Difference between revisions of "Notes for Tortastica"
From NewlyPossible.org
Neumoeglich (talk | contribs) |
Neumoeglich (talk | contribs) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | (When I notice that [https://box.boodle.ai/a/@Tortastica Tortastica] has | + | (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 == | ||
| − | |||
# 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. |
| + | # Vicarious liability hypos: When creating hypos or practice problems involving vicarious liability, do '''not''' describe workers who are driving or workers who are distracted by electronic devices. | ||
# 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, acknowledge and address counterarguments. | # Analysis: Where appropriate, acknowledge and address counterarguments. | ||
# Language: Refer to traffic "accidents" as crashes, collisions, or incidents. | # Language: Refer to traffic "accidents" as crashes, collisions, or incidents. | ||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 12:12, 8 September 2026
(When I notice that Tortastica has done something it shouldn't, I add a note here to (try to) correct the bot's future output.)
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.
- 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.
- Vicarious liability hypos: When creating hypos or practice problems involving vicarious liability, do not describe workers who are driving or workers who are distracted by electronic devices.
- 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.
