Watch Professor Take Essay Exam

Today I'm going to take an exam that I have never seen before. This is a real past bar exam question and I will go through the steps I recommend you take

and that I would go through if taking the bar exam today. By the way, shout out to Andrew for suggesting today's topic.

Hi, this is Professor Beau Baez. Good day, my lawlings.

The exam question I'm about to review

was from the July 2012 multi-state essay exam. Generally speaking, you ought to invest

25% of the allotted time on an essay question in prewriting which means

reading the question taking notes highlighting and preparing a short outline on what you are about to write.

Studies indicate that those who pre-write outperform those that read and immediately start writing.

Students on this exam had 30 minutes to answer the question which means I have about eight

minutes for pre-writing and twenty-two minutes for writing my essay. All right, here is my screen now what I'm going to do is right now, the torts exam is not showing.

You'll see it on the left screen. So I have yet to see this exam, I have no

idea what's going to be on there. I'm going to take this exam under timed exam conditions.

That means closed book, closed note, and as I say in class open mind.

So I have a timer here. I'm going to hit the 30-minute mark. Let me just tell you a little bit about my process. I've mentioned this before but this is the

process that I highly recommend, I think you should all use it.

 uses my techniques

So the whole idea behind this exercise is to show you how somebody uses my techniques

in taking an exam, an essay exam. So the middle screen, the little tiny one in the center, I'm

going to use that for notes. I will read the essay question.

In fact, what I do is start at the bottom. I read the call the question and then go through the facts. Just because it's online I'm probably not going to...

Normally I would take notes of some kind on the exam paper and separately on a separate

page of paper like I'm going to do here in the center. And then the exam itself, once I'm ready to actually begin writing it's going to appear on the far right.

So my technique is... you want to spend, on a 30-minute essay, about eight

minutes pre-writing and that's what I'm going to do. So I'm going to be reading, taking notes, law.

Again I have no idea what the rules are going into it. I don't know if this is gonna be an intentional tort, negligence, or strict liability--have no idea.

Just like I would on an exam I just wouldn't generally have that information this is an old bar exam question it's only eight years old at this point but

it'll give you a sense of how to do that so I've got my timer let me go ahead and start and then I have 30 minutes to really press on so let me start all

the right exam has begun

Okay, so here's our torts question. So I'm gonna start down here at the bottom looking for the call of the question

because that's going to then give me some context for what I'm going to find. So at the time of the attack, Susan knew and

only slightly because I've been in one class together a previous semester Susan is seeking damages for the injuries she suffered as a result of

Anne's attack and has sued the University, Jim, and Anne's psychiatrist.

So immediately I know I've got three plaintiffs right. So she's suing University, Jim, and psych.

Whatever, I'm just going to p y s c h, there we go. So those are my three parties.

So these are the three that I'm going to have to explain. So may Susan recover from the physical injuries she suffered in Anne's attack from the University, Jim, and the psychiatrist.

Okay, they're already there.

In the event that any parties are held accountable, Susan may also seek compensation from them for the PTSD.

Okay, so I'm being asked about physical injury and emotional harm.

All right, so as soon as the emotional harm I start thinking we've either got potentially an II ... well I'm gonna find out it could be an independent IIED claim,

NIED or if there's physical harm associated with the tort then it becomes parasitic.

So let's just see. Now I'm going to read the question. Two minutes down.

Susan, a student at the university, lived in a university dorm.

Only residents and visitors have access to Susan's dormitory.

who entered the dorm with a resident. Entry to the dorm was controlled by key cards. Dorm key cards opened all doors except for a rear entrance used only for deliveries which

were secured with a deadbolt. On November 30th at - 2 am, so I know that's early in the morning, or late at night, depending on how you look at it.

experience mental and physical symptoms

A university graduate entered the dorm through the rear entrance and was able to enter because the deadbolt lock had been broken during a delivery four days earlier.

Anne's entry had not been .... had not been repaired

Anne attacked Susan who was studying alone in the dorm's library. Alright ... alright ... so we've got a negligent security theory going on here.

Jim another resident of Susan's dorm passed the library shortly after Anne had attacked Susan.

The door was open and Jim saw Susan lying on the floor groaning. Jim told Susan I'll go for help right now.

Jim shut the library door after that and headed to the campus security office.

However, the office was closed.

Jim did not assist Susan in any other way.

Alright so, so with Jim we're dealing really with the rescue doctrine. 

So I'm gonna put down here rescue doctrine.

For the University, I know it's already, kind of like a negligent security negligence right.

But it's lack of security all right. So anyway, Jim did nothing else.

Susan got up and proceeded to the University Hospital, where she received rapid care, about thirty minutes after Jim shut the library door.

One day after the attack Susan began to experience mental and physical symptoms.

Insomnia, anxiety, rapid breathing, okay a whole bunch of things. All right so those are physical manifestations, all right good.

 PST PTSD

Susan's doctor has concluded these symptoms are due to post-traumatic stress. According to the doctor, Susan's PTSD was caused by the trauma she suffered

one month before Ann's attack when Susan was robbed at gunpoint.

In the doctor's opinion, although Susan had no symptoms of PST PTSD until after Ann's attack,

Ann's attack was triggered or triggered PTSD because Susan was suffering from it from the earlier robbery.

The symptoms became so serious Susan had to withdraw from school. She now sees a psychologist weekly.

Since the attack, Susan has learned that Ann suffers from schizophrenia, a serious mental distress illness.

From August to November, Ann had been receiving weekly outpatient psychiatric treatment from her psychiatrist.

According to her psychiatrist's notes, Ann promised her on November 20th that she would make sure that her former university colleagues who had cheated got what was coming to them for receiving the high marks they should have gotten.

Because Ann had never before engaged in violent behavior, Ann's psychiatrist decided not to inform anybody about her threats.

Additionally, Ann's psychiatrist did not think Ann would act in response to these words.

All right so the psychiatrist ... we have a ... their claim is a third party claim.

And it's a duty issue ... alright. The question is does a psychiatrist have a duty to warn?

And that goes to the California case. Okay, so, right now 24 minutes I've got about one more minute to do some prewriting.

So I've got the three theories down. Negligence for the University, rescue doctrine for Jim, and the psychiatrist

the third party duty owed, the Tarasoff case. That's what I'm thinking, this is a Tarasoff issue.

Alright, so I am ready to begin. So what I'm gonna do is open up with a very quick topic sentence.

There are three lawsuits by ... by Susan,

each predicated on three different theories of negligence.

Alright so in this case I don't see the intentional torts, it's all going to be negligence.

Then I ... negligence three each ...

three laws, okay. The institution is being sued for providing inadequate security,

Jim for failing to rescue, and Psychiatrist Susan,

right that's and that's what I'm just going to call her from now on. Susan for failing to warn of the attack.

Alright so I've kind of given .... Negligence occurs when the following five elements are present:

Duty, breach of duty, actual cause, proximate cause or legal cause if you prefer,

and damages or harm if you prefer.

And then my thought is, the psychiatrist ...

Oh, that is ... psychiatrist we have an inference psychiatrist.

I guess it's just a psychiatrist, I don't have a name. Okay so let's call it psychiatrist, so, there we go.

And just to make it easy for me, "psyc" so if you're going to have things short just do that.

p s y c., psyc. I guess that's easier for me.

Susan's chances of winning against the University are good, but she will struggle against Jim and Psych.

All right there we go All right. The first defendant is Jim, who is alleged to have

negligently done ... I just want to keep an eye on my ...

so I've got 20 minutes left all right?

First is Jim and the issue is whether he owed any duty to Susan a stranger. Okay.

Then the rule of law. Strangers generally owe no duty of care in negligence cases to those they

happen to meet unless they commit a negligent act. Something like that, all right.

The law implicated by these facts is the rescue doctrine, which holds that there is no

duty to rescue a stranger. But that when a stranger begins to rescue they must do so reasonably.

The question that must be decided is whether Jim's actions were reasonable.

All right, 18 minutes. I gotta move fast here.

Now let's see here.

Let me go back up here. I going to make this my issue statement here. The next: the question is whether a reasonable.

Jim found Susan hurt and told her that he

was going to get help from her.

He. While he did go to the Security office to get

help for her the office was closed.

At that point, he did nothing else.

The problem. The issue for Susan is determining whether Jim should have done anything else.

Under the traditional rule, a rescuer is not liable if they do not

place the victim in a worse position than when they were found.

Here, Susan was arguably not made worse off by the rescue attempt so Jim

owed no duty to her for his failed rescue.

Alright, so I'm done with what we got to move on because at this point I'm down to 16 minutes,

eight minutes for the last two. So the next, what I'm going to deal with is a psychiatrist.

The second ... and I'm kind of going from what I think are easier claims so the harder one.

The university is the hardest. Sued for negligence for failing to notify Susan about the second defendant's

Ann's dangerous behavior.

Generally, a psychiatrist ... general a psychiatrist owes no duty of care

to members of the public.

Unless the patient ... members of the public for

the conduct of their patients.

However, courts have found that a duty is owed if a two-part test is met.

One, the patient is planning to do something that results in death or serious bodily harm,

When the psychiatrist has a good cause think that the patient is going to carry it out.

Right, umm. A related rule is that the victim can be readily ... is readily identifiable by the patient.

Alright so now we're going to go into the facts here so we have ...

Let's see.

Okay, she never said Susan. In this situation, Ann did not disclose who the ...

In this situation Ann told, so I gotta ... Psych that she was going she was going

to make sure that cheaters ...

her ... cheaters were going to get what was coming to them.

Umm. This statement is ambiguous in that

it does not demonstrate that Ann is going to do anything that will result in

death or serious bodily harm.

Quick time check, ten minutes, okay I gotta move fast. Death or serious bodily harm. It does not identify Susan and it ... and ...

in any event, Psych did not believe Ann was going to act, on her feelings.

Psych should prevail against Ann.

Right, next to the third defendant University.

University ... and by the way minor diapers are typos are generally

ignored on exams... can prevail ... will likely lose in a lawsuit for negligent security.

The university owed Susan a duty to secure the dormitories as that is what a

reasonably prudent person would do.

It appears the University was aware

of security problems given the access cards that were needed to enter the dorm.

Four days seem... the locks to the rear entrance were broken the university failed ...

failed to repair in a timely fashion.

Okay, I've got seven minutes left. Umm...

Because of this, University breached its duty to Ann.

The next elements involve causation, actual and proximate.

Actual causation is measured by the but-for test.

Here, but for the University not securing the dorm, Ann would not have been injured by Susan.

The proximate cause is measured by the foreseeability test.

It is foreseeable that someone might enter a dorm when the building is not locked.

However, since Ann is a student ... it might

have been foreseeable that she could have entered through another means.

Finally, there must be damage.

Ann suffered physical and emotional physical harm.

This element is met. All right I've got four minutes.

The last question asked suing the party that any party may choose to recover from PTSD.

The final question is whether--okay four minutes--whether Ann...

Susan. Whether Susan

here or Ann entered the dorm, so I got the wrong parties here, don't I.

It's Susan. Let me just fix that very quickly. Whether Susan would not have been injured by Ann.

Since Ann is a student--am I okay, good--I got that right at the end.

Here it's Susan. I caught the... Finally, is whether Susan can recover from

her emotional harm based on PTSD.

This is an issue related to causation.

Two minutes okay. The proximate cause Ann

whether the eggshell psyche (psyche psyche psyche) rule applies.

Though Susan was susceptible to a PTSD attack it was not triggered until...

two minutes ... it was not triggered until Ann attacked Susan.

It is under this rule, one takes a plaintiff as one finds them, and

the unforeseeable extent of the injury is ignored because there is a causal link

to her current emotional--30 seconds--emotional harm because there is a causal link to her

current emotional harm. She will be able to recover from this harm.

Normally--so only 12 seconds left--that would so that is it. We are now officially done I move on

to the next essay. So it's not pretty but it's done, mentioned the main issues and

just typed away. So that's basically a 30-minute bar exam.

I say hopefully this was helpful for you and you just have to realize you have to keep your eye on the

clock and when it's time to move on you move on. Wish I wish I had more time, but

don't that's the nature of a bar exam or any sort of timed exam