I got called on today in TORTS on the most difficult case we've had on Negligence and I somehow managed to bumble through and do an "acceptable" job. The class first started with the prof calling on someone else who she only asked 3 questions. She then went to lecture about joint and several liability in which she called on me to discuss the "problem" of liability for medical negligence claim in which the mother gave birth to a larger than expected baby and the baby suffered trauma resulting in brain damage due to the dr.s negligence. The mother then took the baby to another dr. who allegedly was also negligent in treating the child's condition resulting in severe brain damage. The prof asked me a series of questions regarding the facts (very few) and liability of both doctors and who actually caused the brain damage. I skated through these questions even though I'm sure I wasn't very articulate in my presentation.
The prof then moved on to the next case announcing that this was a difficult case and that she was going to continue with me. (AN AUDIBLE SOUND OF RELIEF ESCAPES THE PEANUT GALLERY and I cringe - SHIITE!). It was a humdinger about a boy who climbed on a bridge and was about to fall and grabbed the electrical wires to save himself. He was electrocuted instead. The case was against the electric company and their negligence in having the wires within reach or not properly insulated with the knowledge that boys played on the bridge. Yeah you can imagine how it might be a "difficult" case. She da-rilled me and phrased questions in such a way as to give me a very short leash to answer while interrupting me often and firing another question or explaining the point further. I felt like I was cut off at every turn. Why couldn't I have gotten a couple of questions as opposed to 12? Why did I have to do two cases?? I did well on most of the questions and struggled with two. Even though I was not exactly giving her the answers she wanted, no one else was rushing to answer them either. A sure indicator that this case was a tough one. Usually the "gunners" are shooting up their hands when one is presenting their case and the prof defers to one of them with the same question asked of the presenter or other questions. Today there were only crickets. Which sucked ass for me. No lifelines. No detractions. I was in the HOT HOT SEAT.
After the madness was over. My two neighbors told me I did really good and that everyone was confused and didn't know how to answer those questions. I hope so. It sucks being on the front row because ALL EYES are on you. But I held myself together pretty well. I chatted with the professor afterwards for some feedback and she told me that I was prepared and did an "acceptable" job -- that 98% of the class didn't know the answers to the two particular questions I struggled with.
Acceptable is sounding better and better all the time. I have always been really good at everything that I take on and in undergrad I was always in the top of the class. That doesn't happen in law school. Everyone is average and everyone struggles with being average and hates being average. It's very humbling. Right now, I'm all to happy to be the bottomfeeder and clinging on by a shred. I honestly don't care if I'm in the bottom 10% as long as I pass. I aim for doing the best that I can but have to accept the reality that the majority of my classmates will pass with Cs. We all can't be in the Top 10%.
