University:
Creighton University
Course:
LAW 131 | Torts I
Academic year:

2019
Views:

240

Pages:

10
Author:

5prinzg1s

Torts & “Thinking Like a Lawyer” • What do you know about the “hot coffee case?” • Who, if anybody, should’ve done something to prevent this outcome? • What should they have done? • What is the impact of requiring action on the part of McDonald’s? • How about on the part of Ms. Liebeck? Example of Tort Law’s Policy Balancing: Eckert v. Long Island RR Co. (p. 261) Illustrates common law reasoning & value of life over property; (also, this case returns later today as a contributory negligence case) Characteristics of Standards vs. Rules Standards • Less clear • Less predictable • Time-intensive to apply • Flexible • Particularized • Sometimes fairer Rules • • • • • • Clear Predictable Efficient Inflexible Generalized May produce unfair outcome 1Ls Beware: Pitfalls of Torts as a First-Year Course (Warning: studying tort law may make you feel like these people) (Mostly standards! Few rules! Hardly any flowcharting!) There will be severed limbs You will analyze banana peels EMBRACE THE CHAOS! Torts is Incredibly Fact-Intensive Barge Traffic in WWII? (How I Learned to Love Facts) You will learn to tell the future, or at least to predict doom You will become policy-balancing ninjas

What is a Tort (Lecture) Part 2

Related Documents

Description

Related Documents

Almost There!

Free up your schedule!

Take 5 seconds to unlock