How to Strategically Approach MBE Questions, with Jonathan Grossman (Webinar Recording)

Рет қаралды 6,103

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 14

@suzannelove5147 4 ай бұрын

I learned where I needed to progress in answering questions. I’ve been practicing questions since and the improvement is outstanding!!! Thank you Mr. Grossman!! By the way- your direct approach/responses works for me!!!! Don’t stop!!!

@kspov8590 4 ай бұрын

The GOAT comes through again! Thank you, Jon! We appreciate your insights!

@Flavor88 3 ай бұрын

Prof. Grossman, you gave great explanations. I wish I would have gone with AdaptiBar instead of Barbri

@Giabia2326 4 ай бұрын

Thanks a bunch. Love your lectures.

@sadiemlika5140 3 ай бұрын

Just not sure if I buy the explanation for question no. 21 because proximate cause applies outside the realm of involuntary manslaughter (and tort actions). I think showing proximate (and actual) causation is still relevant in bringing any murder charge (especially felony murder).

@nataliiagraves 4 ай бұрын

Best practice for the bar with Adaptibar video’s! #smulaw

@atrain3793 3 ай бұрын

Great video but I wish he would have walked through some hard questions. These were fairly easy.

@wyattgerl7171 3 ай бұрын

I thought strict liability is generally not imposed in favor or trespassers? Trespassers must show negligence

@bryanandrews7391 3 ай бұрын

This is correct, at least as far as I can tell from all my outlines and flash cards. Also when he flips to the next slide and you briefly see the explanation it says exactly that. It sounds like he thinks the answer is A but both my gut and the slide he literally shows favors B so now I’m confused

@renaissancegirl4563 3 ай бұрын

Hi! Yes a trespasser would have to show negligence but assumption of the risk is a full defense for negligence as well. So the neighbor will prevail not because he was trespassing but because he assumed the risk. While admittedly he focused on strict liability, the good news is that you caught he was a trespasser and if he assumes the risk it’s a complete defense regardless of whether it’s SL or negligence.

@wyattgerl7171 3 ай бұрын

@@renaissancegirl4563but why would assumption of risk even matter? If he’s trespassing it does matter whether he knew of the danger not.

@renaissancegirl4563 3 ай бұрын

@@wyattgerl7171 assumption of the risk matters because if he’s a trespasser, he still has to show that the owner was negligent. That doesn’t fully resolve the question of why the owner will prevail. The owner prevails not because he’s a trespasser, but because he assumed the risk, because that’s how he wins the negligence actions.