My Holiday Card to Concurring Opinions Readers

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. This is awesome! (And it appears much easier than your crim pro final a few years back, though that’s probably because I don’t have to actually take this torts exam.) I bet it’s going to be a really fun test to grade.

  2. Joe says:

    This sounds fun though if Santa Claus did exist (I’m sorry Virginia), there probably would be certain special rules applicable to him that would not fit in general rules of law.

  3. AYY says:

    Santa’s an honored guest, not a mere invitee, so he’s off the hook for any tort on a theory of sovereign immunity.
    Santa doesn’t slip on icy roofs. He deals with them all the time. He didn’t slip. He must have been pushed. But no one sneaks up on Santa, so if he slipped it’s because his milk and cookies must have been spiked. So he’s off the hook on that theory also.
    The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur doesn’t apply to the defenestrated Chia pet because no one knows what defenestrated means, or what a Chia pet is. So Santa can’t recover for that.
    As for the Sniggie blanket, well that’s what they get for spiking Santa’s milk and cookies.

  4. Kyle says:

    @AYY: I don’t know whether to reward you for creativity or punish you for fighting the hypo

  5. Ted Frank says:

    Does “Chia pet” date us? Ouch.

    In any event, the NFL should have reasonably anticipated that the attractive nuisance of its football games would cause viewers to fail to take care in clearing their roofs, so they are clearly liable to Santa, Batista, Chen, Davis, and Mrs. Palsgraf. Punitive damages are not inappropriate.

  6. Benjy Stern says:

    As a person who has to take the bar soon, I think I just crap myself over the idea of taking a law exam for “fun.” I rather go Black Friday shopping in LA: