P. 1
Comments on answers to torts final exam, spring 2013

Comments on answers to torts final exam, spring 2013

|Views: 1,001|Likes:
Published by George Conk
Professor Conk's comments on the exam and the best student paper, Torts, Spring 2013
Fordham Lw School
Professor Conk's comments on the exam and the best student paper, Torts, Spring 2013
Fordham Lw School

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: George Conk on Jul 10, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/19/2014

pdf

text

original

To Torts 1 &2 Re: Spring 2013 torts exam Posted below is the best exam paper.

It is very well organized, applies law to facts, reasons to conclusions, etc. The product liability question identified the cause of action correctly as breach of implied warranty, addressed each theory of product defect (consumer expectations, risk/utility, warning). The auto accident answer identified the fact questions that made summary judgment inappropriate. The answer to the 3rd, broken vase question, did recognize the existence of a jury question in handling the vase. But generally that was an unsuccessful question to which I gave little weight in grading. I thought it was simple. Gray, volunteering for his wife’s company, is nonetheless a servant for whom the company is vicariously liable. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows the question of mishandling the vase to go to the jury. Most answers were wandering and did not see the res ipsa point. Others thought pay was necessary to be an employee/agent (it’s not). Nor was there a proximate cause or duty issue. There is a foreseeable risk of harm to bystanders, etc. in carrying a heavy object. The student concludes in answer to Q.4 that the landlord retained control of the parking lot as a common area not in tenants control. I would, as judge, hold that in the area where Lowes shopping cart carrels are located were within its posession and that they therefore had a duty to keep it clear of snow and ice. Close question. Could go either way. I was surprised that only a handful saw the possibility of suing the lawyer who blew missed the statute of limitations. I would have taken the case, almost indifferent to the claim against Lowes and sued the lawyer after losing the claim against Lowes. BTW I was surprised that so many saw this as a `relating back’ question. This is torts not civ pro. If you had the rules with you (which you did not) it would be plain that the rule did not apply on these facts. Finally, for future reference. Don’t write “slam dunk”. Use the language of the law, e.g. ripe for summary judgment, or judgment as a matter of law, or no disputed question of material fact, etc. If you have any questions you can find me starting July 19 at 43.98°N 69.36°W Otherwise, see you in September. - GWC

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->