Yes, because we should be judged based on the level of judgement that we ought to possess. If I am blind, I cannot judge based on sight, and the law already recognized this. In just the same way, if I am missing a chunk of my brain, you cannot expect me to exercise the missing part of my brain. Mental disabilities are essentially missing brain chunks. On the second question, it seems to me that "reasonable insane person" is a contradiction in terms. An insane person is (as I understand it) defined to be a person who is incapable of making judgements; whereas a reasonable person has ordinary ability to make judgements.
@@allyourcode if your a first year law student you would understand that when it is a tort issue courts aren’t looking for any criminal punishment it’s just to compensate the plaintiff, also you just stated a physical ailment and once again if you were a 1L you would know courts consider physical disabilities just not mental. Please don’t argue with me because i was just speaking to the professor not anyone else
My #1 Essay Hack: Not answering the questions in full 2. Not IRAC'ing - make it obvious you have all four items. Sometimes you have facts that lead to a counter argument, or you are missing facts for every element and need additional commentary, however you should have an issue, rule, analysis and conclusion for each issue you address. 3. The conclusion doesn't precisely reflect the issue - Issue, Battery, "Thus, Al committed battery," short and sweet. 4. "Because" or "since" in your conclusion - these words tend to show analysis, and should be relegated to the analysis paragraph. 5. Giant paragraphs. With PR being a potential exception, most analysis can be done in a few sentences. While some analysis will require longer writings, make sure that it's the number of elements / facts that determine your writing length, and not simply a repeating of the same thing, or a run on sentence - kind of like this one. 6. Conclusory writing. If your analysis simply restates the facts, you are demanding that your reader come to their own conclusion. Element because fact wins the day!
I find the phrasing 'reasonable prudent person' interesting. In Australia at least the standard at law is referred to as a 'reasonable person' and only at equity as a 'prudent person'. Is there any doctrinal significance in the fact that the words are used together like that in America? Or is it just that a different turn of phrase was used in the case law than in the Anglo tradition?
I suspect that there is no meaningful distinction between our two countries. But, as you suggest, the standard developed in the mid 19th century, so we don't share this legal standard of care from Great Britain.
Hello ! I enjoy your videos so much I’m only 15 and I’m already desiring to become a lawyer the only thing I’m worried about is I’m not very social until I’m comfortable with someone. Would law school be hard for me especially if I guess I would say anti social ?
Most lawyers sit behind a desk and have very little interaction with others. That being said, you can work on becoming more social. Force yourself into more social settings. This is a skill, just like any other skill.
It depends on the area of law. In negligence cases, the learning disability is not taken into account in determining whether the defendant acted reasonably.
Apologies in advance for sounding callous when saying that it's difficult to trust a guy with an eye patch. It's a horrible thing to say but _in these uncertain times_ the brain conjures images of a swashbuckling pirate out to steal my prudent bounty. 😄
@@Learnlawbetter, we have a friendly poker game going on here in Richmond, VA tomorrow night if you're in town. First round is on me. 🤪 Thanks for having a good sense of humor.
Thanks for the video! I’m not planning on going to law school, but your videos are very enlightening!
Glad I can help you learn a bit about the law.
Do you think we should take into account mental disabilities in determining reasonable conduct? Can you act as a reasonable insane person?
Yes!
no , courts do not take into account mental disabilities, the defendant will still be held to the reasonable person test.
@@shukuramartin5495 The question is not what courts WOULD do. The question is what SHOULD they do.
Yes, because we should be judged based on the level of judgement that we ought to possess. If I am blind, I cannot judge based on sight, and the law already recognized this. In just the same way, if I am missing a chunk of my brain, you cannot expect me to exercise the missing part of my brain. Mental disabilities are essentially missing brain chunks.
On the second question, it seems to me that "reasonable insane person" is a contradiction in terms. An insane person is (as I understand it) defined to be a person who is incapable of making judgements; whereas a reasonable person has ordinary ability to make judgements.
@@allyourcode if your a first year law student you would understand that when it is a tort issue courts aren’t looking for any criminal punishment it’s just to compensate the plaintiff, also you just stated a physical ailment and once again if you were a 1L you would know courts consider physical disabilities just not mental. Please don’t argue with me because i was just speaking to the professor not anyone else
Great video as always!
Excellent video with a great and clear explanation.
Many thanks!
Very informative video
Thank you so much.
We need more such videos
Thank you , great informative video!
Fab video really fabulous
Another great video.
.
*Learn Law Better* 💙💙💙 your work is really fantastic 💙💙💙💙 You have a bright future 💙💙💙💙 i connect to you because of your quality work 💙💙💙
Thank you sir 👍🙏
Most welcome
Is it possible if I can email you to ask questions? I’m 10 years old and I have a very deep interest in law and your videos helped me a lot.
My #1 Essay Hack: Not answering the questions in full
2. Not IRAC'ing - make it obvious you have all four items. Sometimes you have facts that lead to a counter argument, or you are missing facts for every element and need additional commentary, however you should have an issue, rule, analysis and conclusion for each issue you address.
3. The conclusion doesn't precisely reflect the issue - Issue, Battery, "Thus, Al committed battery," short and sweet.
4. "Because" or "since" in your conclusion - these words tend to show analysis, and should be relegated to the analysis paragraph.
5. Giant paragraphs. With PR being a potential exception, most analysis can be done in a few sentences. While some analysis will require longer writings, make sure that it's the number of elements / facts that determine your writing length, and not simply a repeating of the same thing, or a run on sentence - kind of like this one.
6. Conclusory writing. If your analysis simply restates the facts, you are demanding that your reader come to their own conclusion. Element because fact wins the day!
I find the phrasing 'reasonable prudent person' interesting. In Australia at least the standard at law is referred to as a 'reasonable person' and only at equity as a 'prudent person'. Is there any doctrinal significance in the fact that the words are used together like that in America? Or is it just that a different turn of phrase was used in the case law than in the Anglo tradition?
I suspect that there is no meaningful distinction between our two countries. But, as you suggest, the standard developed in the mid 19th century, so we don't share this legal standard of care from Great Britain.
Hello ! I enjoy your videos so much I’m only 15 and I’m already desiring to become a lawyer the only thing I’m worried about is I’m not very social until I’m comfortable with someone. Would law school be hard for me especially if I guess I would say anti social ?
Most lawyers sit behind a desk and have very little interaction with others. That being said, you can work on becoming more social. Force yourself into more social settings. This is a skill, just like any other skill.
Learn Law Better thank you !
Very helpful😊❤🔥🔥
Glad you think so!
Professor, how do the courts view someone with learning disabalaties in tort law cases as the defendent. ?
It depends on the area of law. In negligence cases, the learning disability is not taken into account in determining whether the defendant acted reasonably.
Apologies in advance for sounding callous when saying that it's difficult to trust a guy with an eye patch. It's a horrible thing to say but _in these uncertain times_ the brain conjures images of a swashbuckling pirate out to steal my prudent bounty. 😄
Arghh!! Thank ye, matey. LOL
@@Learnlawbetter, we have a friendly poker game going on here in Richmond, VA tomorrow night if you're in town. First round is on me. 🤪 Thanks for having a good sense of humor.
I respect the woman who was harboring Catholic priests in her home.