God be Praised!

So there’s this concept in Property law called the Rule Against Perpetuities. Basically it’s a giant conglomerate of complications that proves the bane of every property student. I was ferreting around online for help understanding it and found this passage in one of the articles attempting to explain the concept: “It is not surprising that in California, a court ruled that the failure of a lawyer who drafted a Will in violation of the Rule was not liable for negligence because his ignorance did not fall below the standard of the ordinary practitioner.” I find that highly ironic. They expect law students to comprehend this mess?

That said... the exam was a blessing. I really owe one to God. The first question featured four characters from Lost (that’s right, my tv show!) and described them crashing on the island, wandering around and finding things. Then we had to explain who had what rights to what item and why, and reference cases we’d read in class in support. Like, Kate found a wild boar standing outside of a broken fence, Locke found a compass in a recently-built hut, Jin found a raft buried in the sand, that sort of thing. I REALLY lucked out here because we discussed this stuff at the very beginning of the semester, when most people weren’t even outlining yet, and the prof didn’t return to review it at all throughout, so most people didn’t spend much time on it, but I had every single case memorized. I am so glad he concentrated here instead of on leaseholds, where most other people concentrated their studying efforts. But my instincts were right – this guy has a Monty Python sense of humor and idolizes John Cleese, so I had a feeling he would try to give us a red herring by reviewing leases later in the year and then blindsiding us on the exam with seemingly trivial stuff from the very beginning of the semester. But I thought it prudent to memorize all these because these were the cases from the 1700’s, which are still referenced in courts today and on the bar exam. Rah rah rah!!!

The second question was from my favorite book, The Great Gatsby. It followed five pieces of land being sold, inherited and willed over a period of seven decades, and we had to identify which conveyances were valid, which violated the aforementioned rule against perpetuities, who lost the rights to their land by violating a covenant in the lease, who was subject to an equitable servitude... blah blah blah. All stuff I had studied forward and backwards.

Then we had a policy question – we received a copy of an editorial written by a professor at the U of Chicago about the government’s practice of eminent domain in Hawaii, where the Supreme Court allowed the state to force landowners to sell their land to the current tenants to jump-start the economy. The editorial called this a blatant disregard of constitutional and court-ruling precedents, and we were instructed to comment on it. So I spewed a two-page single-spaced fire-breathing monologue referencing fifteen or so case names and raving about how government intervention undermines the entire theory of a free economy, encourages laziness, undermines productivity and generally tromps on the livelihood of humanity. Hopefully he agrees.

I guess while I’m here I’ll record, for posterity’s sake, the Torts exam questions. The first one was: a woman committed a drive-by gang shooting, accidentally shot an innocent bystander B, who was subsequently aided by passing-by doctor C. C applied a tourniquet to B’s arm which resulted in it being amputated at the hospital, (but, as I noted in my answer, he was following standard medical practice, so was exempt from liability when B subsequently asserted a claim of battery, which is nonconsentual harmful or offensive contact with the person of another, and I also argued implied consent, which applies when the victim is in dire need of medical intervention and not in a position to consent to treatment). We had to identify all the claims C could make or that could be made against C, and the affirmative defenses he could summon to sidestep liability.

The second one was a bus driver stopping at a bus stop and, in violation of a local ordinance, letting a kid get off the bus to go into a gas station to buy a soda. The kid negligently failed to check for cars when crossing the street, and a negligent driver hit an injured him. He went to the hospital and woke from surgery with a burn mark on his stomach unrelated to the car crash. We had to identify all the claims. The third portion was multiple choice.

I am so, so, so glad this thing is over! Just Contracts on Friday, and then I’m Homeward Bound! Rah rah rah! Everybody’s going out drinking tonight, but I’m going to go over to see Pride and Prejudice at the movie theater up the block as my present. Call me boring, but that sounds infinitely more appealing.