I forgot!

I was finally called on to recite a case today--I was prepared but it was a difficult one. This particular Prof doesn't believe in making his students feel inferior and is typically very gentle. Today he seemed to be asking be a lot of follow up questions and interrogated a bit. This was the type of questioning that I had anticipated when I began law school--but haven't seen it in this class yet--a bit intimidating. E, my seatmate, told me that she thought I had done well but it's all subjective, hard to know what the Prof thought. Oh, even more intimidating, I sit in the front row and he stood right in front of me when I was speaking.

The case was about a football player who got upset about his team losing so he intentionally hit a player on the opposing team during the course of the game. I was supposed to defend the Defendents argument. I stated that consent is implied due to the nature of the game (I said it a bit more eloquently in class), so he asked if a player could get away with ANY act during the game--I responded that I could see a player being liable if his intentional act was severe enough as to deny the P the ability to play football again, or if it changed his quality of life in any way. He made a comment about me asking for special circumstances which did make sense later--I made the mistake of saying that there was consent so it should be thrown out BUT if there is a severe injury--sure lets sue. He kept up the questioning a bit and there were others in the class that agreed with my points so maybe I didn't do too bad. At least I get it now, If I am going to say that the elements of anything is met or not met I cannot really put conditions on that (unless it is allowed under the law.) Oops! At least I got it out of the way--I can learn from it and move on...