Tuesday, January 25, 2005
http://mewing.net/tortquiz/land.shtml
which intentional tort ae you? i was trespass to land.
actually that would be just trespass, as the default. trespass to chattel is less common. i got a nice giggle out of this quiz.
but intentional torts are where the action is. that is, where the action should be.
criminal law does little for the criminal or the victim or society.
negligence suits are eaten up in transaction costs. strict product liablity is too often an unjust game of soak the rich.
but intentional torts, that's where it's at. spammed? sue em, if you can do so without violating their rights to free speech and commerce. playground bully took your kid's lunch money? sue em! several intentional torts there. few tortfeasors are so judgment prproof that a sheriff's sale won't turn up something of interest - many tortfeasors ahvhave an old pick up truck out back. boilerplate intentional tort pleadings, default judgments as often as not, and skills recovery consulants, and there ya go.
justice! profit!
not that it's worked for me.
even when i win, i lose, one way or the other.
still, i remain convinced.
circumcised without informed consent? sue! intentional tort.
searched when going into the city hall? sue! intentional tort.
asked for a social security number without a privacy act statement when filling out the form to not have to be searched when going into city hall? sue! this one still falls into the intentional category. amd it's a statutory rather than common law tort, but still.
a lawyer's ability to quickly and efficiently bring and win suits for intentional torts can go a long way to paying off those student loans, win loyal clients,
develop clout.
lawyer's ability to quickly and efficiently bring suits that will drag on for years before going away has some deterrent effect.
ok, enough blogging for now. i could either a) work on that memo ive bene putting off or b) head downtown for kareoke. ok that was an easy decision. cheers!
which intentional tort ae you? i was trespass to land.
actually that would be just trespass, as the default. trespass to chattel is less common. i got a nice giggle out of this quiz.
but intentional torts are where the action is. that is, where the action should be.
criminal law does little for the criminal or the victim or society.
negligence suits are eaten up in transaction costs. strict product liablity is too often an unjust game of soak the rich.
but intentional torts, that's where it's at. spammed? sue em, if you can do so without violating their rights to free speech and commerce. playground bully took your kid's lunch money? sue em! several intentional torts there. few tortfeasors are so judgment prproof that a sheriff's sale won't turn up something of interest - many tortfeasors ahvhave an old pick up truck out back. boilerplate intentional tort pleadings, default judgments as often as not, and skills recovery consulants, and there ya go.
justice! profit!
not that it's worked for me.
even when i win, i lose, one way or the other.
still, i remain convinced.
circumcised without informed consent? sue! intentional tort.
searched when going into the city hall? sue! intentional tort.
asked for a social security number without a privacy act statement when filling out the form to not have to be searched when going into city hall? sue! this one still falls into the intentional category. amd it's a statutory rather than common law tort, but still.
a lawyer's ability to quickly and efficiently bring and win suits for intentional torts can go a long way to paying off those student loans, win loyal clients,
develop clout.
lawyer's ability to quickly and efficiently bring suits that will drag on for years before going away has some deterrent effect.
ok, enough blogging for now. i could either a) work on that memo ive bene putting off or b) head downtown for kareoke. ok that was an easy decision. cheers!
Comments:
Post a Comment
