Will we be tested on dissenting opinions?

How important are addressing policy grounds in a court’s majority in our answers?

Do we need to discuss a case’s facts, reasoning, and holding every time we use analogical reasoning? Or does it depend on the situation?

May we reference class hypotheticals in our exam responses? If so, should we approach our analysis the same way that we would for a case?

Just as a confirmation, does both contributory negligence and strict liability not matter for our midterm?

In the sample midterm, you wrote “With regard to res ipsa loquitur, the state of Loyola is a “presumption” jurisdiction, not an “inference” jurisdiction.” What are the differences between “presumption” and “inference” jurisdiction?

Is cognitive awareness a pre requisite for all non pecuniary damages or just loss of enjoyment of life/pain and suffering?

Are there any other non pecuniary damages besides pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment?

Do negative feelings like depression or embarrassment fall under pain and suffering or loss of enjoyment (assuming they are being treated as separate categories)? Or both?

Why do excessive damages violate due process?

Is there a situation where punitive damages are not allowed? If a state statute does not mention if plaintiff can recover punitive damages, do we assume that punitive damages in that state is not allowed?

In the case BMW v. Gore, the court was worried about the jurisdiction. Was the court saying that the punishment (damages) should deter these actions in the state that it happened in?

In State Farm v. Campbell, what did the court mean when it said the defendant cannot be punished for “dissimilar conduct?”Can you clarify the difference between being negligent and being liable? Can you be negligent but not liable, or the other way around? 

Negligence as a cause of action vs. prima facie negligence, how are they different?

Prima facie negligence - what do you do next after you show its on its face? I’m confused about next steps 

Should a factfinder ever take a defendant’s own physical characteristics, intelligence, or skill? Is there a subjective element to this standard?

Negligence per se as a “short cut” – If we have a negligence per se case, do we not have to do the reasonable care analysis?

From Robinson v. D.C., is the rule that you can’t rebut negligence per se unless you tried to follow the rule?

How should I integrate into my outline. Baltimore and Ohio R.R. v. Goodman, Pokora v. Wabash Railway Co., and Akins v. Glens Falls City School District? I’m still confused on the difference between the train cases (Baltimore and Pakora), if we could go over how they differentiate again that would be great.

When should a judge decide negligence as a matter of law? When are rules better than standards? From my understanding, negligence as a matter of law is when it’s so obvious that it doesn’t require a jury, HOWEVER, we also know that judges can overreach in their abilities and that sometimes it should have gone to a jury. Is negligence as a matter of law hardline or does it depend on the judge? 

In terms of the steps of “Do you have a legal duty?” where exactly does res ipsa stand? Does it bypass the steps completely or does it come after “Do your actions create a risk of physical harm?” or after “Does an affirmative duty exception apply?” 

What is the differences between res ipsa and prima facie negligence? If I (plaintiff) prove the two elements of res ipsa, do I have a prima facie case of negligence? If I have duty, breach, causation, and harm, do I also have prima facie case of negligence?

Can we please also go over in more detail the “creation of harm” aspect for determination of duty?

Appendix A lists Maldonado v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co. but I don’t think that case was ever assigned for reading?

What is the difference between undertaking and non-negligent injury? It seems that they both require reasonable care to be exercised when rendering aid.

Could you please provide examples of non-negligent injury and non-negligent creation of risk as an affirmative duty exception?

For Tarasoff, did the court say NO special relationship but there is a duty to a third party under the Rowland factors, or did it say there is a special relationship under the Rowland factors?

When and how do we apply the Rowland factors? Should I be thinking of the Rowland Factors as another step in the Duty flowchart? If I do not find an exception, should I always then look to the Rowland Factors? Or are there only some certain circumstances that merit an analysis of the Rowland factors?

Will we need to know the traditional view of duties owed to different types of visitors or will the modern view suffice?

On the exam, if we are asked about landowners and occupiers, would you give us an instruction on whether to follow the traditional view or the modern view?

Can you please clarify the difference between a licensee and invitee and what a “material benefit” would be? Regarding invitee and licensee: I understand a major distinction is that an invitee provides a material benefit to the property owner whereas a licensee does not, but where does the idea of open to the general public come in? Is it a characteristic that falls under one of the categories?

From the Falzone v Busch case, we got a list of policy reasons for the impact rule and were told New Jersey rejected these rules, should we know the policy reasons for the impact rule? Will it count or do they not matter, as New Jersey rejected it along with other states? 

How does foreseeability tie into the Bystander Liability rule from Portee v. Jaffee?

With bystander liability, some cases use three factors and some use four, which should we use?

What about reasonable fear? If one witness an accident, reasonably believes that a closed related has died and eventually emerges with only minor injuries, can the witness who would suffer physical consequences or illness due to this trauma recover? Can we establish a parallel based on Falzone where reasonable fear that you could have died was enough?