johnnyboy 0 #1 August 18, 2004 I am having troubles with my law school homework. Fellow 1L's unite First problem, in my torts class, I had 4 cases to read. 2 were easy, and I had troubles with the other 2. The first was Leichtman vs WLW Jacor Communications where the plaintiff, and anti-smoking advocate was at a radio interview at the Great American Smoke Out when the defendant, a dj, lit a cigar and repeatedly blew smoke into the P's face. According the case, that constituted a battery, while the notes after the case said if smoke can cause battery, what about light waves or sound waves. The case was reversed and remanded. What the hell was the issue? I couldnt figure it out. Yes smoke contains the elements for a battery, but to allow people to sue for that would ruin our society. Is it because of the intent? HELP!!! The 2nd case was Van Camp vs McAfoos where a 3 year old injured the P when he ran into her on a public sidewalk with his tricycle. Again, what was the issue? Was it intent? It definitely wasnt a fault issue, because if not for D's actions, P wouldnt be injured. HELP!!!! I hope someone has read these cases and is able to give me some feedback, and possibly email me the briefs. I can email you mine, but I dont feel they are as good as they could be.jumpers ARE better all around people than whuffos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnnyboy 0 #2 August 18, 2004 Anybody around to help? jumpers ARE better all around people than whuffos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 August 18, 2004 Dude, relax. Nobody's gonna carry your ass in this... Think of the elements of battery. Then think of what the issue of these cases was regarding elements. Each case should explain an element. Mcafoos? Battery requires intent, right? Read up. Leictman? What element(s) does it implicate? What policy was the appeals court describing with regard to the elements? View the cases in regard to the elements of the tort. The notes want you to think harder about different facts. Analyze it and come to your own reasoned conclusions. Get a couple fo classmates together, go to the cafeteria, have a bean and rice wrap and discuss the ideas with them. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #4 August 18, 2004 QuoteThe 2nd case was Van Camp vs McAfoos where a 3 year old injured the P when he ran into her on a public sidewalk with his tricycle. Again, what was the issue? Was it intent? It definitely wasnt a fault issue, because if not for D's actions, P wouldnt be injured. First, don't mix up words. "but for" relates to proximate causation in negligence not "fault" which is a loose term. BTW what do you think of the intellect of a 3 year old? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnnyboy 0 #5 August 18, 2004 yes, the intellect of the kid has a role because the judge specifically stated that they will not hold children responsible for childish acts. But in Garrat vs Dailey, they were going to. I still dont understand what the issue in dispute was. Was it fault? Intent? Negligence?jumpers ARE better all around people than whuffos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #6 August 18, 2004 Remember they want you to think. Some classes go through the evolution of an area of law. Start by being able to define your terms, e.g. negligence (its 4 parts) and then apply that definition. oh, and RELAX!!!!!! -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnnyboy 0 #7 August 18, 2004 Thanks I will try to relax. I think I will be able to once I get into a normal routine and read these cases regularly. Nothing I did this summer really prepared me the way I wanted to be prepared Thanks again-----jumpers ARE better all around people than whuffos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 August 18, 2004 Dude, nothing can prepare you for this, okay. It gets worse. They're easing you into this. Just play the game and do what they say. If you ask questions about what's going on and why things seem contradictory, at least you recognized the contradictions. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnnyboy 0 #9 August 18, 2004 is it safe to say that hell has begun? jumpers ARE better all around people than whuffos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
