BarBri - NY Exam - July 2014 Forum

[harmonep07]

Like, the gun cleaning example. If I mistakenly believed my gun was unloaded while cleaning it, and it went off, killing someone, my mistake would only be a defense if a reasonable person would have made the same mistake, in which case I wasn't negligent.

[harmonep07]

Like, the gun cleaning example. If I mistakenly believed my gun was unloaded while cleaning it, and it went off, killing someone, my mistake would only be a defense if a reasonable person would have made the same mistake, in which case I wasn't negligent.

And this not guilty of criminally negligent homicide.

[thetashster]

Yes, in practice, it can be hard to tell what it is. I hope it is clear on the exam. I feel like it was not always clear on practice questions. Same with animals and strict liability. How am I supposed to know if a bee is a wild or domesticated animal?

They told us several times in the lectures that it would always be a dog or a cat if its supposed to be domestic.

Then gave us questions with bees and cows. Which are apparently domestic.

it comes down to our perception of the animal. sometimes the person's fear of them is enough to trigger strict liability.

[TrustMeI'mAnActress]

Yes, in practice, it can be hard to tell what it is. I hope it is clear on the exam. I feel like it was not always clear on practice questions. Same with animals and strict liability. How am I supposed to know if a bee is a wild or domesticated animal?

They told us several times in the lectures that it would always be a dog or a cat if its supposed to be domestic.

Then gave us questions with bees and cows. Which are apparently domestic.

it comes down to our perception of the animal. sometimes the person's fear of them is enough to trigger strict liability.

Speaking of animals...can someone please explain to me how assumption of risk works w/ strict liability? Does it absolve the defendant of liability, reduce plaintiff's damages or what? I'm specifically thinking of when a defendant has a domestic animal and puts up "beware of dog" signs. I would've thought that wouldn't be enough to absolve him of liability, but the MBE problem suggested otherwise.

[PennBull]

Yes, in practice, it can be hard to tell what it is. I hope it is clear on the exam. I feel like it was not always clear on practice questions. Same with animals and strict liability. How am I supposed to know if a bee is a wild or domesticated animal?

They told us several times in the lectures that it would always be a dog or a cat if its supposed to be domestic.

Then gave us questions with bees and cows. Which are apparently domestic.

I thought they told us in lectures that it would be obvious when an animal was wild--i.e. a fucking bear or something.

[pizzasodafries]

Yes, in practice, it can be hard to tell what it is. I hope it is clear on the exam. I feel like it was not always clear on practice questions. Same with animals and strict liability. How am I supposed to know if a bee is a wild or domesticated animal?

They told us several times in the lectures that it would always be a dog or a cat if its supposed to be domestic.

Then gave us questions with bees and cows. Which are apparently domestic.

it comes down to our perception of the animal. sometimes the person's fear of them is enough to trigger strict liability.

Speaking of animals...can someone please explain to me how assumption of risk works w/ strict liability? Does it absolve the defendant of liability, reduce plaintiff's damages or what?

My understanding is assumption of risk is NOT a defense in NY anymore, but it can be used to mitigate damages and in comparative fault

[harmonep07]

Yes, in practice, it can be hard to tell what it is. I hope it is clear on the exam. I feel like it was not always clear on practice questions. Same with animals and strict liability. How am I supposed to know if a bee is a wild or domesticated animal?

They told us several times in the lectures that it would always be a dog or a cat if its supposed to be domestic.

Then gave us questions with bees and cows. Which are apparently domestic.

it comes down to our perception of the animal. sometimes the person's fear of them is enough to trigger strict liability.

Speaking of animals...can someone please explain to me how assumption of risk works w/ strict liability? Does it absolve the defendant of liability, reduce plaintiff's damages or what?

We discussed this at serious, and somewhat nauseating length, a couple of days ago here.

[TrustMeI'mAnActress]

Speaking of animals...can someone please explain to me how assumption of risk works w/ strict liability? Does it absolve the defendant of liability, reduce plaintiff's damages or what?[/quote]
We discussed this at serious, and somewhat nauseating length, a couple of days ago here.[/quote]

Sorry - somewhat new to the game. Would someone mind summarizing what conclusion people came to?

[harmonep07]

Speaking of animals...can someone please explain to me how assumption of risk works w/ strict liability? Does it absolve the defendant of liability, reduce plaintiff's damages or what?

We discussed this at serious, and somewhat nauseating length, a couple of days ago here.[/quote]

Sorry - somewhat new to the game. Would someone mind summarizing what conclusion people came to?[/quote]
I'm pretty sure, no matter if you're in a contributory or comparative negligence jurisdiction, if a plaintiff actually recognized the risk and voluntarily went assumed it, it would be a defense.

[thetashster]

Speaking of animals...can someone please explain to me how assumption of risk works w/ strict liability? Does it absolve the defendant of liability, reduce plaintiff's damages or what?

We discussed this at serious, and somewhat nauseating length, a couple of days ago here.

Sorry - somewhat new to the game. Would someone mind summarizing what conclusion people came to?[/quote]
I'm pretty sure, no matter if you're in a contributory or comparative negligence jurisdiction, if a plaintiff actually recognized the risk and voluntarily went assumed it, it would be a defense.[/quote]


i believe we concluded that it just mitigates the damages, but that plaintiff can still recover.

[thetashster]

here's an actual NY case and example of criminally negligent homicide.

i think this is how bad it would have to be to be considered under that category.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/05/walr-m22.html

[thetashster]

Yes, in practice, it can be hard to tell what it is. I hope it is clear on the exam. I feel like it was not always clear on practice questions. Same with animals and strict liability. How am I supposed to know if a bee is a wild or domesticated animal?

They told us several times in the lectures that it would always be a dog or a cat if its supposed to be domestic.

Then gave us questions with bees and cows. Which are apparently domestic.

I thought they told us in lectures that it would be obvious when an animal was wild--i.e. a fucking bear or something.

look at that fuckin monster eat dat honey.

[turquoiseturtle]

Yes, in practice, it can be hard to tell what it is. I hope it is clear on the exam. I feel like it was not always clear on practice questions. Same with animals and strict liability. How am I supposed to know if a bee is a wild or domesticated animal?

They told us several times in the lectures that it would always be a dog or a cat if its supposed to be domestic.

Then gave us questions with bees and cows. Which are apparently domestic.

I thought they told us in lectures that it would be obvious when an animal was wild--i.e. a fucking bear or something.

look at that fuckin monster eat dat honey.

I think on the actual MBE they'll make it clear. Lions or tigers or bears. But I know someone said dog/cat = domestic (maybe it was Raphael?) because I was furious when I got the bee question wrong.

[Guchster]

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/05/walr-m22.html

[turquoiseturtle]

I know we aren't supposed to make any assumptions about essays based on previous one, buuutt...... I'm SO glad that they tested easements in February. I hate hate hate trying to keep track of all of the different elements of the difference types of easements. If theres a property question I want tenancies or landlord-tenant stuff. So much easier than easements and covenants and equitable servitudes (I don't even know the difference between these)

[pizzasodafries]

I know we aren't supposed to make any assumptions about essays based on previous one, buuutt...... I'm SO glad that they tested easements in February. I hate hate hate trying to keep track of all of the different elements of the difference types of easements. If theres a property question I want tenancies or landlord-tenant stuff. So much easier than easements and covenants and equitable servitudes (I don't even know the difference between these)

speaking of tenancy's, one thing i wasn't sure of. If the word on the will or deed says "giving this to A and B as Joint Tenants" are they joint tenants? I thought the word "with right of survivorship" had to be in there expressly as well. Essay answers seem to say that Joint tenants is enough to make a joint tenancy without the words.

[turquoiseturtle]

I know we aren't supposed to make any assumptions about essays based on previous one, buuutt...... I'm SO glad that they tested easements in February. I hate hate hate trying to keep track of all of the different elements of the difference types of easements. If theres a property question I want tenancies or landlord-tenant stuff. So much easier than easements and covenants and equitable servitudes (I don't even know the difference between these)

speaking of tenancy's, one thing i wasn't sure of. If the word on the will or deed says "giving this to A and B as Joint Tenants" are they joint tenants? I thought the word "with right of survivorship" had to be in there expressly as well. Essay answers seem to say that Joint tenants is enough to make a joint tenancy without the words.

Ahh same confusion! I just ignored it when I read that essay and answers though. I really think the default is tenancy is common, and to have a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, there has to be language of survivorship.

[TrustMeI'mAnActress]

I know we aren't supposed to make any assumptions about essays based on previous one, buuutt...... I'm SO glad that they tested easements in February. I hate hate hate trying to keep track of all of the different elements of the difference types of easements. If theres a property question I want tenancies or landlord-tenant stuff. So much easier than easements and covenants and equitable servitudes (I don't even know the difference between these)

Where did you find February's essays?

[thetashster]

I know we aren't supposed to make any assumptions about essays based on previous one, buuutt...... I'm SO glad that they tested easements in February. I hate hate hate trying to keep track of all of the different elements of the difference types of easements. If theres a property question I want tenancies or landlord-tenant stuff. So much easier than easements and covenants and equitable servitudes (I don't even know the difference between these)

Where did you find February's essays?

it's on the BOLE website.

do you really think they won't test the same issue two tests in a row?

[turquoiseturtle]

I know we aren't supposed to make any assumptions about essays based on previous one, buuutt...... I'm SO glad that they tested easements in February. I hate hate hate trying to keep track of all of the different elements of the difference types of easements. If theres a property question I want tenancies or landlord-tenant stuff. So much easier than easements and covenants and equitable servitudes (I don't even know the difference between these)

Where did you find February's essays?

They're on the NY bar's website. PDF of them, plus the MPT, plus student answers here: http://www.nybarexam.org/ExamQuestions/FEB2014QA.pdf

[TrustMeI'mAnActress]

I know we aren't supposed to make any assumptions about essays based on previous one, buuutt...... I'm SO glad that they tested easements in February. I hate hate hate trying to keep track of all of the different elements of the difference types of easements. If theres a property question I want tenancies or landlord-tenant stuff. So much easier than easements and covenants and equitable servitudes (I don't even know the difference between these)

Where did you find February's essays?

They're on the NY bar's website. PDF of them, plus the MPT, plus student answers here: http://www.nybarexam.org/ExamQuestions/FEB2014QA.pdf

Thank you! Also, has anyone seen Federal Jurisdiction come up in the essays they've done? It's been pretty MIA in all the one's I've looked at.

[pizzasodafries]

I know we aren't supposed to make any assumptions about essays based on previous one, buuutt...... I'm SO glad that they tested easements in February. I hate hate hate trying to keep track of all of the different elements of the difference types of easements. If theres a property question I want tenancies or landlord-tenant stuff. So much easier than easements and covenants and equitable servitudes (I don't even know the difference between these)

speaking of tenancy's, one thing i wasn't sure of. If the word on the will or deed says "giving this to A and B as Joint Tenants" are they joint tenants? I thought the word "with right of survivorship" had to be in there expressly as well. Essay answers seem to say that Joint tenants is enough to make a joint tenancy without the words.

Ahh same confusion! I just ignored it when I read that essay and answers though. I really think the default is tenancy is common, and to have a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, there has to be language of survivorship.

I was sure it had to have those words as well but both those essays said "Since Joint Tenancy is stated, no need for Survivorship to be stated" so it seemed like that was the law. Usually on those you will have one guy say one side and other the other side, but here both said it was a JT when i was thinking it was 100% a Tenancy in Common.


OK while we are on this topic, A and B have a JT, they each decide to sell 10% of their rights to C. C now has 20%, A 40% and B 40%, are they all tenants in common, or only C is and A and B still have JT on their equal interests?

[turquoiseturtle]

I know we aren't supposed to make any assumptions about essays based on previous one, buuutt...... I'm SO glad that they tested easements in February. I hate hate hate trying to keep track of all of the different elements of the difference types of easements. If theres a property question I want tenancies or landlord-tenant stuff. So much easier than easements and covenants and equitable servitudes (I don't even know the difference between these)

Where did you find February's essays?

it's on the BOLE website.

do you really think they won't test the same issue two tests in a row?

I think that they probably won't test the same more minor thing two tests in a row. So obviously contracts is on (basically) every exam and so is domestic relations. And I'd even consider contract formation or divorce major topics. But, from reading the essays, they tend not to test whether, for example, you know the three defenses to divorce based on adultery two times in a row. They might test divorce again, but it'll be a conversion divorce. And I'd consider the elements of easement by implication/easement by prescription a minor issue.

Just my thought. There are a somewhat significant number of people who retake (NOT ANY OF US THOUGH!), so if I were them, I wouldn't test the same exact minor issue again.

[thetashster]

I know we aren't supposed to make any assumptions about essays based on previous one, buuutt...... I'm SO glad that they tested easements in February. I hate hate hate trying to keep track of all of the different elements of the difference types of easements. If theres a property question I want tenancies or landlord-tenant stuff. So much easier than easements and covenants and equitable servitudes (I don't even know the difference between these)

Where did you find February's essays?

it's on the BOLE website.

do you really think they won't test the same issue two tests in a row?

I think that they probably won't test the same more minor thing two tests in a row. So obviously contracts is on (basically) every exam and so is domestic relations. And I'd even consider contract formation or divorce major topics. But, from reading the essays, they tend not to test whether, for example, you know the three defenses to divorce based on adultery two times in a row. They might test divorce again, but it'll be a conversion divorce. And I'd consider the elements of easement by implication/easement by prescription a minor issue.

Just my thought. There are a somewhat significant number of people who retake (NOT ANY OF US THOUGH!), so if I were them, I wouldn't test the same exact minor issue again.

you should know i'm giving in, going to the bodega, and getting a red bull right now.

[turquoiseturtle]

I know we aren't supposed to make any assumptions about essays based on previous one, buuutt...... I'm SO glad that they tested easements in February. I hate hate hate trying to keep track of all of the different elements of the difference types of easements. If theres a property question I want tenancies or landlord-tenant stuff. So much easier than easements and covenants and equitable servitudes (I don't even know the difference between these)

Where did you find February's essays?

They're on the NY bar's website. PDF of them, plus the MPT, plus student answers here: http://www.nybarexam.org/ExamQuestions/FEB2014QA.pdf

Thank you! Also, has anyone seen Federal Jurisdiction come up in the essays they've done? It's been pretty MIA in all the one's I've looked at.

Yes, although kind of rarely. And sometimes when Barbri labels the essay as containing a Federal Jurisdiction issue, I haven't actually seen where the federal issue is. For example, essay question #57 seems to me like a choice of law issue rather than federal jurisdiction like they've labelled it.

Essay question #1 specifically asks "can RM remove the pending action to US District Court?" The only federal jurisdiction questions I've read have all been diversity questions or removal questions. Haven't seen any federal question jurisdiction.