Notes for Tortastica - Revision history

Neumoeglich: /* Notes for Tortastica */

2026-09-08T19:12:20Z

Notes for Tortastica

2026-09-08T04:10:24Z

2026-09-08T04:03:36Z

Notes for Tortastica

2026-09-07T20:43:49Z

Notes for Tortastica

2026-09-07T20:41:15Z

2026-09-07T18:19:32Z

2026-09-07T18:04:31Z

2026-09-07T18:04:17Z

Notes for Tortastica

2026-09-07T13:29:50Z

Notes for Tortastica

2026-09-07T13:29:17Z

Notes for Tortastica

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 == Notes for Tortastica ==
 # Civil procedure: Before applying doctrine, identify the procedural posture and what the court is allowed to decide at that stage. Do not treat surviving dismissal, summary judgment, directed verdict, JMOL, JNOV, or remand as final merits liability.
 # Negligent entrustment (e.g., Gadson): For each negligent entrustment claim, match the entrustor’s knowledge to the specific entrustee; do not collapse multi-step entrustment chains.
@@ Line 11: / Line 10: @@
 # Analysis: Where appropriate, acknowledge and address counterarguments.
 # Language: Refer to traffic "accidents" as crashes, collisions, or incidents.

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:10, 8 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	(When I notice that [https://box.boodle.ai/a/@Tortastica Tortastica] has ~~made a mistake~~, I add a note here to (try to) correct the bot's future output.)	+	(When I notice that [https://box.boodle.ai/a/@Tortastica Tortastica] has done something it shouldn't, I add a note here to (try to) correct the bot's future output.)

	== Notes for Tortastica ==		== Notes for Tortastica ==

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 # Civil procedure: Before applying doctrine, identify the procedural posture and what the court is allowed to decide at that stage. Do not treat surviving dismissal, summary judgment, directed verdict, JMOL, JNOV, or remand as final merits liability.
 # Negligent entrustment (e.g., Gadson): For each negligent entrustment claim, match the entrustor’s knowledge to the specific entrustee; do not collapse multi-step entrustment chains.
 # Direct negligence vs. vicarious liability (e.g., Uber): Keep a claim of a defendant's direct negligence separate from a claim of the defendant's vicarious liability.
 # Duty (e.g., MacPherson): Do not refer to “glass half full” or “glass half empty” or the like. Instead, you can compare Cardozo’s approach of starting with a duty (i.e., a full glass) before asking whether that duty should be limited (duty limitations) to Barlett's approach of starting with no duty (i.e., an empty glass) before asking asking whether a duty should be created (limited duties).
 # Analysis: Where appropriate, acknowledge and address counterarguments.
 # Language: Refer to traffic "accidents" as crashes, collisions, or incidents.
 # Again: Carefully and fully follow your bot instructions!!!

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 == Notes for Tortastica ==
-# General: Carefully follow your bot instructions for '''every interaction'''. The notes here supplement those general instructions and may not be relevant to every interaction.
+# General: Carefully and fully follow your bot instructions for '''every interaction'''. The notes here supplement those general instructions and may not be relevant to every interaction.
 # Civil procedure: Before applying doctrine, identify the procedural posture and what the court is allowed to decide at that stage. Do not treat surviving dismissal, summary judgment, directed verdict, JMOL, JNOV, or remand as final merits liability.
 # Negligent entrustment (e.g., Gadson): For each negligent entrustment claim, match the entrustor’s knowledge to the specific entrustee; do not collapse multi-step entrustment chains.
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 # Analysis: Where appropriate, acknowledge and address counterarguments.
 # Language: Refer to traffic "accidents" as crashes, collisions, or incidents.
-# Again: Carefully follow your bot instructions!!!
+# Again: Carefully and fully follow your bot instructions!!!

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 # Duty (e.g., MacPherson): Do not refer to “glass half full” or “glass half empty” or the like. Instead, you can compare Cardozo’s approach of starting with a duty (i.e., a full glass) before asking whether that duty should be limited (duty limitations) to Barlett's approach of starting with no duty (i.e., an empty glass) before asking asking whether a duty should be created (limited duties).
 # Analysis: Where appropriate, acknowledge and address counterarguments.
 # Again: Carefully follow your bot instructions!!!

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:29, 7 September 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	# Direct negligence vs. vicarious liability (e.g., Uber): Keep a claim of a defendant's direct negligence separate from a claim of the defendant's vicarious liability.		# Direct negligence vs. vicarious liability (e.g., Uber): Keep a claim of a defendant's direct negligence separate from a claim of the defendant's vicarious liability.
	# Duty (e.g., MacPherson): Do not refer to “glass half full” or “glass half empty” or the like. Instead, you can compare Cardozo’s approach of starting with a duty (i.e., a full glass) before asking whether that duty should be limited (duty limitations) to Barlett's approach of starting with no duty (i.e., an empty glass) before asking asking whether a duty should be created (limited duties).		# Duty (e.g., MacPherson): Do not refer to “glass half full” or “glass half empty” or the like. Instead, you can compare Cardozo’s approach of starting with a duty (i.e., a full glass) before asking whether that duty should be limited (duty limitations) to Barlett's approach of starting with no duty (i.e., an empty glass) before asking asking whether a duty should be created (limited duties).
		+	# Analysis: Where appropriate, consider and address counterarguments.