Exam Prep

Part of my free law school resources.

1. Resource Selection

• First: Past exams from your professor.
• Second: Online question banks, study guides, and supplements like “Examples & Explanations.”

2. Question Types

• Multiple-Choice: Focus on practice and timing. Use a methodical approach that takes advantage of common test-making approaches:
  • eliminate any two answer choices that are functionally equivalent
  • watch out for answer choices that align as the opposite of the correct answer
  • usually 1 choice is a red herring: a misleading distraction that is meant to divert attention away from the real answer
• Short Answer: Practice with past exams and supplements to get a feel for the format. Law school exams often have no single “right” answer. The key is to focus on complex issues, apply relevant laws, and present clear, organized arguments.
• Combination: Allocate your study time based on the weight of each section in the final grade.

Key Points to Remember

• Grading Structure: While law school grading has evolved to include participation and other forms of assessment, exams still play a significant role, especially in first-year “black letter law” courses. In these foundational classes, it’s common for a single exam to be the primary determinant of your grade.
• Critical Thinking: Law school exams test your ability to think critically and apply the law to various fact patterns.
• Grading Curve: Law school exams are often graded on a strict curve, making competition fierce.

Example question:

Anna, a pedestrian with a known brittle bone condition, is walking down the street while texting her friend. She’s not paying attention to where she’s going. Bob, a driver who is also distracted by his phone while looking for directions, fails to see Anna and hits her. Anna falls and breaks her tailbone. Normally, the impact wouldn’t cause such an injury, but Anna’s condition makes her more susceptible to fractures.

Later that day, Anna goes to the hospital. She fills out a form clearly stating her allergies to certain medications. Despite this, Dr. Carol, who is overwhelmed with patients, administers a medication that Anna is allergic to. Anna has to stay in the hospital for five additional days to treat the allergic reaction.

Discuss the legal issues involved, applying relevant Canadian laws and precedents.

How to Answer

1. Create Outlines:

Before attempting any exam questions, make sure you have created and are familiar with your own outlines for each subject.

2. Master Your Outlines:

Struggling to memorize your outlines? You’re not alone. The key is to understand the law deeply, as you’ll need this foundational knowledge to tackle exam questions.

3. Practice Using IRAC Method:

The IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) method is a commonly used framework for structuring your answers.

4. Understand Exam Format:

Law school exams usually present a story or “fact pattern” that you’ll need to analyze. You’ll be expected to identify issues, apply relevant laws, and draw conclusions.

Other Tips

1. Key Issues

• Focus your energy on the crux of the matter, not on obvious or irrelevant points.

2. Rule Application

• Be selective; state only the relevant laws and avoid a scattergun approach.

3. Fact Utilization

• Use facts to support your arguments but avoid summarizing the entire fact pattern or inventing new facts.

4. Speculative Analysis

• It’s okay to speculate on unknown facts as long as it’s reasonable and grounded in the given fact pattern.

Model outline part 1: Car Accident Issue

Component	Content	Details/Support
Issue	Is Bob liable for Anna’s injuries resulting from the car accident?	Relevant due to Anna’s injuries and Bob’s role in the accident.
Rule	In Canada, a driver owes a duty of care to pedestrians. Negligence is determined by the “reasonable person” standard.	The elements of negligence (duty of care, breach of the standard of care, damage, and causation) are set out in Mustapha v Culligan of Canada Ltd, 2008 SCC 27.
Analysis	Anna’s Argument: Bob was distracted and therefore negligent. Bob’s Argument: Anna was also distracted and contributed to her own injuries.	Anna can point to the fact that Bob was looking at his phone, and rely on the thin skull rule for the severity of her injury. Bob can argue contributory negligence due to Anna’s own distraction.
Conclusion	Bob is likely liable, but Anna’s contributory negligence may reduce the damages awarded.	Based on the “reasonable person” standard and the principle of contributory negligence.

Model outline part 2: Medical Malpractice Issue

Component	Content	Details/Support
Issue	Is Dr. Carol liable for the allergic reaction Anna experienced due to the wrong medication?	Relevant due to Anna’s extended hospital stay and allergic reaction.
Rule	Medical professionals owe a duty of care to their patients and must adhere to the standard of care in their field.	A doctor must meet the standard of a prudent and diligent doctor in the same circumstances: ter Neuzen v Korn, [1995] 3 SCR 674.
Analysis	Anna’s Argument: Dr. Carol was negligent in administering medication that Anna was allergic to. Dr. Carol’s Argument: The mistake was not due to negligence but to systemic issues in the hospital.	Anna can cite the form she filled out. Dr. Carol can argue that she was overwhelmed with patients, although this is a weaker defence.
Conclusion	Dr. Carol is likely liable for medical malpractice.	Anna clearly stated her allergies, making it less likely that systemic issues would absolve Dr. Carol of liability.

Writing Strategies

1. Structural Organization

• Use separate paragraphs for each issue.
• Highlight key legal elements by underlining or bolding.

2. Content Focus

• Explicitly state and analyze the legal elements.
• Be comprehensive but avoid irrelevant details.

3. Clarity and Presentation

• Prioritize clear, organized writing.
• Choose between typing and handwriting based on comfort and speed.

Model written response

Issue 1: Negligence Claim Against Bob

Duty of Care

In Canadian law, a driver owes a duty of care to pedestrians. This principle is rooted in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, [1932] AC 562, which established the neighbour principle. Bob, as a driver, is legally obligated to exercise reasonable care to avoid causing harm to pedestrians like Anna.

Breach of Duty

Bob was using his phone while driving, which is a breach of the standard of care. The standard of care expected is that of a reasonable driver in the same circumstances, which Bob failed to meet. Provincial laws restricting phone use while driving can help show what a reasonable driver would do, although breaching a statute is not automatically negligence in itself (R v Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, [1983] 1 SCR 205).

Causation

But for Bob’s inattention, he would not have hit Anna, so his negligence caused her injury. Anna’s brittle bone condition was a pre-existing issue, but Canadian law applies the “thin skull rule,” meaning you take your victim as you find them. Bob is therefore liable for the full extent of Anna’s fracture, even though the impact would not normally have caused such an injury.

It could be speculated whether Anna’s distracted walking contributed to the accident. However, this does not absolve Bob of his duty of care as a driver. Contributory negligence could potentially reduce the damages Anna may receive, but it would not eliminate Bob’s liability.

Damages

Anna suffered a broken tailbone, which is a compensable injury. She can claim general damages for her pain and suffering, and special damages for any out-of-pocket expenses the injury caused her.

Issue 2: Medical Malpractice Claim Against Dr. Carol

Standard of Care

Doctors owe a duty of care to their patients and must meet the standard of a prudent and diligent doctor in the same circumstances, as set out in ter Neuzen v Korn, [1995] 3 SCR 674. Dr. Carol, being overwhelmed, failed to meet this standard by administering the wrong medication. The medication error is a breach of the standard of care, given that Anna had provided information about her allergies.

Causation and Damages

Dr. Carol’s action directly led to Anna’s allergic reaction and extended hospital stay, causing her additional damages. Anna had to stay in the hospital for five additional days, so she can claim general damages for the added pain and suffering, along with any related out-of-pocket expenses.

Vicarious Liability

Anna may also look to the hospital. In Bazley v Curry, [1999] 2 SCR 534, the Supreme Court of Canada set out the approach to vicarious liability, which depends on the relationship between the wrongdoer and the defendant. In Canada, however, physicians usually practise in hospitals as independent professionals with hospital privileges rather than as employees, and hospitals are generally not vicariously liable for them. A strong answer would flag this, and would consider whether the hospital could be directly liable for its own systems, given that Dr. Carol was overwhelmed with patients.

Bob did not know about Anna’s brittle bone condition, but under the thin skull rule that does not reduce his liability for the injury he caused. Dr. Carol, by contrast, had Anna’s allergies in writing before she administered the medication.

Conclusion

Anna has strong grounds for legal action against both Bob for negligence and Dr. Carol for medical malpractice under Canadian law. She can claim general damages for pain and suffering and special damages for her out-of-pocket losses, although her damages against Bob may be reduced for contributory negligence.