Canadian tort law Puns

Why YSK: When you pay for something that involves risk, companies will typically give you a receipt/ticket telling you that you assume all the risk for the service being provided. For example, when you buy a ticket for a roller coaster ride, the back of the ticket will typically say something like ‘you assume any and all risk involved, you shall not hold the operator liable in case of accident, and you shall indemnify the owners of any and all responsibility whether or not caused by negligence’, etc. In some cases, they may make you sign a waiver saying you release them of all liability. However, in cases of negligence, you can still sue under Tort law regardless of whether you signed a waiver. Waivers do provide some degree of protection in specific cases but in general, the greater the negligence, the less protection a waiver provides and if it gross negligence, you will usually win when you sue.

I will admit I wasn’t particularly well prepared for this paper and hadn’t really done a lot of exam questions, but I found the paper very tough and kind of random.

What did everyone else think?

NYLaw#7520

Question says it (almost) all-- I have been looking at Quimbee exams, and to be honest, I have no idea if they help or not.

Suggestions for great exam sources? My torts prof doesn't have almost anything for us to practice with (he's new to teaching torts lol)

Thanks!

Best regards

Battery, conversion, false imprisonment and defamation

Disclaimer: everything I know about law is from TV and YouTubers. Primarily handsome YouTubers.

I am a 2L currently living in an apartment complex. I saw someone's car parked there had their passenger-side mirror open, which had a light on. Nobody was in the vehicle, or remotely close, and I saw the same light on a few hours later. The car door was unlocked and I thought about going into the car and turning off the light, to potentially save them needing a charge for their battery later. However, Tort law bubbled up in my brain. Now I was weighing the consequences of trespass vs nonfeasance. Ultimately, I chose to do nothing. I'm not sure if they ended up needing a jump but I think the car hasn't been started yet. Maybe I'll get to see something tomorrow after the long weekend is up. Nonetheless, I thought this was a fun story to share about how my thinking got changed from what I might have done before law school vs. now.

There are many reasons to avoid breaking the law, such as its the law. But also the fact that consequences can easily stack up, with state and federal charges as well criminal and civil cases. But what's the fundamental difference? I've heard of the libertarian idea that all things should be pursued as torts, and to some degree it makes sense. In both cases, you did a bad and therefore if proven (albeit to different standards of proof).

But the theory behind torts is that one person has harmed another in a tortious way, and that person is angry. Since you hurt me, and have cost me some damages, I want compensation to be restored/made whole.

The theory behind criminal law, is that you have committed a bad, that's so bad and has harmed society as a whole, that its the government's job to punish you, cue theories of justice, (deterrence, general and specific, incapacitate, retributive, and rehabilitation).

But both arguably have harms both to individual victims and to society as a whole. Both have reasons why the individual and society as a whole would want to pursue legal action. To make it more confusing, there are some things that can fall under both, such as assault and battery.

But what about civil torts where the government is a party? Am I putting too much emphasis on who the prosecuting party is?

On one hand, I appreciate this nuance because that means people can try to obtain justice when the criminal system fails. But on the other hand its confusing? Wouldn't it be more efficient in some cases at least to merge them, particularly when its the same root bad thing being proved? (See the girlsdoporn Evil sex exploitation scheme)

ISBN: 978-1-77255-579-0

Link: https://www.amazon.com/Torts-Cases-Materials-Aspen-Casebook-ebook-dp-B08VF6T2FB/dp/B08VF6T2FB/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=

After a mutiny, Defendant (Captain Barbossa) became the captain of a ship, the Black Pearl. Its former captain, the captain Jack Sparrow, was forcefully removed from the ship by Barbossa's crew and abandoned on a deserted island. Barbossa's crew is very loyal and only acts following his orders. After a few days spent on the island drinking rum, a passing ship rescued Captain Jack Sparrow who had to serve under the commandeering of another captain during the duration of the trip back to Tortuga.

(1) Can Defendant be convicted for the forceful removal of Captain Jack Sparrow?

(2) Can Defendant be convicted of false imprisonment?

(3) If Captain Jack Sparrow sues Captain Barbossa, on what grounds can he recover?

(4) Assuming the events occurred at sea in the United States and both plaintiff and defendant are U.S. citizens but resident of no state, what is the proper venue and governing law in the United States?

Assume majority view on every question🏴‍☠️

Example : 2 kids (one white, one black) walk into a store, slip and fall and suffer brain damage. Their parents sue the store for negligence and win - when the judge? determines how much to award the families in damages, race matters. They use actuary tables to predict how much the kid would of earned in their lifetime and Whites earn more than Blacks so the white family is awarded more $ than the black family.

Is this how it works? usually? sometimes? Thanks.