Law School for Everyone

What are punitive damages? Why do we have them? How can the legal system rein in out-of-control juries? To get answers to these three questions, look to a case that's long been the symbol of a legal system run amok: Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, or the case of the spilled hot coffee.

Here, Professor Cheng dives into modern products liability doctrine. What kinds of product defects qualify for this treatment?

Tort law isn't fixed in stone but instead evolves to meet a changing society. Case in point: the development of modern products liability law.

Explore traditional strict liability through the lens of two common kinds of claims that don't require negligence: damage caused by animals and damage caused by ultra-hazardous blasts and explosions. Along the way, examine whether or not strict liability really is all that different from conventional negligence.

The focus of this lecture is on negligence or other culpable conduct on the part of the plaintiff. What does tort law say about what happens when a plaintiff is at fault?

First, take a closer look at vicarious liability, a tort doctrine that states an employer is strictly liable for torts committed by employees during the scope of their employment. Then, consider the related tort doctrine of joint and several liability, which deals with when multiple parties contribute to a tort.

Cases involving legal causation and the foreseeability test are the favorites of many law professors. Using one of the most famous cases in the torts canon, Palsgraf v.

Of all the doctrines in tort law, factual causation appears to be the most scientific and value-neutral. The truth, however, may surprise you.

Lawyers define rules as the alternative to flexible, case-specific standards. Rules, as you'll discover in this lecture, have their advantages and disadvantages over standards - but they all take power and discretion away from the jury.

In this lecture, investigate the concepts of reasonable care and the concept the legal system uses to determine it: the reasonable person. You'll consider the meaning of reasonable care, debates over the proper definition of "fault," the relationship between reasonable care and cost-benefit analysis, and more.

While we're morally obligated to help others, we're not necessarily legally obligated to help, regardless of what religious and ethical authorities may advise. Welcome to the concept of affirmative duty.

Start your whirlwind tour of torts with an exam question Professor Cheng gives to his own students: one that will introduce you to the history, complexity - and oddities - of this aspect of law. What behaviors does tort law expect from us?

Trial courts, intermediate courts of appeals, the Supreme Court - different courts play different roles in our legal system. First, consider when a party is allowed to appeal a decision by a trial court.

The subject of this lecture isn't about getting a case right - it's about getting a case over with. Consider the rules that prevent parties from relitigating matters that courts have already decided.

How does one tell whether a particular rule of state law is procedural or, instead, substantive? Which law applies - and when?

Juries undoubtedly play an important role in civil procedure, even in cases that don't end up having a trial before a jury. Here, consider the virtues and drawbacks of having juries decide issues in civil suits, then explore the scope of this right as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment.

In this lecture, consider the mechanisms of a motion for summary judgment, by which a judge can resolve a suit with something less than a complete trial. Central to this lecture are two important cases that highlight the nuances of this type of motion: Celotex v.

No, the discovery process isn't glamorous. But it's important in that it allows parties access to information to support their claims and defenses.

Lawsuits today often involve multiple plaintiffs suing multiple defendants on multiple claims. How does this kind of complex litigation work?

Pleading is the process by which parties inform one another, and the court, of their allegations, claims, and defenses. Go inside the first step in the pre-trial process for a close look at the rules that govern pleading.

Continue your look at personal jurisdiction by examining how the approach evolved into its modern standard, as well as the limits this approach places on the power of a plaintiff to haul a defendant into court far from the defendant's home. Central to this: 1945's International Shoe Co.

Just because a court has jurisdiction over a case doesn't mean it has jurisdiction over the defendant. Enter personal jurisdiction.

Professor Smith discusses jurisdiction: the power of the courts to hear a case and to render a judgment. As you'll discover, there are really two different types of jurisdiction, one of which is subject matter jurisdiction, which refers to the court's authority to hear cases concerning a particular subject matter.

What makes civil procedure different from all other courses law students encounter in their first year of school? Using a hypothetical lawsuit and two Supreme Court cases, explore the broad set of issues and questions any system of litigation must address, including the procedures needed to clear a person's name.

Ninety-percent of all criminal cases, surprisingly, don't end in a trial but in a plea bargain. In this lecture, consider both plea bargains and criminal trials and how they complement one another.

"You have the right to remain silent." These are perhaps the most famous words in American criminal justice.

According to the Fifth Amendment, "no person...shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." Examine the history of this core aspect of the Bill of Rights. Learn how the amendment works in and out of court, how the privilege has become subject to compromises over time, and what "pleading the fifth" actually requires.

Continue looking at the Fourth Amendment. How do search warrants work? Can police enter a home without a warrant? Topics include the exclusionary rule, which provides that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment be excluded from criminal prosecutions, and the vague standard of "probable cause."

In the first of two lectures on the Fourth Amendment, go inside the fascinating history behind the topic of government searches and privacy rights. You'll consider the scope of the Fourth Amendment, learn what defines "search" and "seizure," and ponder the role of modern technology in affecting how the Fourth Amendment works.

Powell v. Alabama, better known as the Scottsboro case, is one of the most important in the history of American criminal procedure law.

Pore over the "cruel and unusual punishments" clause of the Eighth Amendment in search of why the Supreme Court has had so much trouble applying this provision to real-world criminal cases. By the end of this lecture, you'll realize why the Eighth Amendment is considered by some legal experts to be a constitutional enigma.

The U.S. federal government might be the most powerful government in the world - but it's power to prohibit and punish crimes is relatively constrained. In this intriguing lecture, Professor Hoffmann reveals the important distinctions in scope, meaning, and effect between state criminal law and federal criminal law in the United States.

Turn to self-defense and get a better understanding of how criminal law tries to balance between the rights of the threatened and those who are threats. Along the way, consider issues including "the retreat doctrine," the "battered spouse syndrome," "stand your ground" laws, and the use of deadly force by the police.

Homicides, according to Professor Hoffmann, are unique among crimes. In this lecture, examine the pyramid of homicidal crimes, including involuntary manslaughter, second-degree murder, and first-degree murder.

In this lecture, explore the fundamental requirement of mens rea, or the guilty mind. Topics here include: how criminal intent is traditionally defined, the relationship between malice and motive, what happens when a defendant claims to lack a guilty mind, and the concept of criminal liability without fault (known as strict liability).

To understand how criminal law works, you first have to understand what a crime is. What are the purposes of criminal law?

A case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States is one of great significance. First, consider the history and evolution of the Supreme Court over the centuries.

When people criticize the United States as an overly litigious society, they're often referring to its system of appellate review. How, exactly, do appellate courts operate?

Closing arguments are a chance for lawyers to connect all the dots for the jury. In this lecture, study one powerful example of a successful closing argument: Johnnie Cochran's on behalf of O.

Explore how lawyers cross-examine a witness without losing control, without eliciting unexpected answers, and without offending the jury. Along the way, you'll learn tips for effective cross-examination, study the cross-examination skills of renowned civil and criminal defense attorney Roy Black, and learn about the process of conducting impeachments.

Why are innocent people sometimes convicted of crimes they didn't commit? Often, it's because a jury is persuaded by problematic evidence.

During a trial, any lapse in a lawyer's attention could be extremely costly. Enter the task of voicing objections.

Direct examination has been popularized by countless TV crime dramas. But how does it work in a real courtroom?

A powerful opening statement requires many things: credibility, persuasion, logic. Using the George Zimmerman and O.

Continuing with the case of George Zimmerman, explore the intricate nature of trial strategy that takes place away from the jury's eyes. Learn how lawyers operate before a trial, and how a jury is selected.

All lawyers have responsibilities to their clients and to the integrity of the justice system. But what are the bounds of a lawyer's responsibility in representing a client?

To think like a lawyer, you have to approach legal doctrine actively and critically. Here, Professor Shadel teaches you how to read cases with an eye for particular concepts every good lawyer must keep in mind, including the role of precedent, inductive and deductive reasoning skills, and the use of analogies.

In this lecture, use a 1963 Supreme Court case, Gideon v. Wainwright, as a window into the relationship between litigation and the American legal system.