Section Fore! Subsection Oh!

With 5 days left till the end of law school, I find it difficult to focus on studying for my last class. At the same time, I'm thinking of things I plan on doing this summer, and the new focus it will require. Such as:

- Reading novels, without isolating facts, relevant issues, holdings, and Denning quotes.
- Going to a friend's wedding, closing my mind to the newfound tax implications of this momentous event.
- Making road trips in my car, acknowledging only the road signs and not the new legal jurisdictions I enter.
- Relaxing on a beach on the Amalfi Coast, selectively considering the wisdom of public nudity laws.
- Touring the Whitechapel area of London, without consulting the Statute of Limitations should I solve the identity of Jack the Ripper.
- Practicing my golf swing, resisting the urge to compare mulligans to de novo appeals.
- Enjoying a zombie movie, without questioning whether the actus reus element of zombie murder is sufficiently made out.
- Practicing my golf swing on zombies... OK, that's definitely some kind of illegal.

Playstation in the Second Degree

It's one of the more surprising aspects of law school that I've been able to keep up with reading whilst devoting a fair amount of time to video games. And one of the things I like best about this site is that it gives me the excuse to view everything through rose-coloured legal-shaded glasses.

On that note, here's a list of the games I've been playing throughout law school, and an appraisal into the legality of what I get up to in each:


God of War II:
Goal? As Kratos, violently dethrone the various Gods of Olympus and install yourself as the first mortal God of War.
Legal? Although the ancient Greek civilization might be credited with founding the system of jurisprudence we hold so dear today, I can't imagine those wise jurists would condone my use of spinning decapitations with the Blades of Chaos. (Part of a "Vindictive Combo!")



Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater:
Goal? Covertly land in the jungles of Southern Russia and deactivate a newly designed, long range nuclear weapon.
Legal? This one's a gray area: you play as an operative for the U.S. government and therefore all action - such as exploding enemy kneecaps - should be implicitly legal. But then what to make of the Russian government's sanctioned use of loads and loads of eye-gouging torture?



Red Dead Revolver:
Goal? Remove corrupt town officials and win the local deadly showdown contest.
Legal? Surprisingly, yes. The lawlessness of the Old West took little umbrage with the vigilante brand of justice necessary to persevere in the game. Shotgun to the face? A fair and reasonable reaction to provocation.




NHL 2K6:
Goal? Lead your team to the playoffs and hopefully the Stanley Cup, but most of all, have fun.
Legal? You'd think so, but the kind of hits I lay down in this game fall into the Holt v. Verbruggen definition of "assault and battery not reasonably contemplated by voluntary participation in professional sports."



Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas:
Purpose? Avenge your dear mother's death and become kingpin of the imaginary state of San Andreas.
Legal? Awww, hell no.

Revue Reviewed

Last night I finally got to sit in the audience for a Law Revue. The show had one real disadvantage over last year's in that the theatre wasn't licensed for drinking - but thankfully, the resourcefulness of an audience that can order and down pitchers at a nearby bar during a 15 minute intermission and a terrific cast managed to overcome that issue.

Speaking as one who knows just how much goes into such a production, I think it was fantastic. My personal favourite skit of the night was "Charlie v. The Chocolate Factory," a hilarious trial of occupier's liability. Particularly the testimony of Augustus Gloop:

I looked for a sign, caution, achtung! But zere vas nozzing!


(Yes the photo is horrible quality, but I was laughing pretty hard when I took it.)

The video I shot for the show with friends Thom and Jeremy - my one contribution - was also extremely well received - a bonus. It's amazing what this Mac's editing software can do, even if my Alfonso Cuaron/Children of Men-inspired tracking shot didn't quite have the emotional impact of that masterpiece. I'll see if I can get it uploaded here.

Scenes from "Lost: Canada"

I'm beginning to have a greater understanding of why this film production is taking place at my law school. We often get a lot of people in the building looking for free legal advice, so it's obvious that the characters in this Passengers movie leave the plane crash and think, maybe there's a tort in here somewhere.


I can see how a lawsuit might have come out of this.


Stranger still, all those people standing were in wheelchairs before the crash.


And in case you're wondering: yes, that is the film's star Anne Hathaway holding that 'Hearth Fire' box. Hollywood magic.

Hence the expression, "Cost does matter"

Say what you will about the current state of financial compensation for victims of tortious acts, but at least we don't live in the age of King Alfred. I'll let that one sink in for a moment... Lobbyists for tort reform would point out that the judicial system often hands out arbitrary and exorbitant amounts of money for conceivably minor injuries. This is mostly the case in America, where judges prefer non-pecuniary damages (a.k.a. happy-feely damages) in the millions of dollars. Canadian judges tend to avoid such high rewards almost categorically, but there is a similar pressure to reform the system. Not so with King Alfie.

A simple google search will tell you he was a renowned monarch who ruled Anglo-Saxon England from 871-899. That's enough history. Case law, on the other hand, will tell you what ingenious system ol' Al had for doling out damages for personal injury: he priced body parts! From a 1978 Canadian case concerning recovery of losses:

"This was the ancient 'bot,' or tariff system, which prevailed in the days of King Alfred, when a thumb was worth 30 shillings."

You can imagine what kind of mess this left at early Anglo-Saxon supermarkets, where they had to deposit quarters to take a shopping cart and quarters weren't invented yet.

This lovely bit of anecdotal evidence was in a bit of Torts reading I had to do for tomorrow. I made sure to highlight it. This is indicative of perhaps the biggest change I've gone through since starting law school. Not that I now read before class, but that I use a highlighter. I've never been what you call a "highlighting man." Perhaps its a leftover mentality from my years in English Lit, but I always made sure never to mark up a page. My feeling was two-fold: first, if this is a novel I really like, when I read it again in years to come, I don't want to be reminded of how this narrator signifies the prevailing economic conditions of the blah blah blah. Second, conceited though this may sound, I felt that when I write in the pages of a book, I want it to be my book, and my story. I fully intend to write the Great (Country Where I Reside) Book when I'm older, so don't scoff. (I have the title already.)

Speaking of titles, I heard via the web that the Dandy Warhols' new album is out in September, bearing perhaps the coolest album title in recent memory: Odditorium, or The Warlords of Mars. There is something fascinatingly arrogant about a double title, and I think the Dandy's have earned it. I would argue that the band is on a similar trajectory to R.E.M. They've made albums so far in the same vein as that legendary group, procuring melodies by unconventional means and carving out a distinctive sound. They haven't yet made their Automatic for the People, but the Dandy's last album - Welcome to the Monkey House - sure made a good Green.

I don't draw the comparison between the two bands lightly, I just hope Courtney Taylor-Taylor (yes, that is his name... and yes, he is a he) has the foresight to lay off the music when they get eleven albums in. For proof of the Dandy's sonic greatness, check out the tracks "Good Morning," "Cool Scene" and "I am Sound."

Blimey, enough music/law/history talk for one blog. My fingers ache from typing, and these precious babies are worth a lot!

Where Isn't Waldo?

Wishing I had ribald stories of a debaucherous Friday night to relate, but will have to settle for law talk. I was deep in studying the law of torts (you hurt me, now pay me) and I realized precisely why people hate lawyers. Forget the centuries of good that lawyers have achieved in helping create the civilized society we have today, no, people react to the image of the shady television lawyer stationed in front of his stack of books promising to get you compensation for falling on someone's icy sidewalk.

These 1-800 lawyers give us a bad rap, but I can see why they exist. Lawyers, after all, are still people with creative urges. Torts satisfy this urge.

Just the other day in class, we were presented with a set of facts, (punches were thrown, insults were delivered, and someone was named Escamillo) and we were asked to determine who could be liable for a tort. There are so many possibilities for an action that I like to call these situations, if you will, a "smorgastort." And, like kids in a candy store, our class managed to come up with so many liabilities that our professor, a man with a venerable experience in the subject, was visibly overwhelmed. (He may have rubbed his eyes in a Jon Stewart-like fashion and exclaimed, "Whaaaa?" but I cannot accurately recall.)

Torts is the subject where lawyers can get the most creative, and as a result, they see possibilities for litigation in everything - hidden lawsuits where there may have been none before. Fact patterns become 3d paintings concealing not a spaceship or purty rabbit, but litigation (which may or may not be represented by a dollar sign.)

I confess to this impulse to find fault as well. (It is also sort of a satisfaction after being compeletely unable time and time again to see those damn 3d images. I unfocussed my eyes dammit!) Of course, we can still go overboard, imputing negligent behaviour where there may be none, sort of like doing a Where's Waldo cartoon but first dressing everyone up in striped shirts and toques.

That said, I really have no intention of practicing in the law of torts. International law is my bag, baby, and I plan to see that through. (Also, I'm no good in front of a TV camera and 1-800 SXY-LWYR is taken.)