The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
bar essay question
| Slate associate french chef | 07/19/12 |
| Thriller police squad | 07/19/12 |
| Slate associate french chef | 07/19/12 |
| Thriller police squad | 07/19/12 |
| Slate associate french chef | 07/19/12 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 19th, 2012 8:02 PM Author: Slate associate french chef Essay is a products liability question. Facts talk abut plaintiff being injured by dangerous product etc. Then it says plaintiff has filed suit asserting both negligence and strict products liability. The defendant files various motions to dismiss (misuse, no defect etc.). Call of the question is: "How should the court rule on the motion to dismiss on each ground?"
On baressays.com, you had to go through WHOLE SPL and negligence analysis FIRST. Then discuss each of the 4 or 5 grounds to dismiss. Without doing that resulted in automaticfail. WTF brothers? How were we to know we were supposed to do a full blown liability analysis when the questions asks on various specific grounds for dismissal?? |
 |
Date: July 19th, 2012 9:04 PM Author: Thriller police squad lemme guess, the Cold Drink Blender fact pattern.
on those calls, i think you can assume you need to do a full products liability analysis. The calls are all about specific elements of the PL dispute... that's my best answer.
I had the same thought, though, when i did it. |
|
Date: July 19th, 2012 9:32 PM Author: Slate associate french chef Yup. Scary to think that if I didn't do this, I wouldn't have done the full product analysis on the exam since they had such specific calls and I would've failed.
Did barbri tell you anything about this do you know? (I'm not barbri). |
|
Date: July 19th, 2012 10:14 PM Author: Thriller police squad no, barbri didn't give good advice like this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1998872&forum_id=2#21126771) |
|
Date: July 19th, 2012 10:30 PM Author: Slate associate french chef both cali model answers for that question laid out a full blown SL/Negligence analysis and concluded "having laid out a prima facie case of SL/Negligence, we can now turn to the motions to dismiss"
So i guess lesson is for mot. to dismiss calls, lay out the prima facie case first? how the fuck were we supposed to know that. |