Entry 15-01.29.29 in Book Two: The Fifteenth Year of the Third Millennium of the Common Era

Today has been harder than expected for a number of reasons. I’m pushing through the videos, I’m doing quizzes, I’m doing what I can… and my wife is trying to help and be supportive. She’s watching television in another room, on the small TV, so as not to distract or get in my way… but the issue is… she is watching one of the things from Netflix Instant that is going away. I can’t blame her for that, it is going away soon and it isn’t like I have the time or opportunity right now to watch it with her. But… she’s watching Jekyll. Pretend for a moment that my wife and I are not pathetic Anglophiles. Pretend that I’m not in love with literary duality and dichotomy. Pretend that one of my favorite Comic Book characters of all time is based on Jekyll/Hyde (Two Face). Just focus on this: The one great Victorian or Classical or Romantic or Baroque or.... really any period of Western Literature… the one great story that consumes me more than any other is Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. How consumed? I’ve gone out of my way to see almost every version of this story put to reel. Yes… even Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde. But I haven’t had time or opportunity to see Jekyll… the one my wife is watching right now. I’m focusing, I’m pushing onward with studying… but it is driving me mad. I don’t blame my wife… she watches it now or neither of us will get to see it. But… to have it playing just in the next room.... it is a true test of if I can resist temptation for the sake of studying for the bar exam.

Just for fun… to share my misery, I suppose… I wanted to share a peek at what I do. I just finished a Torts Quiz. I got these two questions wrong, so I write down the answers and transcribe the explanations into my notes. Both of these answers had a chart, a graph, and took at least two pages of explanations… but I figured I’d share with you the “Answer Summary” to both of them so as to demonstrate what I am going through, lol.

Question 58: Correct Answer A; Your Answer B
On all standardized examinations, the examiner’s main goal is to hide the correct answer. The examiners try to accomplish this by employing “distracters” and “red herrings.” Here, the comparative negligence statute is the distracter. A comparative negligence statute only applies when there is a negligent plaintiff and one or more negligent defendants. Here, there were two negligent parties (the fanatic and the driver), but neither of them is the plaintiff. The plaintiff (the friend) was just a passenger who was riding in one of the cars and did nothing negligent. The comparative negligence statute, therefore, is irrelevant. The two negligent parties (the fan and the driver) are joint Tortfeasors who can be held jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the plaintiff’s damages. Choice A is correct because the friend may recover 100 percent of the damages from the driver, who could then seek contribution from the fan. The fan and the driver are joint Tortfeasors who would be held jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the friend’s damages.

Question 62: Correct Answer D; Your Answer C
The issue presented is whether a plaintiff may recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress where the target of the defendant’s extreme and outrageous act is some other person, not the plaintiff. A plaintiff can recover in either of the following two situations: (1) The plaintiff is present when the defendant does something extreme and outrageous to a third person, the defendant is aware of the plaintiff’s presence, and the plaintiff is a close family relative of the third person who is the target of the defendant’s extreme and outrageous act. (2) The plaintiff is present when the defendant does something extreme and outrageous to a third person, the defendant is aware of the plaintiff’s presence, and the shock of witnessing the incident is so horrible that it causes the plaintiff to suffer bodily injury (such as a heart attack, stroke, etc.) rather than just emotional distress. Here, the woman cannot recover against the gang member for intentional infliction of emotional distress under either of these two rules, because the gang member was unaware of the woman’s presence. Choice (C) is incorrect because zone of danger is only in issue when a plaintiff is claiming emotional distress suffered for what almost happened to them. For example, if a plaintiff claims that she suffered emotional distress at almost being hit by a speeding car, the plaintiff would have to show that she was within the zone of danger of being hit by the car. Therefore, zone of danger would not apply to this fact situation.