems and time management and relevance is the key to exam success. It can be done with practice and like my crim. law prof. told me, "You wouldn't buy an airplane and try and fly it without learning to fly would you?" So you wouldn't walk into a law exam without taking as many past exams as possible - if you were the Amazing Krisken you might get away with it but for the rest of us mortal law students - just like getting to Carnage Hall - it takes: Practice - Practice - Practice.......
Jim
"WEATHER"
Why are there numbers in the answer? Why was the word museum capatalised in the answer? Please do a video exactly like this one with an example from Contracts and one from Property.
Hi again - I don't know if it was intentional or serendipity but your hypothetical case is almost the mirror image of the UK case, of The Calgarth [1927] P 93 demonstrating the concept of trespass by exceeding the license granted as a visitor in Lord Scrutton's speech where he said, "When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the bannisters, you invite him to use the staircase in the ordinary way in which it is used." This case dealt with a damaged canal vessel where it was held that navigation rights were confined to vessels paying a fee to enter or leave the canal, and that right did not include a right to ground the vessel on the bank.
An example that sometimes real life imitates law school hypothetical [your adventurous staff reporter and the bannister] last week on the 6 O'clock news (Ch7) a family visited a New York museum where a statue - on loan from a collection and insured for $130,000.00 - was damaged beyond repair when the couple's 9 year old son climbed up on it and toppled it over injuring the boy - who recovered - the insurance company sent mommy and daddy the tab for $130K. Can you spot the legal issues?
First, we need to consider - trespass - Sam became a trespasser when he decided to slide down the bannister and the little boy - the parents were liable - became a trespasser when he climbed up on a statue by an unknown artist that looked like the aftermath of a drunken welder lost in a junk yard for a month [I appreciate art (the genius of Michel Angelo for example) I have no idea what the statue I saw on TV was] but then coming from Texas like Prof. Fuller perhaps my artistic sense is underdeveloped.
When discussing trespass we must first review the landmark English case of Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC J98 (KB), (1765) 19 Howell's State Trials 1029; 95 ER 807 the founding principle of the Fourth Amendment. Lord Camden's dictum of, "If it be law it will be found in our law books and if not found there it is not law." is not the important part of the decision, the most important part is his statement, "The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances, where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole. The cases where this right of property is set aside by private law, are various. Distresses, executions, forfeitures, taxes etc are all of this description; wherein every man by common consent gives up that right, for the sake of justice and the general good. By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my licence, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing; which is proved by every declaration in trespass, where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show by way of justification, that some positive law has empowered or excused him."
In both the cases a trespass was committed and only real issues to decide would be who is going to be ordered by the courts to pay damages?
Questions:
Is the Post vicariously liable for Sam's tort? Sam committed the tort, he was employed by the Post but was it committed within the course and scope of his employment? Was his going to the museum a reasonable detour on the way to his assignment or merely a 'frolic on his own'?
Consider this:
As a general rule, employers are held vicariously liable for their employees' torts only to the extent that the underlying acts were within the scope of the employment (see, e.g., Riviello v Waldron, 47 N.Y.2d 297; Cornell v State of New York, 46 N.Y.2d 1032, 1033; Sauter v New York Tribune, 305 N.Y. 442; Higgins v Watervliet Turnpike Co., 46 N.Y. 23). The scope-of-employment limitation on employers' vicarious liability is a logical consequence of the policies underlying the vicarious liability doctrine itself. The modern justification for the doctrine lies in the view that "[t]he losses caused by the torts of employees, which as a practical matter are sure to occur in the conduct of the employer's enterprise," are most fairly allocated to the employer "as a required cost of doing business" (Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 69, at 500 [5th ed]). It follows from this rationale that torts which are outside the scope of employment and are therefore not part of the "conduct of the employer's enterprise" should not be made the responsibility of the employer.
Here's the law as it applies to Sam and importantly - The Post:
To constitute a frolic or detour, the activity must be unrelated to the employer's business. However, in order for liability to be absolved, the employee must be engaged in a frolic, and not simply a detour (which may or may not result in absolution depending on additional circumstances). For example, when a delivery truck driver takes a longer route to the location he is supposed to deliver packages to because he wants to, say, see a new controversial billboard put up in town that has caused some public debate, he has merely taken a detour from his primary role as an employee/agent of the delivery company. Were he to negligently hit a pedestrian, his employer could likely still face the prospect of vicarious liability.
By that reasoning and considering the museum was near to his assignment Sam's going there was merely a detour like the truck driver above. Trust me when I say the museum's lawyer's would be mining the 'deep pocket' of The Post not Sam even though they will be naming him in the lawsuit - The Post can always sue Sam to recover but it would probably not be cost effective.
Like I said - great question!
Jim
I have not read that case. I came up with the hypothetical after stopping my son from sliding down a bannister.
Sons are a great inspiration sometimes.
In Taking Rights Seriously, In considering ‘Hard Cases’ Dworkin creates an omnipotent judge he refers to as Hercules who must derive a theory of the body of law in order to decide hard cases. He argues that there are right answers to all legal cases which enforce preexisting rights. Positivists - on the other hand - deny the existence of any preexisting rights because - they say - there is no way to determine what these preexisting rights are.
In reply Dworkin claims that we are not limited to deductive arguments - we also have coherent arguments to fall back on when deduction fails to provide an answer. Hart maintains that judges spend their time - either applying rules or legislating while Dworkin suggests that perhaps judges a great deal of the time are applying principles and perhaps this is interspersed with some necessary and proper legislating.
Of necessity the law is adversarial and whether you are a law student taking an exam or a lawyer retained - in our case of Sam's negligent act - by The Post or the museum you must be able to argue both sides of the case and in law school you must let the examiner know immediately which view you are basing your legal theory on and when you've presented your theory you MUST present the other side's view and why you feel that way, for example you might say to the judge or the examiner, "This case is distinguishable from Smith v Jones relied on by the museum because........" The following is an excerpt from an appeal to the New York Appellant Division - Second Judicial Department - believe it or not the appeal was accepted for filing - I acted as my wife's paralegal who signed pro se.
POINT I: DEFENDANT-APPELLANT LAURA GILLIAM HAS BEEN DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW
Article VI. of the U.S. Constitution mandates: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” And the Fourteenth Amendment provides: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964) controls the Constitutional issues presented here, not Whitehead v. Town House Equities, Ltd. 8 AD3d 369 (2d Dept. 2004) used by the trial court to strip Laura Gilliam of her right to competent representation in a New York court. A law degree and a bar card are presumptions of competence - not a guarantee and the Catch-22 of our justice system is - while you have a Constitutional right to represent yourself - you must do it with the same skills expected of a licensed attorney that you cannot afford.
Every appellate court judge I've ever read tells lawyers to get to the point quickly. The same holds true for law professors - I imagine.
Back to your question - in my post I presented the museum's point of view and I imagine I would not gain any points if I did not present newspaper's defence. Where to start? The word 'exhibit' infers that the Audubon collection is on 'loan' to the museum and that conveys the impression that a 'bailment' is in place and the museum must exercise all 'reasonable care' to prevent damage to the loaned exhibit while on the museum's premises. As the Post's attorney my burden would be to prove that the museum breached the duty to take reasonable care and therefore the museum would be liable in damages to the exhibit's owner and The Post would not be vicariously liable for Sam's negligent act of sliding down the bannister. The court's job is define 'reasonable care'. The museum assumed the risk under volenti and it would be a complete defence - disallowing the museum's recovery of damages from The Post or Sam.
"The relationship created by the loan agreement is classified as a bailment. The museum (the bailee) has an obligation to protect and care for the object until the lender (the bailor) claims the work. Loan agreements address the subject of insurance, covering the perils that may occur at the museum’s premises or in transit. The typical insurance offered by a museum is wall-to-wall coverage, which protects a lender’s artwork from the time the object leaves the owner’s wall, until it is returned to the lender." www.artlawgallery.com/2013/03/articles/art-collectors/museum-loans/ accessed just now.
Spaced brass knobs on bannister would be a reasonable deterrent to children and adults not to immolate Mary Poppins' stair sliding escapade - it seems that if the museum could not be held liable for Sam's possible physical damages under volenti - then they cannot claim damages to the exhibit under that same legal theory. What do you think?
Jim
The museum acted reasonably, so no liability. But maybe it was foreseeable that someone would go down the “slide.” I suppose then we would examine how far away the artwork was from the bannister.
Your scenario is ex-post and foreseeability is ex-ante. In Petition of Kinsman Transit Co. 388 F.2d 821 (2d Cir. 1968) The Second Circuit, affirming a lower court ruling, held: "the injuries to [the shippers] were too 'remote' or 'indirect'
a consequence of defendant's negligence" to create liability. This was true even though the court found that it was "foreseeable" that the defendant's negligence could lead to indirect economic loss. So my conclusion is that Sam's uncontrolled bannister slide was too remote to incur liability for any resultant damages to the exhibit even if - as you say - the museum's actions were 'reasonable'. Any museum open to the public is also open to tours by school children that are prone to get into mischief after eluding the sharp eyes of their beleaguered teachers. As a matter of Quality Assurance museums must foresee possible damage to the exhibits by properly securing them by, for example, roping them off so the public may not come into direct contact with them - locking them in display cases - and in this case posting signage "Use Handrails" "Keep Off the Bannister's" for example - or positioning security guards near the head of the stairs - at minimum these would be minimum 'reasonable precautions' taken by any museum required to carry liability insurance as part of the bailment contract with the lender of the exhibit. Also, in your scenario the museum would have had 'accord and satisfaction' from its insurance carrier and it is fundamentally unfair as a point of law for defendants to pay twice for the same harm - their insurance underwriter could sue Sam and his employer after obtaining subrogation from the museum. Sam's employer is also insured for negligent acts of its employees. Insurance companies have the reputation as being professional litigants and do this sort of thing all the time.
When courts attempt to answer questions of whether a defendant's conduct is actionable under a "proximate" or "legal" cause analysis - they consider factors like intervening acts between defendant's actions and harm to the plaintiff, and also the indirectness of harm, and lack of foreseeability of harm in order to justify a holding that defendant's actions, regardless of negligence or wrongfulness, was just too "remote" and, accordingly, not the "proximate cause" of the harm caused to the plaintiff, see for example The Wagon Mound (No.1) [1961] AC 388.
The damage in the above scenario could have reasonably occurred regardless of the manner of exit from the staircase - stumbling from tripping on the bottom step and not recovering your balance before colliding with and damaging the exhibit or - as in this case - stumbling after your feet hit the floor after dismounting the stair-rail. The duty to place the exhibits out of harm's way of the possibility of these types of events - accidental or negligent - is the museum's.
Studying law is a blast.
Jim
Updated excerpt for the above:
Also, in your scenario the museum would have had 'accord and satisfaction' from its insurance carrier and it is fundamentally unfair as a point of law for defendants to pay twice for the same harm - their insurance underwriter could sue Sam and his employer after obtaining subrogation from the museum. Sam's employer is also insured for negligent acts of its employees. Insurance companies have the reputation as being professional litigants and do this sort of thing all the time.
The damage in the above scenario could have reasonably occurred regardless of the manner of exit from the staircase - stumbling from tripping on the bottom step and not recovering your balance before colliding with and damaging the exhibit or - as in this case - stumbling after your feet hit the floor after dismounting the stair-rail. The duty to place the exhibits out of harm's way of the possibility of these types of events - accidental or negligent - is the museum's.
Starting home school it's don't have to pay for classes at all or college also
In your experience with other professors, how many grade similarly to you?
I’m pre-law and honestly your grading seems incredibly reasonable. I always hear stuff about how you can never have any idea what a law prof wants on an exam because they’re super nitpicky so I’m curious if you’re just a more relaxed prof or if the people I’ve spoken with are a bit dramatic lol
The issue is that few professors are transparent in their grading, so you really don’t know how they grade. Most will meet with you after an exam, but there isn’t any good way to understand their grading methodology after that meeting.
Your website is not working
Any advice for high school students?
As you prepare for college, seek classes where you can practice your writing skills. That might include some history and philosophy courses.
Sam was out of clock working hours therefore is not applicable. Is like someone tells me is my fault I got an accident on my way to work because I changed the lane which resulted in an accident.
👍👍👋
I don’t see any case citations? (I’m only at the duty part right now)
On timed exams, most faculty don’t want case citations. Also, for common law course the cases aren’t that important. They are used to help students understand a concept, but rarely is the case important. The professor could have used any one of hundreds of cases to illustrate the law.
I'm getting pretty good at IRAC in my paralegal studies degree. Will that help me prepare for law school in the future?
The more practice the better. The problem I’ve seen with paralegals in law school is that many of them don’t work as hard, thinking that being a paralegal gives them a huge advantage-it does not.
@@Learnlawbetter Stay humble, work hard! Got it, thank you!
Question: Is the employer liable for Sam's negligence? It says he was scheduled to work 8-10, and the accident occured while off clock. Or, does him traveling to work means he was on the clock? Just wanting some clarity on this.
Generally, commuting to and from work does not create liability for the employer. Unless, the employee is on some errand for the employer.
Professor Baez, in the opening statement, the student referred to the unreasonable conduct of the plaintiff results in damages to the plaintiff. I suppose he meant to say unreasonable conduct of the defendant results in damages to the plaintiff, am I right?
Yes! In a closed-book timed exam students make simple mistakes. I tend to ignore them if they are obvious mistakes.
Thank you professor for your quick response. It makes sense. I have found your videos very helpful, thank you so much!!! Do you have any advise for foreign attorneys who wants to go to law school?
I’ve had a few foreign attorneys in my class. The key is to have strong English skills and good writing skills.
Hey professor, on average how long are law school essays suppose to be?
It has to be long enough to answer the question. I know that’s not what you want to hear, but let me explain. I’ve had student answers that were pages long and failed. Then I’ve seen fairly short answers get top grades. The key is to spot the RIGHT issues and not write about WRONG issues. Once you master the issue spotting problem then use IRAC. Too many students can’t master this step, so they discuss many tangential issues, losing points be not focusing on the main issues.
Beau the Beast
Out of curiosity, what grade did you end up giving this student's paper?
The final exam was made up of 3 essay questions and 30 multiple choice questions. For the one essay question you saw me grade, the student earned 90 out of 100 points.
Isnt negligence the absence of action? Sliding down a railing not meant for human transportation is an action.
Negligence can occur for an action or failure to act.
@@Learnlawbetter I looked up the latin root of 'negligence' and you're right...thanks!
I’m not critiquing your grading but from reading the comments it seems that all professors are different. How does a student know a professors personal wants on a test? Is it stated?
Excellent question. Though there is variation, at least implicitly there isn’t much variation. It comes down to the four criteria: issue, application, organization, and grammar. What is different is how professors weight these criteria, with most doing it implicitly.
You can ask a professor, but many won’t tell you. A few will, which can help you prepare for an exam.
Then there are those who provide sample exams and answers, which you can deconstruct to get a sense of what they want-this is hard for students to do.
How come only a brief discussion of forseeability is needed? If he is negligent shouldn't the circumstances be foreseeable?
One way to think of proximate cause is in the negative. You only need a lengthy discussion when something is unforeseeable (e.g., the unforeseeable manner of injury or unforeseeable intervening event). In other words, when an injury is foreseeable the professor isn't testing you on proximate cause so there is not need for an in depth discussion. You may want to watch my video on proximate cause for more information: ua-cam.com/video/Zt6x2gidfnE/v-deo.html
I am there's
"Negligence is a tort dealing the unreasonable conduct of the plaintiff which results in damage to the plaintiff."
Pre-0L here, so forgive my ignorance, but isn't that statement declaring that the negligence conducted by the museum resulted in damages to the museum itself?
Unreasonable conduct by the defendant. I misspoke.
@@Learnlawbetter That quote is the first sentence from the student's answer. You may have said that as well, but I was referring to the student's answer in my initial question. Thanks for the reply, though!
This guy needed more than normal human?
You get a D for not providing a grade. When did they eliminate summations from a trial? You also have a sing song voice, unprofessional.
Or email me