



Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
if you are taking Torts at Hofstra Law, this document will save your life.
Typology: Study notes
1 / 5
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Memo: Mid-Term Answers and Final Exam Review Please review the following comments about errors typically made on the exam and how to avoid them on the Final. The most serious errors made resulted from “misdiagnosing” the questions. That is, you do not properly identify what the question was aiming at, what was the issue/rule it was asking you to address. So, you get few or no points on that question. In class I spoke about identifying the “flags in the facts” – the indicators in the fact pattern that suggested what rule/issue was involved in the question. However, you may have difficulty recognizing those “flags” or indicators. As a result, you “miss the issue” and get no points for your answer on that question. So what could help you do better with that? One thing that can help is to use an “outline” of issues – outlining the elements of the Plaintiff’s case that we’ve studied – to spot the issues embedded in exam questions. To do that, you need to make an outline and review that outline in advance with an upcoming exam in mind, and ask yourself, for every element listed on the outline: What kinds of exam facts would give rise to this issue or rule? What kinds of facts should I be “on the lookout” for? Some examples: The outline lists “Negligence per Se”. If the exam facts refer to a statute, they give rise to this issue. The outline lists “Res Ipsa”. If the exam facts describe a malfunctioning machine, but with no explanation for the malfunction, they give rise to this issue. The outline lists “Cause in Fact—Special Rules”. If the exam facts describe a situation with multiple possible causes, they could give rise to this issue. These are just examples, but make an outline of issues studied thus far, and ask yourself (or your study partner), for each item listed there: What kinds of exam facts would give rise to this issue/rule? If you do this, then you’ll be much better prepared to recognize those facts when you see them in a question. Then you won’t miss the issue and lose all the points on that question. In sum, use the outline of elements/rules both to review and see if you understand the rules (including their elements/conditions), and also to sensitize yourself to the patterns of facts that call for you to use each rule in your answer. This will help you not to “miss issues” on the exam.
Reasonableness what did he do and what would a reasonable person do? (objective std): use evidence of custom for R/AV – reasonable ppl think this is a risk if ur not using custom, also cant be too expensive if its custom (although not dispositive, unless medical) exception to objective std of reasonableness: child, unless involved in adult activity , physical condition (both lowers std) and expert in the field/special skill or training (higher std) , and under the circumstances exception = emergency situation RPS: RISK AVOIDANCE (R > C/AV) < RPS -issue = negligence -rule = R/AV (hand formula) -facts/flags = youth std? physical impairment? Special skill? Otherwise, RPS 1 ) i.d. the did/shda – try to find C/F (“but for” candidate = DID , NO SAFETY MEASURE/lack of doing X) and all untaken precautions ( SHDA = SAFETY MEASURES/doing X,Y,Z tht would hv avoided THE BUT FOR )
evidence (“more than speculation”/conditions) or dependent on statistical (epidemiological evidence)
court effects: JSL – 100% together / “prove conditions and causation is inferred” switches burden of proof from P to D to encourage D to come forth with evidence/absolve themselves of liability/injury seen as indivisible Concert of Action -issue = causation -rule = concert of action