Back in college I had this *great* idea one day. I saw how there was a direct correlation between the amount of sleep I got and the crazier I became and I thought it would be an exciting social psychological experiment slash writing project to stay up for as long as I possibly could, keeping a journal the entire time. This idea was especially intriguing since I had recently learned in a psychology class that if you are up for something like 3 days straight you can be declared mentally insane. Now, after taking crim law I am not sure about that, but whatever. The point is, I thought the journal of progressing slap-happiness, once the experiment was complete, would be a terrific read.
What's the point of me sharing this memory? I'm starting to approach the time in the semester when studying is all you do. And when this happens I sort of start to go crazy in what I have to confess is a semi-enjoyable way. The studying is not enjoyable, the long hours locked in the library are far from enjoyable, but the affect on my brain is actually pretty fun.
The problem is, though this is an amusing side effect, it is NOT PRODUCTIVE and, in the end, I remember why I decided NOT to do that staying-awake experiment. Partially this was because I was never able to find a good time period to do the experiment since, being in college, I realized staying up for 3 days straight would put me out of commission for at least 4. But the main strikes against the project were the realizations that sleep is necessary and lunacy beyond a certain degree can be frightening. Unfortunately, since I am in law school, I now have no choice in the matter. So what can I do?
Embrace the craziness. It's the only answer.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
There goes the weird defense
My Contracts study guide, on the basis and nature of contract voidability due to mental incapacity:
"The law does not excuse people from contractual obligations merely because they are of below average intelligence, misguided, or weird."
And you thought you had an out...
"The law does not excuse people from contractual obligations merely because they are of below average intelligence, misguided, or weird."
And you thought you had an out...
Monday, April 7, 2008
I've got a golden ticket... to a torts claim
So Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was on at the gym yesterday and as I watched I started to realize that I AM in fact learning to think like a lawyer... I guess a good sign, re my legal education. but a sad one re my ability to enjoy childhood movies.
For instance, I watched as Augustus Gloop greedily drank from the chocolate river and waited on edge for him to clumsily fall in, idiot that he is. I remember thinking how oafish and rude he was and that he deserved what he got. Hell, even the Oompa Loompas reaffirmed this thought as each child that did something selfish was punished one by one as the factory tour continued.
But here is the thing.
Wonka is totally liable, especially for the chocolate river fiasco. He was a social host in that he invited the ticket holders and their guests into his factory and so he owed his guests a standard of reasonable care. He should have foreseen the possibility that after telling his guests "everything is edible! Go ahead!" someone might attempt to drink from the river. "Oh, you mustn't contaminate my river! It must be untouched by human hands!" Well, it's a little too late for that, isn't it Wonka? There were no signs. There was no fence. I have to admit, I'm a little sympathetic to Augustus, especially since he was the first one to go and had no warning that things could go terribly wrong on this factory tour. PLUS he was one of the only foreigners. What's that about? I guess that's a side issue. My point is, while I really like Willy Wonka (and Roald Dahl), in an American court system Wonka would be negligently liable if any harm was caused to Augustus by being caught in those pipes for too long.
And what about Violet? Well, there was warning there with the gum and she ate it anyway. However, Wonka DID just sit idly by then and watch her chew. Maybe not the smartest legal move. Verruca? I'd say she became a trespasser once she went to get a goose (or squirrel, depending on which version you're watching) and yet it arguably constitutes an attractive nuisance for which an owner is liable towards children, even if the child was not originally attracted onto the premises by the condition that injures her. PLUS one who possesses animals not customarily domesticated in that region is strictly liable for all harm done by the animal as a result of a harmful or dangerous propensity or characteristic of such animals. If it is your animal's propensity to haul small children to their deaths, you miiiight be facing a lawsuit. And finally, Mike Teevee? Again, Wonka really didnt try to hard to protect that kid from the shrinking television rays of doom.
Overall, that factory was a major tort suit waiting to happen. I think if I ever become a torts professor, I will use it as my final exam. I wonder if anyone has ever tried that before....
For instance, I watched as Augustus Gloop greedily drank from the chocolate river and waited on edge for him to clumsily fall in, idiot that he is. I remember thinking how oafish and rude he was and that he deserved what he got. Hell, even the Oompa Loompas reaffirmed this thought as each child that did something selfish was punished one by one as the factory tour continued.
But here is the thing.
Wonka is totally liable, especially for the chocolate river fiasco. He was a social host in that he invited the ticket holders and their guests into his factory and so he owed his guests a standard of reasonable care. He should have foreseen the possibility that after telling his guests "everything is edible! Go ahead!" someone might attempt to drink from the river. "Oh, you mustn't contaminate my river! It must be untouched by human hands!" Well, it's a little too late for that, isn't it Wonka? There were no signs. There was no fence. I have to admit, I'm a little sympathetic to Augustus, especially since he was the first one to go and had no warning that things could go terribly wrong on this factory tour. PLUS he was one of the only foreigners. What's that about? I guess that's a side issue. My point is, while I really like Willy Wonka (and Roald Dahl), in an American court system Wonka would be negligently liable if any harm was caused to Augustus by being caught in those pipes for too long.
And what about Violet? Well, there was warning there with the gum and she ate it anyway. However, Wonka DID just sit idly by then and watch her chew. Maybe not the smartest legal move. Verruca? I'd say she became a trespasser once she went to get a goose (or squirrel, depending on which version you're watching) and yet it arguably constitutes an attractive nuisance for which an owner is liable towards children, even if the child was not originally attracted onto the premises by the condition that injures her. PLUS one who possesses animals not customarily domesticated in that region is strictly liable for all harm done by the animal as a result of a harmful or dangerous propensity or characteristic of such animals. If it is your animal's propensity to haul small children to their deaths, you miiiight be facing a lawsuit. And finally, Mike Teevee? Again, Wonka really didnt try to hard to protect that kid from the shrinking television rays of doom.
Overall, that factory was a major tort suit waiting to happen. I think if I ever become a torts professor, I will use it as my final exam. I wonder if anyone has ever tried that before....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
