Sunday night

A look back and a look forward. We have come to a cross road in the semester. Adverse possession behind us and the rule against perpituities ahead of us. Each class builds on the previous material and the Professors aren't slowing down. We learn a new theory of obligation in contracts each day of class, the latest being tort duties that can arise from a contractural relationship. Simply put, torts and contracts offer two different legal relationships and two different liabilities, the former created by reasonable standards of human behavior, the breach of which is awarded monotarily to the damaged party in order to make them whole again from the damage caused by the breach. Contracts create legal rights and duties, and when these are breached, the remdy is to either fulfill the terms of the contract had it not been breached or in some cases, such as promissory estoppel, where it is shown that the damaged party relied on a promise that was never fulfilled, the damaged party is compensated to the point they were before a contract was made. Tort duties arising from contractural relationships, on the other hand, and legal obligations that already exist as a tort, but only come in this circumstance, are brought about in the context of a contractural relationship. The most commonly understood of these relatinships is medical malpractice. The reasonable standard that is expected from a professional is higher than for the general public, but this higher standard for the tort responsibility is only activated when a doctor is put into his professional role through a contract. Thus you may have a situation where a doctor is "contracted" to operate on a patient, and in doing so he comes drunk and removes your heart instead of your a mole on your back (but he gets it back in you before you die, but now you can't walk up the stairs without being out of breath and you can't work) Clearly the doctor is in breach of his contract by not performing the surgical work the patient contracted him for, but in addition, he is held liable for a negligence tort which arises from a standard duty of professional professional care. This being so, the patient has available the remedy of punitive damages arising from "pain and suffering," a remedy that is not available through contracts; plus, the possible return from the suite is much greater.

This anecdote is here for no other reason except that I find this material interesting and it is indicitive of the melding of topics which is taking place during this point in the semester. The concepts from one class are not only building on what we learn in that class, but they extend to all of the classes.

That is the wrap up for this week. I will return next Sunday to update you on another small snip-it of life and thoughts from the basement of law school life.