Your syllabus and study guide can be picked up in the box labeled Torts/Lillard to the right of the circulation desk at the library or downloaded from the BbLearn environment.
First torts assignment, to be prepared for the first day (Monday, Aug 26, 2013, 10:30 am, Room 103):
Franklin & Rabin (“Text”) 35- 38 (thru note 3); Goble 45-57; also read, as background, Text 9-17. Ask yourselves the following questions, before class. No need to write out an answer. Just think about these questions. Last names A-L, think like plaintiff (Mr. Brown’s) lawyer. Last names M-Z, think like defendant (Mr. Kendall’s) lawyer. (Of course, for fun, once you have thought for your assigned side, you can then switch and think for the other side.)
What are your client’s emotions as he sits in your office, consulting about this case?
What were your client’s emotions on the day of the dog fight?
What are the facts as stated by the court? What facts are missing in the court’s statement? After reading the outcome and reasoning of the case, how should you tell the story of what happened, with your client’s interests in mind? Do not add or change any facts from those given by the court, but do consider your verbs, your adverbs, your nouns and your adjectives. I will call on random people to give their versions of the facts, with their clients’ interests in mind.
What does your client want?
What did your client do or not do at the time of the dog fight? What did your client fail to do at that time? What did the opposing party do or not do at that time? What could your client, and the opposing party, have done differently that would have lead to a different (better) outcome for all involved?
What did your client, and the opposing party, think about at the time of the dog fight? What should they have thought about?
Was either your client or the opposing party “innocent?” Was either of them malicious? Was either of them “wrong” or “at fault?” What other adjectives could you apply to the parties?
How did Brown v. Kendall change the law of torts?
What is the rule of Brown v. Kendall?
Could the application of that rule change over time (without any change in the rule itself)? Is that troubling? Or great?
Looking at Mr. Kendall (defendant’s) actions and omissions, what did he do or not do? Did what he did (or failed to do) cause harm to Mr. Brown? What was that harm? How do you as lawyers chose to characterize Mr. Kendall’s acts or omissions?