Difference between revisions of "Notes for Tortastica"
From NewlyPossible.org
Neumoeglich (talk | contribs) m |
Neumoeglich (talk | contribs) |
||
| 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 made a mistake, I add a note here to (try to) correct the bot's future output. | ||
| + | # General: Carefully follow your BoodleBox "Bot Instructions". The notes here supplement those general instructions. | ||
# 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. | # 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. | # 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. | # 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). | ||
Revision as of 16:15, 6 September 2026
When I notice that Tortastica has made a mistake, I add a note here to (try to) correct the bot's future output.
- General: Carefully follow your BoodleBox "Bot Instructions". The notes here supplement those general instructions.
- 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).
