From a testing center near you:
Eight days and counting 'til the bar exam, and I for one must say that this state of concurrent dread and excitement is wholly repugnant. The headaches are constant, I haven't had a drink in weeks, sleeping has all of a sudden become an arduous task, and it's f*&%ing hot on the east coast. But soon it will be all over.
Hopefully.
At least failing would put me in the good company of JFK, Jr. and HRC, aka the Hill-dogs, aka Not-President, aka the Junior Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton. Yup, she failed the D.C. Bar, but passed in Arkansas. Who would have thought the latter to be an easier ordeal, hmmm?
But enough about failing and stereotypes about the south. I'm over it for the moment.
Some of you may remember I post I did a while back about Snakes McGee and Lacey Boa, a couple of regular jet-setting reptiles who took a Parisian vacation during the whole Snakes on a Plane brouhaha. Their exploits accounted for the highest traffic that the Rogue Stitch has ever seen, thanks to a strategic link placed on the New Line Cinema webpage for the film.
Well, to get to the point, I came across this practice torts question in what seems like a never-ending preparation process for the bar. Hope you enjoy.
Philips, a law enforcement official, was transporting a prisoner on a plane from Hawaii to California to testify in a criminal case. Unknown to those on the plane, an assassin hired to kill the prisoner had bribed an airport baggage handler to sneak a timed-release crate of poisonous snakes into the cargo hold of the plane. Once the crate was triggered to open, the snakes were able to slither into the passener compartment through gaps in the conduits between the crago hold and the passenger compartment. In the ensuing panic caused by the snakes, Philips was struck in the head by a fire extinguisher that another passenger threw at a snake, and suffered a severe concussion.
Philips filed suit against numerous parties, including Jackson, who designed the conduit system on that type of plane. At trial, evidence established that the design for the conduit system that Jackson used has been rejected in the industry because of the danger of pressure loss between the cargo hold and the passenger compartment. An industry-approved design that Jackson could have used would have kept the snakes from getting into the passenger compartment of the plane.
As between Philips and Jackson, which party is likely to prevail?
(A) Philips, because Jackson is strictly liable for designing the conduit system of the plane.
(B) Philips, because of the high degree of care owed to passengers of a common carrier.
(C) Jackson, because the assassin's actions were an unforeseeable intervening force.
(D) Jackson, because Philip was injured by another passenger rather than the snake.
This entry was posted
on Monday, July 21, 2008 at 2:32 PM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
» Post a Comment