Happy Halloween

Halloween should be renamed National Frogger Day. The only difference is that tonight the cars are trying to dodge the frogs. Maybe Frogger Awareness Day would be more appropriate.

Tonight I would like to discuss irritations in the class room (my class room to be more specific). If I were a professor, I would ban all snacks during lectures. It's not a restaurant; it's a law school. It's annoying to hear noise in the background caused by the crackling of candy and snack wrappers...and if you're going to eat chips, learn some manners and keep your mouth shut.

I have no problem with those that speak up to pose questions or to give a response. However, if you're going to speak just hear yourself blabber on (which I do not suggest), then have the courtesy to think about what you're going to say before you start jabbing away.

Punctual class attendance is advised. Frequent entering and exiting of the class room is also distracting. If you don't want to be here, don't show up. If it weren't for the high probability of these folks being ranked at the bottom of the class (improving my rank), I'd suggest to resign from law school altogether. You're paying thousands of bucks. I understand the occasional "gotta take a leak," but try to drain the main vain before class starts.

I just had to get that off my chest. Thanks for allowing me to whine a bit tonight.

Cars and Broken Limbs

The Reasonable Person Standard. The basic idea is that the actor being discussed should be compared to the ordinary reasonable person for acts he commits. Here's a hypothetical that I'll make up on the fly: Grandma ran a stop sign (claiming she didn't see it) and t-boned George (who was 12 year old kid that just stole a car). After whipping George with a belt and breaking his left ankle, George's father (representing his son) brought suit for negligence against Grandma. Grandma was injured in the wreck and lost all feeling in her left arm. The doctor, being fresh out of med school from the wonderful state of Mississippi, operated on the wrong arm and caused her to become paralyzed in her right leg. Grandma now relies on a walker and/or wheelchair depending on how many doobies she smoked that morning. On a good morning, she believes she can fly like a bird and needs no assistance at all. Regardless, she is suing the doctor for negligence. In addition, George's mother (who is a prostitute) is suing his rich father for battery on behalf of George.

Here's how the reasonable person standard would be applied. First, Grandma is old. Should we have sympathy for her? Not in Torts. Grandma claims that she doesn't need to stop at the intersection, because she's never hit anyone while running the stop sign in the past. Although her knowledge and quality of judgment may be less than an ordinary person, the jury is going to be instructed (if it reaches the jury) to hold Grandma to a reasonable person standard. In other words, would an ordinary prudent individual stop at the intersection that Grandma cruised right through? The standard does not shift just because she claims she's not as smart as the ordinary reasonable person.

Did the fact that George was only 12 have any significance? Who cares? That's not why I constructed this hypothetical. However, when Grandma sues doctor, the reasonable person standard changes a bit. The standard is now changed to "what the ordinary medical professional would do." This alteration exists for good reason. Most ordinary people can't stitch up pants, much less the arm of an elderly lady. Details, details, details...This is taking up too much of my time.

I got to get back to studying.

Here we go

I've reached the back stretch of the first semester. It's time to gear up for finals and put normal life on the back burner. This is where it becomes balls to the wall in an attempt to be ranked higher than my peers. It sort of irritates me that half of my class doesn't work at all, yet they're enrolled in the evening division. I have to work that much harder to ensure top performance during exams. Not only must I begin studying for finals, I must also keep up with the increasingly difficult assignments as the semester comes to an end. In preparation, I've created a detailed schedule that demands 5 hours of study a night at minimum. That of course doesn't include my loss of freedom during the weekends. No beer, no football, no sleep...just studying. The next month is nothing but Hell. Kind of exciting, eh? The nerves are beginning to twitch, but I'm ready to rock-and-roll. Caffeine is now my best friend in much the same way that crystal meth is to economically disadvantaged redneck junkies who strip at the local Watering Hole in the presence of truck drivers and 80-year pedophiles. Wow, I can actually relate.

Boolean for Dummies

I'm now well versed in the two primary online legal databases Lexis and Westlaw. Over the past couple of weeks, we've received training in how to perform legal research using both databases. Basically, these services provide statutes, cases, regulations, and reference materials for nearly all jurisdictions in the US court systems. While it did provide knowledge useful for more efficient online legal research, I nearly fell asleep during the lecture discussing Digital Logic. For approximately 20 minutes of each session, we discussed Boolean logic and how it pertains to online searching. Apparently, they don't explain the differences of AND, OR, NOT, etc. in the liberal arts curriculum. It seems simple to me, but maybe that's because mastering these concepts is essential in the world of computing. Not to knock the intellect of the majority of my fellow peers, but including AND in a connector search should be obvious that it will return only documents containing both words included in the search. Likewise, OR should return documents containing either word/phrase. Simple, eh? Does it really take a rocket scientist to grasp these concepts? With today's usage of the Internet, I find it necessary that someone teach these educated folks elementary logic. My time would have been much better spent discussing more of the specifics of each service. Tonight lacks humor, so I'll be sure to go out on a limb on some future posts.

Nutrition for finals

It's just a little more than a month away from my first law school final. I've noticed that the library attendance is starting to rise. I hear that it fills up quickly as finals approach. I've started preparing my first round of outlines and can already tell it's going to be a major pain in the buttocks. I've been copying final exams from the library repository starting from 1978 and working my to present day. It's kind of stupid to make copies of every exam known to man, but at least I'll have an idea of the many different types of questions posed by various professors. I'll update my status as I move along.

Today I checked my email an hour or so before preparing for class and found out that classes were canceled this evening due to major flooding within the city. I think we've had 83 1/3 inches of rain today and we're supposed to get more as the evening progresses. So instead of going to school I decided to do a little grocery shopping at the neighborhood market. The store recently changed its name to "Breaux Mart" which I'm assuming is in memory of the local gangsters that have poured out a little liquor for their homies. The funniest thing about the new name is that the management seems to be Caucasian. For your entertainment, I've provided a picture of my grocery sack below. I hear that in celebration of grand opening, next week's ad may include $0.99 40 Oz. Colt 45's, 1/2 off on rolling papers, and buy-one-get-one free vanilla flavored blunts.

Soggy bottom boy

Here's a hypothetical for you(true story of course)...kinda like a law school exam question. Let's say you and I are pals. My truck is the shop having surgery. Since I don't want to walk to class today in the rain, you agree to drop me off at school and pick me up when class is over. In return I will provide you with some cynical humor to and from class. My presence is in itself worth a million bucks. When class is over I call to verify you're still picking me up. You don't answer. After previously turning down two different offers for a ride home, I get pissed and walk home in the rain trying to avoid getting mugged. I take a shortcut through the park and step in a knee deep puddle. My pants are soaked and my feet are squishing around in my shoes. When I'm halfway home, you call saying that you lost track of time because you were busy partying with co-workers. I now refuse to accept a ride home from you since I'm only a quarter-mile away. Have you breached the contract? If so what are the damages? Can I sue for negligence? Am I liable for contributory negligence for not accepting your new offer? Due to my severe stress, have you committed an act causing intentional infliction of emotional distress?

Should I rely on your offer to take me to pick up my truck tomorrow morning or should I call a cab?

I can feel the changes taking place in my transformation into thinking like a lawyer. I would have never thought of this crap in such a manner beforehand. At least my walk home tonight allowed me to review what I've learned so far in Torts and Contracts this semester.

The Walking Stick

Yet another great case...Some dude (who will subsequently be referred to as not-so-blind guy) was walking down the post-office hallway when a blind man, who operated a concession stand at the post office, was walking in the opposite direction towards him. The blind man was not using his cane, instead claiming that in familiar surroundings he relied on his facial senses and didn't need the cane. The blind man bumped into the not-so-blind guy causing him to fall and injure his hip. Not-so-blind guy then sued the Post Office for negligence on the part of the blind employee. In the end, the blind man was not found to be negligent since he was acting in a manner that a reasonable person would have acted if he were blind. My professor calls this, the "Life sucks, get a helmet" type of case. Why would this guy sue the post office instead of the blind man? My professor stated that sometimes people try to avoid the "piss-off factor for the jury" by suing someone else. The jury tends to sympathize with the less fortunate, so claims often get rejected by the jury due to this sympathy. Lesson: Don't screw with the handicapped.

Superman

Here's a funny case that I read the other day...Some old lady was driving home after dropping off her husband at work. She was following a car when she suddenly saw a bright light shining on the back. She was confident that it was God taking hold of the steering wheel and guiding her to safety. The problem was that she was driving down the wrong way of a two-way highway. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure God would have kept her in her own lane. Wait, it gets better. During the trial, her psychiatrist testified that she previously confronted him about her belief that God wants her to be the last person remaining when the world comes to an end. Back to the driving experience...As she was driving in the wrong direction down the highway, she noticed a large truck coming head-on. Pfff, no big deal; she stepped harder on the gas. Her assumption was that God was going to spring board her into the air and take flight to avoid the collision. She claimed that she knew she could fly, because Batman was capable of doing so. The driver of the truck sued for damages based on a negligence claim. Of course he won, but the courts actually gave consideration to her temporary insanity claim. The court held that when driving a motor vehicle, an insanity claim is only a valid defense if the consequences resulting from a particular act are sudden and unforseeable. In other words, it must be similar to a person experiencing a heart attack that has no prior history of ever having one. If a person has reason to believe that a grave danger is forseeable due to past history or the severity of the illness/insanity, then she is liable for damages on an insanity claim.

Batman wannabes shall be tossed in the looney bin. I say yank her license and buy her a cane.

No lecture today

Sorry, but I have no lecture to deliver this evening. I took a practice exam this evening in Property. The professor, from Germany (a Civil Law country), is a very intelligent and rather sincere dude. He understands that the rigors of law school are monumental. He attempts to be a "student's professor" in the sense that he tries to build relationships with each student and in doing so tries to take it slow to make sure we grasp all of the concepts before moving ahead. I'm not quite sure if I like this approach though. It may sound stupid, but I'd prefer some hard knock prof's that are going to drill me during the first year so that I'm well prepared for future classes. On the other hand, it's relaxing to know that we're not going to be drilled in his class. One of the great things the law school provides is all past exams from previous semesters are available in the law library. We are allowed to copy these exams to use as study aids. Since our Property professor is new to the university, we don't have any dirt on him. That kind of sucks. How are we going to know what his exams are like? Luckily, this guy gave us an ungraded practice exam to take this evening. Although it was tough, it seemed much easier than what I expected. Hopefully, the final is of the same format. Excuse the lack of humor tonight, my mind has been drained of fuel due to the paper I just turned in as well as the practice exam that I just took. Maybe tomorrow's post will be more exciting.

Privileges

Here's another free Torts review session. Who needs to go to law school when I can pay all of the money and let you smooch off me? Today we'll discuss privileges. A privilege does not mean that you haven't committed a Tort. It's simply a justification as to why you're permitted to do so. Let's get started...

Consent--I'm kicking your tail in a mixed martial arts competition such as the UFC. Even though you're a wimp and we all know I'm going to severely punish you, I'm not liable for Battery because your participation is consent for me to tear you apart. However, if my name is Mike Tyson and I bite your ear off, I am liable since it doesn't fall within the rules of the competition. If I accidentally poke you in the eye and you go blind, I'm still not liable because it's not a severe violation of the rules. A reasonable person could determine that this may occur.

Self-Defense--You walk onto my property attempting to steal my tractor. In return, I pump you full of lead with my AK-47. I'm still liable for battery in the world of Torts because a person is not justified to use deadly force in the protection of property. However, if you break into my house in the middle of the night and I think you're going to harm my family, then I have the privilege of self-defense to pump you full of lead...as long as my use of deadly force is reasonable. If you're just drunk, lost and stumble in my front door and I find you asleep on my couch snuggled up with my neighbor's goat, I cannot pump you full of lead. I must resort to non-deadly force or call the authorities. I do not have a reasonable belief that you're going to cause bodily harm; at least not to me or my family.

Defense of Others--If you're beating up my buddy who is a sissy, I may jump in using only necessary force (possibly a golf club) to shoe you away. I can only use force that would seem reasonable for my buddy to use in defense of himself.

Defense of Property--I place spring-loaded guns in my barn to deter thieves. A thief walks in and loses a limb due to my strategically placed traps. I'm still liable for battery because I'm not allowed to use force that may cause severe bodily harm to protect my assets. Note: I can do so in my own home only to protect myself and my family, not the home itself.

Recovery of Property--I see you snatch a purse from Grandma. I chase you down, tackle you, and return the purse to the poor old lady. As long as the pursuit was "fresh" and I didn't use deadly force, I am privileged to do so.

Necessity--I blow up your house to prevent a wild fire from spreading to other property. I'm the mayor so I have the proper authority. As long as it is of benefit to the much larger public population, I'm privileged to do so.

Authority of Law--I'm a bouncer. I have the right to commit a battery in detaining you before the police come to haul you off to prison and deliver you to Bubba. I guess you should have not gotten so drunk, eh?

Discipline--I'm a parent. Oh me, that's a scary thought...for the kid that is. I take my belt and leave welts on the little-uns leg. As long as the force is reasonable (the jury will decide), I am privileged to do so. Listen to me you little sissy...

Justification--I'm a school bus driver. Your little teenage kid is destroying my bus. I lock down the bus and go straight to the police station (yeah right, I'd kick his tail first). I'm not liable for false imprisonment because I was justified to resort to appropriate measures. If you don't like it, don't let your kid ride the bus. After all, he may fall out.

Negligence is coming up next. Stay tuned.

Papers and rain

This city is great for fun, uniqueness, and high murder rates. It's also great for slip-n-slide. It never stops raining. Either God likes to pee a lot on this town (maybe to keep the thugs inside for a few hours?) or the wild-fire fighting aircraft are often misdirected from California. I haven't figured out which it is, but it's certainly annoying as hell. Enough of that, this blog is supposed to be about the law school experience, not my lame day-to-day observations.

So, I have this big paper due tomorrow that's worth about 1/3 of my semester grade in Legal Research & Writing. This class is just a major pain in the ass. There is no final exam in this class. Instead, there's a crap load of research and writing exercises that have to be completed. This assignment is basically an inter-office memorandum about whether or not our fictitious client will be successful in a defamation claim against one of her peers. With that being said, I must state that the background of our client's story is quite amusing.

Basically we have this law student that is ranked in the top of her class and has had several prestigious clerking positions in the past. However, she is unable to land a job coming out of law school, because one of her classmates has acquired some intimate photos of her and has posted them on a public website along with some rather negative remarks. She claims that potential employers have googled her name and found these photos and comments. In my view, the simplest thing to do would be to advise our client that she ought to quit acting like a slut, but unfortunately I don't think I'd receive a good grade if I did this. The paper isn't all that difficult to write, it's just a pain making sure all of the citations are correct. We have this 100 and some odd paged book that gives rules about how to cite cases and statutes. Apparently, the profession is pretty strict when it comes to correctly citing authority. Simple things such as the correct spacing between abbreviations could knock us down a half-letter grade if we're not careful. I completed my paper Saturday, but every time I review it I find some other stupid citation error that needs fixing. I think I've caught everything now, but I still need to reread it 27 more times to be sure.

Stick with Coke Rewards

What if I told you that I'd give you 10 bucks for every fool you successfully recruit to read this boring blog? Would you expect me to pay out upon your successful performance? Of course not, I'm a poor law student with no disposable income. All of my dough goes directly to books, paper, pens, etc. The rest of my pocket change goes directly to tuition and beer. Hence, you'd assume that my advertisement is merely jest, not a valid offer binding me to contract. That's not what Leonard assumed when he viewed the Pepsi commercial advertising the possibility of winning a 23 million dollar Harrier Jet for a sum of 7 million Pepsi points. The commercial, as you may have seen, encouraged consumers to drink more Pepsi and earn points that can be redeemed for stuff. At the end of the commercial a kid was shown exiting the cockpit with a Pepsi and in the background, text was shown displaying that 7 million points was needed to acquire the jet. Of course everything comes with a disclaimer these days. Pepsi covered their tail by stating that consumers must refer to the catalog order form to obtain rewards. There was no mention of the jet in the Pepsi catalog, however it was noted that points could be purchased for 10 cents a point. Leonard realized that he would need to drink thousands of Pepsi drinks a day in order to accumulate enough points to earn the jet. Noting that this was impossible, he decided instead to come up with $700k through investors. Once the money was obtained he sent the order form to Pepsi along with a check claiming that he fulfilled his end of the bargain and demanded the jet in return. Pepsi's attorneys returned the check stating that the commercial was meant to be a joke and apologized for any misinterpretation of the commercial. Leonard brought suit for breach of contract and prayed for specific performance of the contract. To make a long story short, he lost. The court held that the advertisement was in jest and that no reasonable person would have concluded that it was a binding promise in exchange for performance. This is the kind of cool crap that we get to analyze in law school.

Hot Coffee Mod

Everyone has heard of the McDonald's hot coffee case, correct? If not, you're either deaf, blind, and mute; or just completely ignorant to current events. So, if you don't fall into one of the aforementioned categories than you have passed the first test. If not, then I'm curious as to how you managed to type in the address of this blog to begin with. Regardless, let's move on. When I first heard of this case, I thought, "What an idiot! Just another money hungry *expletive." Today, however, my view has changed. We discussed the case briefly in Torts this evening. I haven't read the case yet, but most of the details I learned of came from my professor who seems to be a pretty knowledgeable individual. The case from what I gather is actually quite interesting. Contrary to what many believe, the woman burned by the hot coffee was not zig-zagging in and out of traffic in her red sports car. She simply took an innocent sip. Apparently it was so hot that it burnt her lip and and startled her enough to cause the spilling of the coffee on her person. She suffered major burns that required multiple skin grafts. According to McDonald's policy, the coffee was to be kept ultra hot to avoid letting the coffee go bad. I'm not a coffee drinker but I'm sure coffee drinkers better understand. Personally, I think it tastes like dirt. Moving on...So she sued for what I'm assuming to be negligence, but I'm not positive. The 3 million dollars in damages seeked was not just an arbitrary large number. It's actually the estimated combined sales of coffee by all McDonald's restaurants on any given day. Eventually they settled for something around $400k. Of course, one can debate whether or not a reasonable person would have dropped the coffee after burning her lip and whether or not she should have realized how hot the coffee was. I originally thought, "Come on now. Even a tard knows coffee is hot." I don't know how hot coffee normally is when you brew it yourself, but it doesn't seem to me that it'd be so damn hot that it can burn through all layers of skin in approximately 7 seconds. I didn't pull that 7-second stat out of my rear either; that's what the experts determined. If these facts are all correct (provided to me via my prof.), then I'd have to say that I agree with the outcome of this case. Moral of the story: Brew it yourself.

Not proper attire

Upon entering the law school today, I noticed a lot of old people wearing suits and what not. So I figured it must be some kind of alumni relations event or something like that. Normally I head up the stairs to the 4th floor where all my classes are held. However, today I had my laptop bag and backpack full of books, so it was a genuine opportunity for me to be a fat lazy bum. I took the elevator. On the elevator with me was a caterer dude wearing his cool 6 ft tall cook hat. I wish I had one of those, but that's getting off topic here. During my elevator ride, the caterer dude said, "I must warn you man...It's a nightmare up there (referring to the 4th floor)." "What do you mean?" I ask. He said, "There's a lot folks here for a reception." As the door opens to the 4th floor, I notice tons of old folks drinking beverages and eating snack foods. I thought, "Cool! I'm hungry and wouldn't mind a drink." I commenced to making my way through the crowd. These people are looking at me like, "What's this kid doing? He doesn't belong here." Excuse me, excuse me, as I make my way through the crowd bumping people with my bags. What was I to do? I had a class to get to. As I approach my classroom I notice a sign saying, "*****'s Contracts class will be held in Room 3-something on the third floor this evening." I thought, "Oh great, now I gotta make my way through the crowd again." So I did. As I was walking back through the crowd, I noticed many liquor bottles and snacks sitting on various tables. Once again, liquor at the law school. This place is the heaven I've been dreaming of. Why go to class? Free drinks? Can't pass that up! The temptation to join the party was there, but I resisted and made my way down to the 3rd floor. When I got to class, I asked some of my classmates if they went to the 4th floor first as well. They said an email was sent out telling us our room was changed for the evening in addition to the plethora of signs at the law school entrance directing us to the 3rd floor. The one day that I decide to not check my email and ignore any signs hanging at the entrance...Oh well, my instincts must have been trying to lead me to the party. To top off the story, I was watching the evening news and apparently the law school was hosting some award thingy for a state Sup. Ct. Justice or something like that. At least they'll recognize me if I sit for the state bar.

Mow it weekly

In Property, we're currently studying possession, both corporeal(physical)/incorporeal(for lack of a better definition...mental) movables and immovables. It gets confusing at times keeping up with these rather strange terms. Why not use simple English? Without getting into the details of each type of 'thing', let's discuss corporeal immovables. In idiot terms, it's simply land or dwellings or other permanently attached things that can't be moved without damage to the thing or property it's attached to. Make sense? Good, let's move on Chief. I don't know how it is for other states, but according to the Civil Code in LA, just because you own and possess a tract of land doesn't necessarily mean that it's yours forever. Let me explain...According to the Code, one can obtain possession of an immovable through acquisitive prescription, in good or bad faith, if possession is uninterrupted for a period of one year. When concerning land, that simply means that if you own a piece of property you better make sure you check on it (or have someone else do so) at least once a year. If Johnny Boy decides to build a fence encroaching your land claiming it as his own and you don't take possessory action to repossess, it's his after a year. The judge doesn't care if you hold the title or not. That's why property gets confusing; at least that's the case in this neck of the woods. Lesson learned: keep an eye on your crap, but don't setup booby traps because that will just get you sued for battery. They say the law is there to protect the possessor. Oh yeah, which one? Me, the good faith owner, or the thief out to get me?