I learned where I needed to progress in answering questions. I’ve been practicing questions since and the improvement is outstanding!!! Thank you Mr. Grossman!! By the way- your direct approach/responses works for me!!!! Don’t stop!!!
Just not sure if I buy the explanation for question no. 21 because proximate cause applies outside the realm of involuntary manslaughter (and tort actions). I think showing proximate (and actual) causation is still relevant in bringing any murder charge (especially felony murder).
This is correct, at least as far as I can tell from all my outlines and flash cards. Also when he flips to the next slide and you briefly see the explanation it says exactly that. It sounds like he thinks the answer is A but both my gut and the slide he literally shows favors B so now I’m confused
Hi! Yes a trespasser would have to show negligence but assumption of the risk is a full defense for negligence as well. So the neighbor will prevail not because he was trespassing but because he assumed the risk. While admittedly he focused on strict liability, the good news is that you caught he was a trespasser and if he assumes the risk it’s a complete defense regardless of whether it’s SL or negligence.
@@wyattgerl7171 assumption of the risk matters because if he’s a trespasser, he still has to show that the owner was negligent. That doesn’t fully resolve the question of why the owner will prevail. The owner prevails not because he’s a trespasser, but because he assumed the risk, because that’s how he wins the negligence actions.
![Focusing During Your Final Weeks of Bar Prep, with Jonathan Grossman [Webinar Recording]](/img/n.gif)
I learned where I needed to progress in answering questions. I’ve been practicing questions since and the improvement is outstanding!!! Thank you Mr. Grossman!! By the way- your direct approach/responses works for me!!!! Don’t stop!!!
The GOAT comes through again! Thank you, Jon! We appreciate your insights!
Prof. Grossman, you gave great explanations. I wish I would have gone with AdaptiBar instead of Barbri
Thanks a bunch. Love your lectures.
Best practice for the bar with Adaptibar video’s! #smulaw
Just not sure if I buy the explanation for question no. 21 because proximate cause applies outside the realm of involuntary manslaughter (and tort actions). I think showing proximate (and actual) causation is still relevant in bringing any murder charge (especially felony murder).
I thought strict liability is generally not imposed in favor or trespassers? Trespassers must show negligence
This is correct, at least as far as I can tell from all my outlines and flash cards. Also when he flips to the next slide and you briefly see the explanation it says exactly that. It sounds like he thinks the answer is A but both my gut and the slide he literally shows favors B so now I’m confused
Hi! Yes a trespasser would have to show negligence but assumption of the risk is a full defense for negligence as well. So the neighbor will prevail not because he was trespassing but because he assumed the risk. While admittedly he focused on strict liability, the good news is that you caught he was a trespasser and if he assumes the risk it’s a complete defense regardless of whether it’s SL or negligence.
@@renaissancegirl4563but why would assumption of risk even matter? If he’s trespassing it does matter whether he knew of the danger not.
@@wyattgerl7171 assumption of the risk matters because if he’s a trespasser, he still has to show that the owner was negligent. That doesn’t fully resolve the question of why the owner will prevail. The owner prevails not because he’s a trespasser, but because he assumed the risk, because that’s how he wins the negligence actions.
Great video but I wish he would have walked through some hard questions. These were fairly easy.
Thank you!
Ais the correct