Something you might know if you've seen any
of my videos is that I find it interesting to take a look at the different exams that
people have to sit around the world and for various subjects. So when one particular exam was in the news
recently, I was intrigued to take a look at it. Last week, Kim Kardashian revealed that she
had failed her Baby Bar Exam, something taken by first year law students in California before
they're able to go on and study for three more years to eventually take the big California
Bar Exam, which would qualify them to practice as an attorney. The fact that Kim is even studying law may
be news to you. That's okay. But I found this story and this exam to actually
be pretty interesting. In short, Kim has been trying to use her massive
public profile for good and help people who have been done wrong by America's criminal
justice system. She met with Donald Trump and was successful
in getting him to grant clemency to several people who she had fought for, including Alice
Johnson, who had already served 21 years of her life sentence, given to her for a nonviolent
first time drug offence. Kim has been working alongside human rights
attorneys to help reform aspects of America's prison system. But now she wants to be more than just a celebrity
attached to the work and she wants to be a qualified attorney herself. Kim said that the best way to change the system
is to know the system. The traditional way to become a lawyer is
to go to law school for three years after a four year bachelor's degree. But Kim is doing it a slightly different way
that is similar to an apprenticeship. She is working with an attorney 18 hours a
week for four years before she'll be able to sit the final California bar exam to become
qualified. After the first year of this she's able to
sit the Baby Bar exam to prove that she's on the right track. But this has become a bit of a hurdle. The Baby Bar is offered twice per year, and
I've been able to figure out that Kim would have sat the June 2020 exam, which means that
these here are the actual questions that Kim would have got on her exam, and they're from
the State Bar website. So let's have a look at them. The exam goes for seven hours and consists
of essays and multiple choice questions. These are some of the essay questions. The first one is about torts law, which is
when someone commits a wrong against another person. It says Mel was late for an important meeting
and was driving at least 35 miles an hour on a residential road. The speed limit on this road was 30 miles
per hour. As Mel rounded a curve in the road. Nigel suddenly backed out of his driveway
in front of Mel. Mel's headlights were on and his lights would
have been visible if a driver had looked carefully to avoid hitting Nigel's car. Mel both braked hard and turned into the centre
of the street, crossing a yellow line and partially entering the lane of oncoming traffic. Otto was driving towards Mel while adjusting
his car radio. As a result, Otto did not see Mel in time. Had he been attentive, he likely could have
avoided an accident. Instead, the two cars collided, left the road
and ploughed into Penny, who was walking on the sidewalk. Nigel's car was not touched. Penny was seriously injured. Then the question asks what claims Penny can
make against Mel, Otto and Nigel. Now I don't have any background in law. But we can take a look at one of the examples
solutions that scored highly. It's actually pretty in depth and goes through
all of the possible charges for everyone involved. Here it's starting with Penny verse Mel. It's looking at whether Mel has been negligent
or breached his duty to act as a reasonably prudent person. There is a need to establish actual and proximate
causation and to assess any defences that Mel might be able to use. Then the same thing over again for Penny verse
Otto, where Otto may argue that glancing at the radio every now and again doesn't count
as unreasonable behaviour and who actually caused the accident will again come into dispute. And then for Penny verse Nigel, the one who
backed out of his driveway. It is likely that Nigel will be found to have
been in breach of his duty to act reasonably given that he hadn't looked carefully when
he was backing out. In conclusion, Penny will likely be successful
in a negligence claim against Nigel but will most likely fail in her claims of negligence
against Mel and Otto. It of course wouldn't be enough to just state
a conclusion of the case. But rather to argue every point for and against
each person and really show an understanding of applying all the legal principles. Question two is about contract law and regards
a buyer who purchased 10 $5,000 guitars for $50,000, and agreed that any complaints about
the condition or quality of the guitars must be made within 10 days of delivery, and that
payment is due on delivery. However, the buyer did not pay the invoice. And two weeks after the instruments were delivered,
found that none of their customers wanted to buy them in his store, and so sent them
back. The seller sued the buyer for breach of contract,
and we're asked what arguments the seller could make in support of her claim, and what
defences the buyer may use. Also, what would be the likely outcome? So then, in this example, answer, we've got
a few pages of going through all the definitions and things that were agreed to in this contract,
establishing that we did have a valid contract, and what terms it was reasonable to expect
the buyer and seller to abide by. It might have been okay for the buyer to return
the guitars without paying for them if the guitars had not been conforming in quality
or some other means, but just because the guitars weren't selling in the store does
not speak to any nonconformity of the guitars. And so the seller is not in breach, and the
contract expressly required that the buyer make this determination within 10 days of
delivery, not 14. So in conclusion, the court would find that
the buyer was in breach of the contract, and would be liable to seller for $50,000. This third question is a real doozy and it
starts off pretty intense. Doug decided to kill Bob, the owner of a small
grocery store because Bob had twice falsely accused Doug of shoplifting. It only gets more and more intense from here. This question is an example of criminal law. Doug went into Bob's store and killed Bob
by shooting him twice with a handgun. After the shooting Doug notice the cash register,
went over and opened it and took all of the money out. Doug then saw a customer Sally, hiding behind
some shelves. He pointed the gun at Sally, took her purse
and tied her hands behind her back. Doug then heard police sirens and ordered
Sally at gunpoint out of the store and into his car. Officer Fran, who was responding to a report
of gunshots at Bob's store, saw Doug speed out of the parking lot in his car. Officer Fran chased him for several blocks
until Doug pulled into an empty parking lot. When he got out of his car Doug fired several
shots at Officer Fran, who responded by firing her gun at Doug. She missed Doug, but one of her bullets went
through the window of the car and hit Sally, killing her. As Doug tried to run away. Officer Fran tackled him and knocked the gun
out of his hand. Doug got up and punched Officer Fran with
his fist. Officer Fran then subdued and arrested Doug. Heck. With what crimes can Doug reasonably be charged? What defences if any, may he reasonably raise
and what is the likely result? Going through the charges here we've got the
murder of Bob, first of all, the state will be able to show that Doug was the cause of
Bob's death, and they'll be able to show that there was malice and intent, then they'll
need to decide whether they want to charge Doug with murder one, murder two or voluntary
manslaughter. For murder one, they would need to show that
Doug murdered Bob with premeditation and deliberation and for that the state is likely to charge
Doug with murder one and for him to be convicted. Then there are all the other crimes, there's
a likely charge for the robbery of Bob's money from the store. There's also the robbery of Sally's purse,
the assault of Sally and the battery of Sally, continuing we have the false imprisonment
of Sally, the kidnapping of Sally, the assault of Officer Fran and then they'll need to consider
the murder of Sally as well. The state will need to go through the same
analysis that they did with the murder of Bob. But then who would be charged with this? Would it be Doug as well? Or would it be Officer Fran since it was a
bullet from her gun? Well, apparently that depends on which version
of the law certain courts follow in certain areas. If the courts follow the common law, the state
will be able to show that Doug did murder in the first degree Sally under the felony
murder rule. But if that can't be shown then the state
may have to consider charging Doug with involuntary manslaughter for Sally's death. Actually in neither of these cases is Officer
Fran charged. And then the last charge for Doug would be
the battery of Officer Fran. And there's a fourth question here that we
can just take a quick glance at. It's another torts question. It's about someone who does some work on their
land that also affects their neighbours vacant lot. Even though the neighbour is away for a year,
they chop down the neighbor's tree and instal a septic system which infringes on their property. When the neighbour gets back, they're angry
about this and decide to sue for the damages. A spoiler here is that despite the involvement
of an innocent contractor, who actually is the one who did the work, it is the guy who
ordered the work to be done who would remain directly liable for the tortious conduct he
exhibited. The maximum score is 800. And to pass you need 70%, which is 560. Kim's scored 474. And she said she studied for six weeks 10
to 12 hours per day for the exam, which is a solid effort. Kim was clearly disheartened and upset in
the announcement of her results. But really, Kim hasn't done that badly, especially
when you consider the passing rate for her exam. For first time takers in June 2020 it was
only 27.6% meaning that most people need to retake this exam. And from what I can tell the way that Kim
is pursuing her studies isn't any easier than the conventional path. Having to learn a lot of these concepts through
largely self-led reading may be harder in some aspects than being taught by professors
and surrounded by peers. I have nothing bad to say about Kim. I respect that she is trying to better herself
and is open to sharing her failures along the way. I do hope that she passes her next attempt
at the exam, which may have been the November 2020 one, or the upcoming June 2021 exam. Thanks for watching this video. I have a whole playlist full of other exam
videos, although mostly physics and math ones. Thanks to my Patreon supporters for making
these videos possible. And a special shout out to today's Patreon
cat of the day Krishna.
