Torts Nightmare

I'm not very well prepared for finals, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised I'm starting to have nightmares about them. Last night it was torts. First, at a Q & A between my entire 1L section and the dean and our other professors, I raised my hand and asked, "Are we supposed to be getting a general introduction to torts in our first semester, because all we got was negligence and strict liability. Isn't there more?" ProfTorts (in my dream) responded, "I'm glad you asked that; we're going to cover everything else today."

Then I got lost on the way to class.

When I finally got to class, ProfTorts had a surprise for us. Without saying a word, he simply started handing out exams! Everyone around me started working industriously on theirs, but I could only stare at mine in disbelief. This was supposed to be the review session! ProfTorts looked at me and smiled. "I thought we'd just get it over with," he said.

Finally, I imagined I typed my exam on a PDA-type device (like a Palm), and that there was no way for me to print it out or transmit a copy to my professor. Total nightmare.

I think I better study harder. Torts final is tomorrow. I'm wondering about suing myself for negligence in exam-taking. My theory of negligence is that I should have studied at least two more hours every day since November 25th (just before Thanksgiving). If I run the BPL, it seems that the cost of such a precaution would have been fairly low—I probably would have simply needed to cut my web-surfing time and studied instead. Meanwhile, the likelihood that I'll do poorly on exams because I didn't study those extra two hours seems rather high, and the seriousness of the injury I'll incur by doing poorly also seems pretty high (though certainly debatable). I suppose those two variables would be left to the jury; what would a "reasonable person" say?

Is there such a thing as a reasonable person when it comes to deciding how much studying for law school finals is sufficient? You certainly couldn't use a "reasonable law student" because, on this question at least, that would be a contradiction in terms. Some law students would certainly be panicked if they'd studied the same amount as I have, but then, perhaps those people aren't khaki. It's so true: No one sees my grand master plan!! But will that be a sufficient defense if I'm found negligent?

My defense against my theory of negligence might be that law school grades are infamously arbitrary; more studying does not necessarily mean better grades. Therefore, it's a mistake to assume that my negligence caused my bad grades. Other possible explanations include the capriciousness of the grader, what I had for lunch before the exam (what should I have? I wonder...), and the fact that I had to use a Windoze computer to take the exam. It's been statistically proven that people who use Windoze are less likely to be smart. (Ok, I made that up. Is it ok to make stuff up on exams?)

Here's another question: Would failing your law school exams allow you to use a res ipsa loquitur argument to get to a jury in your negligence action against yourself? But for the fact that you can't sue yourself, I think so. I mean, it's pretty much a given that if you study, you'll pass, so failing would likely give rise to an assumption that someone has been negligent, don't you think?

Posted 06:02 AM | Comments (5) | law school