« "What’s in his head, I cannot fucking find in mine." | Main | Not freaking out so much as freaking out. »


Anonymous Asshole

According to BarBri, the subsequent act must generally be a crime or intentional tort to relieve the original actor of liability, they claim pretty much any sort of negligence is forseeable.

Anonymous Asshole

As for the grocery store not being liable at all, I am a bit confused by that...I guess you've got to go with the fact that it wouldn't have happened if he/she/it hadn't been on crutches.


I just did a very similar barbri question with the same answer

Whenever I manage to get more than half of the torts questions right I practically pee myself in excitement.

Anonymous Asshole

I'd like to know what tort "Study Smart" has committed by being such a hunk of shit.


i got the first 8 contracts questions i tried wrong this morning.


Notice that it doesn't say that the grocery story isn't liable, only that the original tortfeasor is. I think what you'd have there is a case of joint and several liability, at least in the jurisdictions where it's available.


The torts Study Smart questions are off the chain retarded. Sounds like Micromash is right there with it.

You just have to totally suspend reality and go with exactly what they say.

But that question is fucking wrong. What happened to fucking eggshell skull plaintiffs? If the dude's on crutches, you take his ass as you find it. If you negligently banana peel him into a broken arm, it shouldn't matter whether the crutches were there or not, right?


The end.

Studying in Ohio

Did you guys get a letter about the Bar/Bri class action lawsuit?

Please tell me it's a settlement in kind involving koozies and stress balls.


Hey, I resemble that remark! During the last weekend in April, B did negligently plow into A (me) with his vehicle knocking me off my bicycle, breaking my leg and causing me to be on crutches (still am). So if I was able to drive to get to the supermarket and I slipped in the store, according to MM, I can also litigate the supermarket too?? Woohoo! I better get over there now so I can slip on a banana peel and break my arm, too.


I looked at the question again, and its explanation for why my choice--that A is liable for just the leg and the store for just the arm--was wrong read as follows:

...but for B's negligence, Pedestrian would not have been injured by Store's negligence. Therefore, Store's negligence was not the cause of Pedestrian's broken arm and Store cannot be held liable for the broken arm.

You're kidding, right? Switch the names around and the same logic says that B can't be liable for the arm.

And another thing: Unless you're going to roll it into pain and suffering, once the victim has been to the doctor and put on the road to recovery, how can you possibly hold the original tortfeasor liable every time he happens to fall on some shit?

All I'm saying is this: The LSAT writers are confident enough in the quality of their test that they nut up and allow people to protest bullshit questions. If this is an accurate reflection of what I'm going to see on Wednesdaym, then the MBE folks should do the same, or else get someone qualified to write their questions. (Namely, Me.)


if i remember correctly, what about the rule regarding indivisible injuries? i.e., a broken arm and broken leg are divisible, not a single, indivisible injury from multiple, joint tortfeasors, who would, if the injury was indivisible, be jointly and severally liable.

but obviously that's not the case for what-the-law-calls-foreseeable negligence.

i'm glad i already passed.

PMBR had that question in the 6 day review course. Here is there rationale:

This is a proximate cause issue and the general rule is that defendant is held liable for harm caused by foreseeable intervening forces. Then, PMBR went on to list types of foreseeable intervening causes -- the type that was relevant to the problem: "subsequent accidents: In situations where the plaintiff suffers a subsequent injury after her original injury (and the original injury was a substantial factor in causing the second accident), the original tortfeasor is held liable for damages." The fact pattern indicates the fact that the victim was on crutches is a substantial factor for the subsequent accident "had he not been on crutches . . ."

the egg-shell plaintiff thing goes to the degree of harm -- if you have a super-sensitive victim that gets extra-harmed -- you can't use that to get out of paying the high damages. I hope that makes sense.

tommy lawyer

I understand the underlying rationale, but my recollection from this hypo way back when in Torts is that both the original and the new tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the second injury, not that the second gets off scott free. I have to think that if the issue shows up on the MBE, it'll be A negligently injuring B, then the ambulance driver further injuring B through his own negligence on the way to the hospital.

Wasn't there some question in the BarBri materials about the lady hitting the pedestrian. She broke his arm or something like that. Then, when she was helping him out of the street, another car negligently hits them, breaking the guy's leg. I think the answer there was the the first person was liable for both injuries, the second one was liable for the second injury only. Why the fuck are we talking about this?


I know this isn't the topic. But am I right in thinking that if I'm in the 50th percentile on the MBE then I can be in the bottom 20% on the essay portion and still pass?

That is, if 80% first timers pass, then that's gotta be the case, doesn't it?

been there done it thrice (successfully)

You poor souls....I took 2 bar exams for 2 different states in the last year. Studied moderately for the first, a grand total of 3 hours for the second (passed both). I swear, if you can even ask these questions, you'll be fine. The fact that you even are doing practice questions essentially guarantees that you will pass!


Dammit. Try to google MBE percentile info for Texas and all I get is me.


At this point I think I am just freaking myself out. Thank God I checked your site. I just took advanced crim law BarBri Qs and got > 1/2 wrong. Jesus.


In my notes I have the "well-settled quartet": later injuries for which a tortfeasor will be liable under case law. These are:
1. Subequent disease or accident caused by the injury. Example given in lecture is: while hopping around after being treated for broken leg caused by tort, you fall and break your arm. Tortfeasor is also liable for broken arm.
2. Intervening protection/reaction forces: when other ps, in response to TF's breach, react to try to protect themselves, but these actions lead to further injury.
3. Intervening negligent rescue.
4. Intervening med mal.

Enough of this 50% stuff. I am off to yoga.

think about it this way: if someone plows into you with a car, and you go to the hospital, where you are recovering until you catch a staph infection that causes you to lose your leg - the person who hit you cannot get out of paying for your injuries, including the leg, by saying "hey, if they'd cleaned the hosptial better, you'd have been fine except for the part where I put you in the hospital."


What's a "tort?"


"Dammit. Try to google MBE percentile info for Texas and all I get is me."
Alta Vista also gives you the Texas Water Board and the home page of somebody by the name of "hotgina32". Enjoy your research.

LawDecks is just as retarded as StudySmart or Micromash.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Financing My Graduation Party

  • Law.Enotes.Com
    Law Resources for Law Students law.enotes.com has the information you need. Case analysis, legal definitions, and much more.


  • Praxxix
Blog powered by Typepad