Re: Brain Trauma Injury

More | Report Post

DontHurtMe, I will try not not hurt you.

I was answering as if it was a Bar question. I assert that, as Bar
questions go, there are sufficient facts to RAISE THE ISSUES that I
have raised. The idea of a Bar question is that they give you enough
facts to reasonably raise an issue, and then you have to assert what
additional facts would be needed to prove the elements and to
successfully defend.

Here, the facts included "years" of use of Farmer's land by potential
adverse possessors. If this does not raise the issue of adverse
possession or prescriptive easement for discussion, what would?

Here, the facts included Farmer's transporting crates (an activity) and
placing them in a particular place that blocked a trail frequented for
years by snowmobiling trespassers. If this does not impose on farmer
the duties of a landowner, who is conducting activities, to known
trespassers, what would?

Here, Farmer took the time and effort to transport the crates to a
particular place which would block the snowmobilers' path, and did not
make the relatively minimal effort to warn the snowmobilers that the
crates would be blocking their path. If this does not show intent to
commit at least some bodily harm, what would? And, given that the path
was used not for strolling, or running, or sledding, but for
snowmobiling, if this does not show intent to commit severe bodily harm
(or at least reckless disregard for the risk of such harm), what would?

What law school do YOU go to?