Attend acclaimed Pieper lectures at students’ convenience, available through DVDs and online.
John Pieper, introduction to course
This presentation was given to foreign-trained LLM students at NYU School of Law
John Pieper, retaking the New York State Bar Exam
This is a discussion of the July 2014 New York Bar Exam and how to prepare for the February 2015 exam.
Multiple Choice Questions
Students are exposed to more than 2,000 multiple choice questions in preparation for the Multistate and Uniform Bar Examinations.
Two partners own a parcel of real estate as joint tenants. Both partners signed a deed as grantors conveying the land to the buyer. Partner one handed the deed to partner two for the sole purpose of having the deed checked by their lawyer. Without partner one’s permission, partner two handed the deed to the buyer and collected the sale price. Is this a good deed as to partner one?
- Yes, the deed was signed by both partners, which proved their intent to sell to buyer.
- No, the deed was invalid as to both grantors because partner two stepped outside his scope of authority.
- Yes, the transfer is valid from both partners because partner two was partner one’s apparent agent for purposes of delivering the deed.
- No, the deed cannot bind partner one because he did not participate in the deed delivery to the buyer.
4. No, the deed cannot bind partner one because he did not participate in the deed delivery to the buyer.
Delivery is essential to the validity of a deed. Delivery signifies the grantor’s final statement of intent that the transaction shall take place. In this case, the partner one did not intend to have it delivered and it was ineffective as to him. He still owns 50% with the buyer, who owns the other 50%.
A mail carrier was on a homeowner’s premises delivering the mail when he was bitten by a large dog owned by the next door neighbor. Although the owner used due care in keeping the animal in a securely fenced area, he knew of one prior incident when the animal got loose and bit someone. Is the dog’s owner liable for the injuries to the mailman?
- Yes, he is liable because a dog owner is always liable for an injury caused to a third person.
- No, he is not liable because he used due care and was not negligent under the circumstances.
- Yes, he is liable because an owner who knows of the dog’s dangerous propensities is strictly liable for ensuing damages.
- No, he is not liable because the dog was on someone else’s property at the time of the incident.
3. Yes, he is liable because an owner who knows of the dog’s dangerous propensities is strictly liable for ensuing damages.
There is strict (absolute) liability for dog bites once the dog’s owner knows of the dog’s dangerous propensities. This is the premise for the so-called “one-bite” rule in which the dog owner is put on notice of the dog’s dangerous propensities after the first bite occurs. The due care used by the dog owner in this case is irrelevant due to the application of strict liability.
A motorist was traveling at 2-3 miles per hour when she negligently tapped the rear of another vehicle. A passenger in the struck vehicle had a rare medical condition that made her highly vulnerable to any slight physical impact or intrusion. The minimal impact caused the passenger to lightly bump her shoulder against the door, which triggered her rare immuno-suppressant disease to surface. The passenger became permanently incapacitated from the impact. She sued the negligent motorist for all injuries. Does she have a valid claim?
- Yes, because the victim in this case is called an “unforeseeable plaintiff.”
- No, because the motorist is only liable for foreseeable injuries.
- Yes, because in the law of negligence the defendant takes the plaintiff “as he finds her.”
- No, because the victim’s own psychosomatic reaction caused the injuries to surface.
3. Yes, because in the law of negligence the defendant takes the plaintiff “as he finds her.”
When you get a plaintiff who has an “eggshell skull,” this person has a very high vulnerability to injury to any part of the body. In this case, the defendant takes the plaintiff as she finds her, and is responsible for all foreseeable and unforeseeable injuries that occur.