This is saving my ass, as a first semester 1L. It’s difficult to juggle and piece together the information with some professors. These put everything into perspective, for a proper analysis. 👍
I'm so happy that I signed up for your entire course. I passed 17 credits (out of 26 needed for the LL.M.) in four months! Because you made it so simple and easy. THANK YOU!
Just discovered this channel and already this playlist is helping me immensely. Have my first ever torts exam next week and already starting to feel more confident. Thank you for creating this content and explaining these concepts so clearly!
I want to point out something that may be showing my ignorance (as I'm watching these videos a day before my Torts final[!]). A guard dog, from my understanding, seems to still imply a duty of care on the part of the owner, even in relation to a trespasser. That also can be characterized as a "natural" "hazard." Again, don't let this comment confuse you if you're still learning, like me... because I could be engaging in a needless problematization of a helpful heuristic. Then again, that's what we do as legal scholars, at least partially, right? Good luck to others who are in my position. And thank you for posting these videos! Amazing!
In the BARBRI MBE review 2016-2017 book it says that to invitee you have "duty to make reasonable inspections to discover non obvious dangerous notions and warn of OR make them safe. Is that OR incorrect? In your video you said they MUST make safe, so that should be an AND in the BARBRI review book?
Is an electrician who is hired, to fix an electrical issue, considered an invitee? If he is electrocuted on the wires for which he is hired to make safe, is the land owner responsible for not making it safe prior to the electricians arrival?
I have a question. So Im a renter of a unit (its a townhouse) im currently in a slip and fall case and I wanted to ask a question. If the landlord is supposed to be doing annual inspections but has never done them, is that considered a breach of duty??
Can you do one on trademark infringement? through stealing the tm and using it on a different class and they benefit from a tm AFTER the fact they were told not to infringe on the tm and after 30 days they used it by trying to benefit while the tm was on their paperwork like a bill and when that bill was paided to someone (company) and i get an invoice, this will show the registered tm owner has suffered a loss hope you can see what i see cheers
What if the trespasser is a thief - even though discovered; he’s been there before and I know that thieves usually come around - will I still owe duty to make safe ??
I think you are mistaken w/ respect to duty of the invitee as to the duty to make safe , all the landowner must do is to warn of the known concealed dangers , there is no duty to make safe , the logic is that if the warning is sufficient then the plaintiff is said to assume the risk , I can be wrong can you please recheck , I did in several places and they seem to say only a duty to warn as to both invitee and licensee , thank you for the lectures
Under the traditional approach, a land possessor owes an invitee the duty to use reasonable care to inspect the property, discover unreasonably dangerous conditions, and protect the invitee from such conditions. A warning could be sufficient to satisfy the duty owed to an invitee if the warning makes the condition safe enough to protect the invitee from harm (e.g., putting yellow caution tape around the dangerous condition). Under the traditional approach, the key to recognize is that a land possessor owes the highest duty of care to invitees, the lowest duty of care to trespassers, and a duty of care somewhere in the middle for licensees. Thanks for the question! I'll be sure to make this more clear in lectures moving forward.
Disclosure: I am not a licensed attorney (yet). An invitee is a person who is invited onto property for business reasons, and would include customers of a retail store and job applicants. Property owners owe the highest degree of care to invitees to make sure they are safe from dangers on their property. Under this standard, a property owner not only has a duty to repair and correct known dangers, he also has a duty to reasonably inspect for, discover, and correct unknown hazards in those areas of the premises to which an invitee might have access. From realestate.findlaw.com/owning-a-home/property-owners-legal-duty-to-prevent-injury.html
I think there is some nuance to the sections of licensee and invitee. With a licensee, the duty is to warn. There is no duty to make safe. CAN you make it safe instead? Certainly. But, the duty is still to warn. If you opt to make it safe, then the problem goes away, and you obviously no longer have a duty to warn. With an invitee, you have both the duty to warn, and to make safe. If, however, your warning is sufficient to make it safe (e.g. yellow caution tape surrounding it), then this might be enough to satisfy the duty to make safe. I expect that whether or not it will actually satisfy will be determined contextually, on a case by case basis.
Hey, thanks for these videos I was wondering is there some nuance to this particular area in terms of duty because I was looking at a Barbri lecture where the professor stated that simply warning guests at a casino with a floor is wet sign is sufficient to meet the duty requirement to invitees
Gonna preface this with the fact that I’m a student, so not gonna act like I’m the authority here, but my thought would be that in the case of a wet floor, it becomes safe over time without further action which satisfies the make safe OR that a warning suffices for the time between inspection and making safe, as in a warning will prevent liability if it can be shown that there was intent to make it safe in a reasonable timeframe
Under the traditional approach, a land possessor owes an invitee the duty to use reasonable care to inspect the property, discover unreasonably dangerous conditions, and protect the invitee from such conditions. A warning COULD be sufficient to satisfy the duty owed to an invitee if the warning makes the condition safe enough to protect the invitee from harm (e.g., putting yellow caution tape around the dangerous condition). Under the traditional approach, the key to recognize is that a land possessor owes the highest duty of care to invitees, the lowest duty of care to trespassers, and a duty of care somewhere in the middle for licensees. Thanks for the question! I'll be sure to make this more clear in lectures moving forward.
@@studicata all duties under this section are hidden danger. Sign or warning makes it Not hidden. So proper sign or warning could make that danger out of scope of above all duties owed by possessor or landowner.
🚨 SPECIAL OFFER: Want to crush law school finals, rack up scholarship $$$, pass the bar exam, and practice law like a BOSS? Take the LEAP. Get started today for free at: www.studicata.com/leap
I am so thankful for you and your information but do you bang your head in court? Because if I was a judge I'd be like this isn't a freaking rave😂😂 but thanks for the crash course very helpful
THIS MAN IS A LIFE SAVIOR. Seriously dumbs it down so easily
Who could possibly be disliking these free lessons lol, thanks a lot man keep up the great work some people appreciate you a lot!!
4 dudes from Kaplan
@@squeakachu922 😂😂😂
This is saving my ass, as a first semester 1L. It’s difficult to juggle and piece together the information with some professors. These put everything into perspective, for a proper analysis. 👍
Binging his Crash Course on Contracts helped me with some major review.
This guy teaches better than all of my law professors put together and the Kaplan bar course.
Bro this series is brilliant
Thank you! 💪
easily one of the best videos ive every watched.
Thank you for tuning in!
This is so much better than the Barbri Prep ramble with lack of summary tables. Well done!
I don’t think you know how happy i am 🙂🙂🙂🙂😀😀😀😀...this just reinforced everything I’ve been studying.
Awesome, glad this helped! 💪
I'm so happy that I signed up for your entire course. I passed 17 credits (out of 26 needed for the LL.M.) in four months! Because you made it so simple and easy. THANK YOU!
This chart is now hanging on my wall 🙏🏽❤️ love this channel.
Awesome-thanks for tuning in!
You explain this so well and the chart you have used is so effective to helping analyze the duties owed, thank you!
No problem, happy to help! 💪
Just discovered this channel and already this playlist is helping me immensely. Have my first ever torts exam next week and already starting to feel more confident. Thank you for creating this content and explaining these concepts so clearly!
Sure-happy to help! Wishing you the best on your exams. 🙏
@@studicata thank you!
You are a blessing! I love your videos, they've helped me sooo much with finals
Thank you! No problem, always happy to help!
Your explanations help me better understand the law. Thank you very much, Attorney. God bless your kind heart.
got a high grade on CivPro all thanks to your videos. thank you thank you
I really like the way you explain things 👍🏽
I'm so glad I found your channel.
I want to point out something that may be showing my ignorance (as I'm watching these videos a day before my Torts final[!]). A guard dog, from my understanding, seems to still imply a duty of care on the part of the owner, even in relation to a trespasser. That also can be characterized as a "natural" "hazard." Again, don't let this comment confuse you if you're still learning, like me... because I could be engaging in a needless problematization of a helpful heuristic. Then again, that's what we do as legal scholars, at least partially, right? Good luck to others who are in my position. And thank you for posting these videos! Amazing!
So incredibly helpful, thank you
No problem, happy to help!
Thank you so much. This is so detailed, now I understand it.
great quality and very helpful... i feel like a trespasser or perhaps a squatter to your channel , haha , thank you for the material and effort !
Don't know how I found these vids but glad I did. Thanks!!
Yeah, I really did not expect anyone to watch these. Lol. Glad you did -- thanks for the support!
Im in parallel school and these videos explain so much better than my teachers
Bless you sir, got my torts final in 3 days
This is so helpful. Thanks
Can you help with videos on Trust law please 🙏
In the BARBRI MBE review 2016-2017 book it says that to invitee you have "duty to make reasonable inspections to discover non obvious dangerous notions and warn of OR make them safe. Is that OR incorrect? In your video you said they MUST make safe, so that should be an AND in the BARBRI review book?
Is an electrician who is hired, to fix an electrical issue, considered an invitee? If he is electrocuted on the wires for which he is hired to make safe, is the land owner responsible for not making it safe prior to the electricians arrival?
Thanks so much, I LOVE YOU EXPLANATION.
Great stuff!
I have a question. So Im a renter of a unit (its a townhouse) im currently in a slip and fall case and I wanted to ask a question. If the landlord is supposed to be doing annual inspections but has never done them, is that considered a breach of duty??
Can you do one on trademark infringement? through stealing the tm and using it on a different class and they benefit from a tm AFTER the fact they were told not to infringe on the tm and after 30 days they used it by trying to benefit while the tm was on their paperwork like a bill and when that bill was paided to someone (company) and i get an invoice, this will show the registered tm owner has suffered a loss
hope you can see what i see
cheers
What if the trespasser is a thief - even though discovered; he’s been there before and I know that thieves usually come around - will I still owe duty to make safe ??
So what happens if a store owner trespasses a patron after the patron slips on split milk but before the patron hits the ground ?
thanks teacher.
I think you are mistaken w/ respect to duty of the invitee as to the duty to make safe , all the landowner must do is to warn of the known concealed dangers , there is no duty to make safe , the logic is that if the warning is sufficient then the plaintiff is said to assume the risk , I can be wrong can you please recheck , I did in several places and they seem to say only a duty to warn as to both invitee and licensee , thank you for the lectures
Under the traditional approach, a land possessor owes an invitee the duty to use reasonable care to inspect the property, discover unreasonably dangerous conditions, and protect the invitee from such conditions. A warning could be sufficient to satisfy the duty owed to an invitee if the warning makes the condition safe enough to protect the invitee from harm (e.g., putting yellow caution tape around the dangerous condition).
Under the traditional approach, the key to recognize is that a land possessor owes the highest duty of care to invitees, the lowest duty of care to trespassers, and a duty of care somewhere in the middle for licensees.
Thanks for the question! I'll be sure to make this more clear in lectures moving forward.
Disclosure: I am not a licensed attorney (yet).
An invitee is a person who is invited onto property for business reasons, and would include customers of a retail store and job applicants. Property owners owe the highest degree of care to invitees to make sure they are safe from dangers on their property. Under this standard, a property owner not only has a duty to repair and correct known dangers, he also has a duty to reasonably inspect for, discover, and correct unknown hazards in those areas of the premises to which an invitee might have access.
From realestate.findlaw.com/owning-a-home/property-owners-legal-duty-to-prevent-injury.html
I think there is some nuance to the sections of licensee and invitee.
With a licensee, the duty is to warn. There is no duty to make safe. CAN you make it safe instead? Certainly. But, the duty is still to warn. If you opt to make it safe, then the problem goes away, and you obviously no longer have a duty to warn.
With an invitee, you have both the duty to warn, and to make safe. If, however, your warning is sufficient to make it safe (e.g. yellow caution tape surrounding it), then this might be enough to satisfy the duty to make safe. I expect that whether or not it will actually satisfy will be determined contextually, on a case by case basis.
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!! YOU SAVING MY ASS !!! xxx
Hey, thanks for these videos I was wondering is there some nuance to this particular area in terms of duty because I was looking at a Barbri lecture where the professor stated that simply warning guests at a casino with a floor is wet sign is sufficient to meet the duty requirement to invitees
Gonna preface this with the fact that I’m a student, so not gonna act like I’m the authority here, but my thought would be that in the case of a wet floor, it becomes safe over time without further action which satisfies the make safe OR that a warning suffices for the time between inspection and making safe, as in a warning will prevent liability if it can be shown that there was intent to make it safe in a reasonable timeframe
Under the traditional approach, a land possessor owes an invitee the duty to use reasonable care to inspect the property, discover unreasonably dangerous conditions, and protect the invitee from such conditions. A warning COULD be sufficient to satisfy the duty owed to an invitee if the warning makes the condition safe enough to protect the invitee from harm (e.g., putting yellow caution tape around the dangerous condition).
Under the traditional approach, the key to recognize is that a land possessor owes the highest duty of care to invitees, the lowest duty of care to trespassers, and a duty of care somewhere in the middle for licensees.
Thanks for the question! I'll be sure to make this more clear in lectures moving forward.
@@studicata all duties under this section are hidden danger. Sign or warning makes it Not hidden. So proper sign or warning could make that danger out of scope of above all duties owed by possessor or landowner.
Peerless Michael. What a legend.
Thank you!
🚨 SPECIAL OFFER: Want to crush law school finals, rack up scholarship $$$, pass the bar exam, and practice law like a BOSS? Take the LEAP. Get started today for free at: www.studicata.com/leap
I am so thankful for you and your information but do you bang your head in court? Because if I was a judge I'd be like this isn't a freaking rave😂😂 but thanks for the crash course very helpful
you're the best!!!
Thank you! 🙏
I don’t think you know how happy i am 🙂🙂🙂🙂😀😀😀😀...this just reinforced everything I’ve been studying.