The Bar Exam Isn't Senseless, and Neither Is Law, Part II
After arguing against the bar exam -- my response is here -- Liz Wurtzel now poses the challenge of an elaborate bar exam parody of her own creation.
The next time I teach torts I will think of this as a possible fact pattern. Apart from the jokes it is answerable, and the trick for answering it is to take all injuries and see how it relates to each defendant separately. The rules on joint causation are such that virtually everyone who is found liable will not have a remoteness of damage test under directness but a jury question under foreseeability. Once each piece is understood those defendants who get a clean bill of health are out from under the indemnity and contribution issues. Those who are not have to face that barrier. Actually the question is not all that subtle in most cases because in piling on the parties there is less nuance for each of them than might otherwise be the case.
But for these purposes, I do think of the poet Andrew Marvel, and his famous line to his coy mistress that applies to Liz's question: "Had I but world enough and time, . . ." I would work this up. But I have real matters to deal with, many of which are every bit as complex.
- Comment (1)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
May '10
Re: The Bar Exam Isn't Senseless, and Neither Is Law, Part II
She really seems to have been mortally insulted by the idea of flunking it initially.