Podcasts about torts

On this episode the boys are joined by a guy who embodies grit and determination at the highest level, Nathan Gerbe. Standing at just 5 feet 4 inches, he never backed down physically from anyone. He talks about playing for Torts, his insane coach from Switzerland, and much more. Before the interview the boys get into Bedards expectations, McDavids next contract and more.  - interview starts: 1:32:46Check out our Sponsors!

Welcome to Tortle Tank, the show where the world's richest reptiles review your D&D homebrew and decide whether or not to invest their hard-earned eggs. This week, the Torts discuss plot armor, potion gambling, and goo.CREDITS:Sound Mixing and Editing by Trevor LyonSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Invités :  - Agnès Pannier Runacher, Ministre de la Transition écologique, de la Biodiversité, de la Forêt, de la Mer et de la Pêche de France - Frédéric Encel, docteur en géopolitique Chroniqueurs :  - Alexandre Malafaye, fondateur du think tank Synopia - Eliott Mamane journaliste - Charlotte d'Ornellas, journaliste au  JDD - Ophélie Roque, professeur de français et journaliste Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of products liability law, focusing on its significance in consumer safety and corporate responsibility. It explores the foundational legal theories, types of defects (manufacturing, design, and warning), and the defenses available to manufacturers. The discussion also highlights the importance of causation in linking defects to harm, landmark cases that shaped the field, and emerging issues in the context of modern technology. The conversation concludes with a reflection on the policy debates surrounding strict liability and the journey of a products liability lawsuit.Distinguish between negligence and strict liability in product liability claims.Negligence focuses on the defendant's fault, requiring proof that they failed to exercise reasonable care in the product's design, manufacture, or warning. Strict liability, conversely, does not require proving fault; it holds a seller liable if the product is simply "defective and unreasonably dangerous" when it left their control.Explain the primary difference between a design defect and a manufacturing defect.A design defect exists when a product's fundamental blueprint or structure makes it inherently unsafe, impacting all units made according to that design, even if manufactured perfectly. A manufacturing defect, however, results from an error during the production process, causing a specific product or batch to deviate from the intended design.What is the "duty to warn" in product liability, and what kind of risks does it typically cover?The duty to warn requires manufacturers to provide reasonable warnings about non-obvious dangers associated with their products. This duty extends to inherent dangers, foreseeable misuses, and potential side effects, ensuring users are informed of risks they cannot easily perceive.Briefly describe the "Risk-Utility Test" used in evaluating design defects.The Risk-Utility Test is a cost-benefit analysis that assesses whether the probability and seriousness of harm caused by a product's design outweigh the burden or costs of implementing a safer alternative design. If the risks are found to outweigh the utility or the cost of a safer design, the product may be deemed defective.How does the "Assumption of the Risk" defense function in a product liability case?This defense asserts that the plaintiff, by voluntarily encountering a known risk, agreed to assume the risk of injury. To succeed, the defendant must prove the plaintiff had a subjective awareness of the specific risk and deliberately chose to proceed with the risky conduct.Provide an example of when the "Substantial Change Defense" might be raised by a manufacturer.A manufacturer might raise the substantial change defense if a consumer modifies a product, like removing a safety guard from a power tool, and then suffers an injury. The manufacturer would argue that the injury was caused by this unforeseeable alteration, not by an inherent defect in the original product.What is the significance of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. in the history of product liability law?Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc. is a landmark case that established the principle of strict liability in tort for defective products in California. This ruling fundamentally shifted the legal landscape, allowing consumers to hold manufacturers liable for defects regardless of negligence, thereby laying the foundation for modern product liability claims.When might "federal preemption" be a successful defense in a product liability claim?Federal preemption can be a successful defense when a federal statute explicitly or implicitly governs the manufacture and distribution of a product and the product complies with those federal laws. For example, if a drug's labeling strictly adheres to FDA regulations and a state law claim alleges inadequate warnings, federal preemption might bar the state claim.

This conversation delves into the intricate world of vicarious liability, a fundamental concept in tort law that holds one party legally responsible for the tortious acts of another based on their relationship. The discussion covers key elements such as the employer-employee relationship, the scope of employment, and the distinctions between minor detours and major frolics. It also explores the implications of intentional torts, the treatment of independent contractors, and the principles of agency law. The conversation highlights various defenses against vicarious liability claims, policy justifications for the doctrine, and modern trends in the gig economy and institutional accountability.Explain the core difference between "vicarious liability" and "direct negligence" of an employer. Vicarious liability holds an employer responsible for an employee's tortious actions, even if the employer themselves did nothing wrong, based solely on the employment relationship. Direct negligence, conversely, means the employer is liable for their own wrongful conduct, such as negligent hiring or supervision, which directly contributed to the harm.What is the purpose of the "respondeat superior" doctrine, and where did the term originate? The purpose of respondeat superior is to hold employers liable for their employees' torts committed within the scope of employment, based on the idea that employers benefit from their employees' work and should bear associated risks. The term is Latin for "let the master answer" and has roots in Roman law.Provide an example that clearly illustrates the distinction between a "frolic" and a "detour" for an employee. If a delivery driver takes a slightly longer route to see a new billboard (a minor deviation), that's a detour, and the employer could still be liable for any accidents. However, if the same driver skips work for several hours to attend a baseball game and causes an accident en route to the game (a major departure for personal benefit), that's a frolic, likely absolving the employer of vicarious liability.List three factors courts consider when determining whether an employee's actions fall within the "scope of employment." Courts consider: (1) Was the act the kind of work the employee was hired to perform? (2) Did it occur within the authorized time and space limits? (3) Was it motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer?Why are employers generally not held vicariously liable for the torts of independent contractors? Employers are generally not vicariously liable for independent contractors because they do not exercise direct control over the "manner and means" of the contractor's work. Independent contractors typically operate their own distinct business and are not economically dependent on a single hiring party in the same way an employee is.Identify two common exceptions to the general rule regarding employer non-liability for independent contractors. Two common exceptions are: (1) Non-delegable duties, where certain public safety obligations cannot be shifted to a contractor (e.g., maintaining safe premises for customers). (2) Inherently dangerous activities, where the work itself carries a significant risk of harm (e.g., demolition work).Beyond the employer-employee relationship, name two other relationships where vicarious liability principles can apply. Vicarious liability principles can also apply in principal-agent relationships (where an agent acts with authority on behalf of a principal) and partnerships (where one partner can be liable for another's torts in the ordinary course of business). Parental vicarious liability is also possible under certain circumstances.How does "negligent entrustment" differ from vicarious liability in the context of an employer's responsibility? Negligent entrustment is a form of direct negligence where an employer is liable for entrusting property (like a company vehicle) to an employee known to be unfit or reckless, and th

This conversation delves into the complexities of fault allocation in tort law, exploring the historical context of contributory negligence, the shift to comparative negligence, and the implications of several versus joint liability. It discusses the nuances of assumption of risk, the treatment of children in negligence cases, and the intersection of strict liability with comparative fault. The conversation also highlights the psychological aspects of negligent conduct, the economic versus fairness debates in tort law, and the critical role of legal representation in navigating these intricate legal waters.TakeawaysUnderstanding fault allocation is crucial for aspiring lawyers.Contributory negligence can bar recovery even with minor plaintiff fault.The last clear chance doctrine mitigates harshness in contributory negligence.Comparative negligence allows for proportional recovery based on fault.Several liability means each defendant pays their share of fault.Assumption of risk can limit or bar recovery for plaintiffs.Children are judged by a different standard of care in negligence cases.Strict liability can still involve comparative fault considerations.Intentional torts typically do not allow for comparative fault defenses.Legal representation is essential in navigating complex tort law cases.

Proximate cause is a fundamental and often complex concept in tort law that determines the extent to which a defendant can be held legally responsible for harm caused. While "cause-in-fact" (or "actual cause") establishes a factual link—"but for" the defendant's action, the injury would not have occurred—proximate cause acts as a legal and policy filter, limiting liability to consequences that are sufficiently related to the defendant's conduct (AllLaw; Reddit; Torts Lecture Twenty-One; Number Analytics). As the Latin proverb states, "Injure non remota causa sed proxima spectatur" – in law, only the immediate (proximate) cause should be considered, not the remote cause (IIPSeries).TakeawaysProximate cause is essential for understanding legal responsibility in torts.The distinction between actual and proximate cause is foundational in tort law.Foreseeability is a key component in determining proximate cause.Intervening causes can complicate liability but do not always absolve the original defendant.Superseding causes break the chain of liability, absolving the original defendant.The eggshell plaintiff rule holds defendants liable for the full extent of injuries, regardless of the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions.Judicial approaches to proximate cause vary, influencing case outcomes.Proximate cause applies across negligence, strict liability, and intentional torts.Policy considerations in proximate cause aim to balance fairness and limit liability.Understanding these principles is crucial for success in tort exams and legal practice.

This conversation delves into the complexities of defamation law, exploring the critical distinctions between public and private figures, the role of actual malice, and landmark cases that have shaped the legal landscape. It also examines the impact of social media and Section 230 on defamation claims, and contemplates the future of defamation law in the context of artificial intelligence.TakeawaysDefamation can cause real harm to individuals' reputations.The law balances protecting reputation and freedom of speech.Defamation law allows individuals to fight back against false statements.Public figures face a higher burden of proof in defamation cases.Actual malice is a key standard for public figures in defamation claims.Social media complicates the landscape of defamation law.Section 230 provides immunity to online platforms for user-generated content.Landmark cases like Sullivan and Gertz have shaped defamation law.Private figures generally need to prove negligence, not actual malice.The rise of AI poses new challenges for defamation law.defamation, public figure, private figure, actual malice, social media, Section 230, landmark cases, reputation, free speech, legal analysis

This conversation delves into the concept of strict liability in tort law, emphasizing its departure from traditional negligence principles. It explores the rationale behind strict liability, including risk distribution, consumer protection, and deterrence. The discussion covers abnormally dangerous activities, the liability of animal owners, and the significant area of products liability, detailing the types of defects and defenses available in strict liability cases. The conversation concludes with reflections on the future of strict liability in the context of emerging technologies and the balance between innovation and safety.TakeawaysStrict liability means liability without fault regarding the defendant's conduct.Understanding the core concept of strict liability is crucial for law students.Abnormally dangerous activities (ADAs) are defined by specific factors outlined in the Restatement.The risk of harm must be high and cannot be eliminated by reasonable care for an activity to be considered an ADA.Strict liability applies to animals, particularly wild animals and those with known dangerous tendencies.Products liability is a major area of strict liability, holding manufacturers accountable for defective products.There are three main types of product defects: manufacturing defects, design defects, and failure to warn.Defenses in strict liability cases include comparative fault, assumption of risk, and product misuse.The evolution of strict liability reflects ongoing debates in law, especially with emerging technologies.Understanding the balance between safety and innovation is crucial for future legal practitioners.strict liability, tort law, abnormally dangerous activities, products liability, animal liability, legal responsibility, negligence, risk distribution, consumer protection, legal frameworks

In this episode, we delve into the intricate world of negligence, a cornerstone of tort law and a frequent topic in exams. Join us as we explore the essential elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. We'll break down complex legal tests, landmark cases like Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., and practical explanations to equip you with the knowledge needed to tackle challenging negligence questions. Whether you're preparing for a law exam or seeking a deeper understanding of tort law, this episode offers a comprehensive guide to mastering negligence. Tune in to gain insights that will help you confidently navigate the complexities of tort law.The core purpose of damages in a personal injury case is to "make the plaintiff whole." This means financial compensation is provided to, as much as possible, put the injured victim back into the position they would have been in if they had not suffered the injury as a result of the defendant's negligence or intentionally bad actions.General damages compensate for abstract, non-financial losses like emotional and physical pain, while special damages repay concrete, financial losses. An example of general damages is pain and suffering, while an example of special damages is past and ongoing medical bills.Punitive damages are awarded to punish defendants for wanton, reckless, or malicious acts, and to discourage similar behavior in the future. They are normally only allowed in negligence cases where the defendant's conduct was more than just ordinary negligence, such as drunk driving.A duty of care is a legal obligation for a defendant to act with a particular standard of conduct to protect others from unreasonable risk of harm. This means all individuals have a general duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm to others.The "reasonable person standard" is an objective test that asks how a hypothetical, average person of reasonable caution and competence would have behaved under the same circumstances. Courts use this standard to assess whether the defendant's conduct fell below the expected level of care.Actual cause (or cause-in-fact) uses the "but-for" test to determine if the injury would have occurred without the defendant's actions. Proximate cause (or legal cause) is concerned with foreseeability, limiting liability to harms that were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct.If the Wright Brothers' invention of the airplane is considered an "actual cause" of 9/11 because the event wouldn't have happened "but for" their invention. However, it is not a "proximate cause" because the 9/11 tragedy was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of inventing the airplane nearly a century prior.Res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself") is a doctrine that allows a jury to infer negligence without direct evidence. It applies when an injury typically doesn't occur without negligence, the instrumentality causing harm was under the defendant's control, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the harm.Comparative negligence reduces a plaintiff's damage award based on their percentage of fault, allowing for some recovery even if partially at fault. Contributory negligence, in contrast, completely bars the plaintiff from recovering any damages if they are found to be even slightly negligent.Two examples of a breach of duty in medical malpractice include a misdiagnosis of a serious condition, such as failing to diagnose cancer despite apparent symptoms, or a medication error, like prescribing an incorrect medication or dosage.

Disclaimer *** - There are a few curse words (4-5) in this episode, I don't think they are too bad but if you have kids listening maybe have the mute button ready or skip this one for the kids. I catch up with Andre Roy and talk his stanley cup run, playing with legends and of course commiserating about our times with Torts. Sign up to become a Friend of the Show to access a Slack community, behind the scenes content, discounts on merch, and more: https://www.patreon.com/dropping_glovesFollow the Show:MerchPatreonFacebookInstagramTwitter / XYouTube Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! This episode is the final in our Torts trilogy, where we're summarizing the topics from Torts we've covered in our "Listen and Learn" series. Today we're talking about strict liability and vicarious liability, and we review the key defenses - assumption of risk and comparative negligence. In this episode, we discuss: Strict products liability of manufacturers and sellers Vicarious liability, or when one person becomes legally responsible for the torts of another Defenses in liability cases An attack plan for answering liability questions on the bar exam Resources: Private Bar Exam Tutoring (https://barexamtoolbox.com/private-bar-exam-tutoring/) Podcast Episode 131: Listen and Learn – Strict Products Liability (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-131-listen-and-learn-strict-products-liability/) Podcast Episode 197: Listen and Learn – Vicarious Liability (Torts) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-197-listen-and-learn-vicarious-liability-torts/) Podcast Episode 107: Listen and Learn – Assumption of Risk (Torts) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-107-listen-and-learn-assumption-of-risk-torts/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-319-spotlight-on-torts-part-3-strict-and-vicarious-liability/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on  Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 230 welcomes Howard Ankin, Owner of Ankin Law and a prominent personal injury attorney in the Chicagoland area. A third-generation lawyer, Howard reflects on growing up in a family deeply rooted in the legal profession, often spending school breaks accompanying his father to court. Many of his clients today are children and grandchildren of those his father and grandfather once represented. Howard shares how he found his own path within the legal world, building a practice centered on personal injury, product liability, and mass torts. With a deep passion for justice and an unwavering commitment to his community, Howard has dedicated his career to continuing the Ankin family tradition—providing trusted, compassionate, and superior legal support to those in need.  This is a powerful story of legacy, purpose, and a lifelong devotion to the law.

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! We're continuing our summary of topics from Torts we've covered in our "Listen and Learn" series. Today we're discussing person-based and property-based intentional torts, as well as defamation. We also go through the defenses to intentional torts and provide a plan for answering intentional tort questions on the bar exam. In this episode, we discuss: Person-based intentional torts Property-based intentional torts The required elements of defamation Available defenses to intentional torts Intentional torts versus negligence Exam strategy and a hypothetical scenario Resources: Private Bar Exam Tutoring (https://barexamtoolbox.com/private-bar-exam-tutoring/) Podcast Episode 103: Listen and Learn – Assault and Battery (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-103-listen-and-learn-assault-and-battery/) Podcast Episode 104: Listen and Learn – Intentional Torts: Defamation (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-104-listen-and-learn-intentional-torts-defamation/) Podcast Episode 252: Listen and Learn – Property-Based Intentional Torts (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-252-listen-and-learn-property-based-intentional-torts/) Podcast Episode 314: Listen and Learn – False Imprisonment and Shopkeeper's Privilege (Torts) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-314-listen-and-learn-false-imprisonment-and-shopkeepers-privilege-torts/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-317-spotlight-on-torts-part-2-intentional-torts/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on  Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Welcome to Tortle Tank, the show where the world's richest reptiles review your D&D homebrew and decide whether or not to invest their hard-earned eggs. This week, the Torts discuss drunk mechanics, eggshaustion, and flipping DVDs.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Lecture Twenty explores the complex legal terrain of defamation, focusing on the critical distinctions between public and private plaintiffs and the varying standards of fault that apply. In defamation cases, the identity of the plaintiff significantly influences the burden of proof. Public figures and officials must demonstrate “actual malice”—that the defamatory statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth—reflecting the constitutional protections of free speech under the First Amendment. Private individuals, on the other hand, typically need only show negligence, making it easier to recover damages. This lecture unpacks landmark cases like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, analyzes the rationale behind heightened protections for speech about public figures, and examines how courts balance reputational interests with freedom of expression. Through case law and hypothetical scenarios, students gain a nuanced understanding of how defamation law adapts to the plaintiff's status and the societal value of the speech in question.

In Lecture Eighteen of our Torts series, we delve into the doctrine of strict liability as it applies to dog bites, a topic that highlights the intersection of public safety and personal responsibility. Unlike negligence-based claims, strict liability holds dog owners legally responsible for injuries caused by their pets regardless of fault or prior knowledge of the animal's viciousness. Many jurisdictions have enacted statutes that impose automatic liability when a dog bites a person, especially if the victim was lawfully present and did not provoke the animal. This lecture explores the historical evolution of the “one-bite rule,” the shift toward statutory strict liability, and the legal nuances that differentiate domestic pets from inherently dangerous animals. Through case studies and statutory analysis, students gain a comprehensive understanding of how courts balance owner accountability with victim protection in dog bite incidents.

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! This is the first of three episodes in which we summarize the topics from Torts we've covered in our "Listen and Learn" series. Today, we're focusing on negligence and its four key elements - duty, breach, causation, and damages. We have included an attack plan for exam questions on negligence, and a quick practical example. In this episode, we discuss: An overview of negligence The four elements of negligence - duty, breach, causation, and damages An attack plan for answering exam questions on negligence A practical scenario illustrating a negligence analysis Resources: Private Bar Exam Tutoring (https://barexamtoolbox.com/private-bar-exam-tutoring/) Podcast Episode 88: Listen and Learn – Negligence Per Se (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-88-listen-and-learn-negligence-per-se/) Podcast Episode 97: Listen and Learn – The Reasonable Person Standard (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-97-listen-and-learn-the-reasonable-person-standard/) Podcast Episode 147: Listen and Learn – Negligence: Duties of Professionals and Children (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-147-listen-and-learn-negligence-duties-of-professionals-and-children/) Podcast Episode 149: Listen and Learn – Negligence: Duties of Landlords, Owners, and Possessors of Land (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-149-listen-and-learn-negligence-duties-of-landlords-owners-and-possessors-of-land/) Podcast Episode 186: Listen and Learn – Negligence: Proximate Cause (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-186-listen-and-learn-negligence-proximate-cause/) Podcast Episode 247: Listen and Learn – Negligence: Factual Causation (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-247-listen-and-learn-negligence-factual-causation/) Podcast Episode 315: Listen and Learn – The Breach Element of a Negligence Claim (Torts) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-315-listen-and-learn-the-breach-element-of-a-negligence-claim-torts/) United States v. Carroll Towing Co. (https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-dobbs/negligence-the-breach-or-negligence-element-of-the-negligence-case/united-states-v-carroll-towing-co/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-316-spotlight-on-torts-part-1-negligence/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on  Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of essential legal principles for law students preparing for the bar exam. It covers key areas such as constitutional law, professional responsibility, and contract law, emphasizing the importance of understanding foundational concepts, managing conflicts of interest, and the role of judicial review. The discussion aims to equip students with the tools needed to navigate the complexities of law school and succeed in their legal careers. This conversation delves into the intricate aspects of contract law and torts, covering essential topics such as offers, acceptance, consideration, contractual capacity, and the nuances of breach of contract. It also explores the foundational elements of tort law, including negligence and intentional torts, providing a comprehensive overview for bar exam preparation.TakeawaysCut through the noise for exam success.Understand how to spot issues under pressure.Federalism defines the limits of government power.McCulloch v. Maryland is foundational for federal power.Gibbons v. Ogden broadens the scope of commerce.Separation of powers prevents any branch from dominating.Judicial review allows courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.Justiciability requires real disputes for federal courts.Conflicts of interest must be managed carefully.Confidentiality is a core duty of legal practice. Offers can be revoked, rejected, or lapse over time.Acceptance can occur through a promise or performance.Consideration is essential for contract enforceability.Contractual capacity is crucial for valid agreements.Genuine assent must be free from mistakes or misconduct.Contracts for illegal purposes are unenforceable.Expectation damages aim to restore the non-breaching party.Torts are civil wrongs that provide remedies outside of contracts.Intent in tort law does not require intent to harm.Contributory negligence can bar recovery completely.law school, bar exam, constitutional law, professional responsibility, contract law, legal ethics, federalism, judicial review, commerce clause, legal principles, contracts, offers, acceptance, consideration, capacity, torts, negligence, remedies, legal principles, bar exam

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of essential legal principles for law students preparing for the bar exam. It covers key areas such as constitutional law, professional responsibility, and contract law, emphasizing the importance of understanding foundational concepts, managing conflicts of interest, and the role of judicial review. The discussion aims to equip students with the tools needed to navigate the complexities of law school and succeed in their legal careers. This conversation delves into the intricate aspects of contract law and torts, covering essential topics such as offers, acceptance, consideration, contractual capacity, and the nuances of breach of contract. It also explores the foundational elements of tort law, including negligence and intentional torts, providing a comprehensive overview for bar exam preparation.TakeawaysCut through the noise for exam success.Understand how to spot issues under pressure.Federalism defines the limits of government power.McCulloch v. Maryland is foundational for federal power.Gibbons v. Ogden broadens the scope of commerce.Separation of powers prevents any branch from dominating.Judicial review allows courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.Justiciability requires real disputes for federal courts.Conflicts of interest must be managed carefully.Confidentiality is a core duty of legal practice. Offers can be revoked, rejected, or lapse over time.Acceptance can occur through a promise or performance.Consideration is essential for contract enforceability.Contractual capacity is crucial for valid agreements.Genuine assent must be free from mistakes or misconduct.Contracts for illegal purposes are unenforceable.Expectation damages aim to restore the non-breaching party.Torts are civil wrongs that provide remedies outside of contracts.Intent in tort law does not require intent to harm.Contributory negligence can bar recovery completely.law school, bar exam, constitutional law, professional responsibility, contract law, legal ethics, federalism, judicial review, commerce clause, legal principles, contracts, offers, acceptance, consideration, capacity, torts, negligence, remedies, legal principles, bar exam

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today, we're discussing the different methods a plaintiff may use to establish the second element of a negligence claim -- breach. We also talk about the "res ipsa loquitur" doctrine, and we will walk through several hypotheticals involving breach of the standard of care. In this episode, we discuss: An overview of negligence claims The reasonable person standard The "res ipsa loquitur" doctrine Hypothetical scenarios involving breach of the standard of care Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2021 (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/admissions/Examinations/July-2021-CBX-Essay-Qs-and-Selected-Answers.pdf) Podcast Episode 88: Listen and Learn – Negligence Per Se (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-88-listen-and-learn-negligence-per-se/) Podcast Episode 97: Listen and Learn – The Reasonable Person Standard (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-97-listen-and-learn-the-reasonable-person-standard/) Podcast Episode 147: Listen and Learn – Negligence: Duties of Professionals and Children (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-147-listen-and-learn-negligence-duties-of-professionals-and-children/) Podcast Episode 149: Listen and Learn – Negligence: Duties of Landlords, Owners, and Possessors of Land (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-149-listen-and-learn-negligence-duties-of-landlords-owners-and-possessors-of-land/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-315-listen-and-learn-the-breach-element-of-a-negligence-claim-torts/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! In today's episode, we're discussing torts – specifically, the intentional tort of false imprisonment and the associated defense, shopkeeper's privilege. We also go through several sample questions and apply the law to the fact patterns. In this episode, we discuss: An overview of intentional torts The elements of false imprisonment Hypothetical scenarios from previous California bar exams The shopkeeper's privilege defense to false imprisonment Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2010 (https://juraxbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/July-2010-CBX.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2006 (https://nwculaw.edu/pdf/bar/July%202006%20Essays%20and%20Sample%20Answers.pdf) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-314-listen-and-learn-false-imprisonment-and-shopkeepers-privilege-torts/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

The Flyers Head Coaching search continues on. There have been a lot of names linked to the Flyers head coaching gig since Torts was fired 9 games before the season's end. One name that continues to swirl is Rick Tocchet, but rumors tend to be dying down as Tocchet figures out his best fit for his future. A couple other names include Junior Coach Jay McKee, Toronto Assistant Coach Mike Van Ryn. The Flyers are certainly doing their due diligence with candidates but do they need to make a choice soon? Drop your comments in the chat and be a part of the show! The NHL Playoffs continue as we are halfway through the 2nd Round. The Eastern Conference is panning out the way most people thought they would have. The West on the other hand has been wild. The Avs were upset by a Dallas Stars team that isn't quite at 100% yet. Right now it looks like only 2 series will potentially finish in under 6 games. Has the NHL Playoffs lived up to expectations so far? Make sure you hit that like and subscribe wherever you watch or listen to Flyers Talk A2D!Like, Comment, and Subscribe for more!/ a2dradio  Facebook:/ a2dradio  Instagram:/ a2dradio  X:   / a2dradio  Website: http://a2dradio.com/_______________Thank you for your support!Specialized Physical Therapy:    https://specializedphysicaltherapy.com/Boaggiosbread:                             https://boaggiosbread.com/Alan Foy : https://www.exprealty.com/

This week the guys discuss Sullivan becoming a free agent and parting ways with PIT, how he's probably already the NYR coach, Igor in the playoffs, Drury's extension and more. Then Shayna Goldman of The Athletic join the Breakaway to discuss Sullivan and Torts coaching style and impact on the ice and how NYR will respond to these changes. Finally the guys return and answer some questions in 5 star questions from listeners. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires. Featuring: Thomas A. Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending EducationTim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan InstituteProf. Gregory Sisk, Pio Cardinal Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law, Professor and Co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawFrancesca Ugolini, Former Chief, DOJ Tax Division, Appellate Section(Moderator) Elle Rogers, General Counsel, United States Senator Jim Banks

Scott and Bill discuss the Flyers' very open and honest voices regarding their relationship with former head coach John Tortorella. Briere also makes a big decision about the team's future coach! Subscribe to us! YouTube TikTok Twitter: @Obackcheck Facebook Page!  Instagram!  Kick Page

PIMCON 2025 Tickets On Sale Now —> Get yours today! When Mike Papantonio realized the mass tort space was dominated by class action attorneys who'd "never taken a deposition" and would "pass out if they walked into a courtroom," he created Mass Torts Made Perfect to transform the industry. In this special episode, we're bringing you insights from the frontlines of MTMP that will help you determine if mass torts should be your next practice area. Your personal injury practice has already built the foundation for mass tort success. In this episode of Personal Injury Mastermind, we deliver a crash course in mass tort litigation from the experts at MTMP. From leveraging your existing client relationships to understanding the collaborative nature of MDL leadership, these insights will help you navigate the transition from single-event cases to nationwide litigation. If you're considering adding this lucrative practice area but unsure where to start, this episode is your roadmap. Key insights: Why your current PI client base is already a gold mine for mass tort opportunities The critical differences in case management when handling thousands vs. dozens of clients How to implement a "bucket system" that organizes cases by stage for maximum efficiency The two non-negotiable elements every mass tort case needs: Product ID and Proof of Injury Why collaboration (not competition) is the key to success in the mass tort community How to position yourself for leadership opportunities even as a newcomer to the space The hottest emerging mass tort opportunities that attorneys should be watching today Guest Details Mike Papantonio: Founder of Mass Torts Made Perfect, is a legal titan who has helped secure more than $80 billion in verdicts and settlements. Sharon Boothe: Vice President of Programs at Mass Torts Made Perfect, overseeing the entire MTMP portfolio including live seminars, monthly webinars, and the MTMP Connect Paralegal College.  Ava Cavaco: Attorney at Nigh Goldenburg Raso & Vaughn specializing in personal injury, medical malpractice, mass torts, and medical device litigation. A former healthcare administrator and first-generation college student from Hawaii, Ava also teaches Torts as an adjunct professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law. Alex Parker: Associate Attorney at Flint Cooper representing thousands of individuals harmed by pharmaceutical negligence. Alex brings a diverse background including complex commercial litigation, products liability, and personal injury defense to his mass tort practice. Ashley Owens: President of the Personal Injury Mastermind Conference (PIMCON), networking expert, and personal branding strategist. Ashley is known for her expertise in connecting professionals and enhancing their networks through her roles as a TV host, speaker, and educator at Temple University. Chris Dreyer and Rankings Details Chris Dreyer is the CEO and founder of Rankings.io, the elite law firm marketing experts - for all your digital and traditional needs.   Rankings: Website, Instagram, Twitter Chris Dreyer: Website, Instagram Newsletters: The Dreyer Sheet  Books: Personal Injury Lawyer Marketing: From Good to GOAT; Niching Up: The Narrower the Market, the Bigger the Prize Work with Rankings: Connect

Philadelphia Flyers fans have long surmised Mike Sullivan could be the top candidate to replace John Tortorella once Torts' presumed role changed from head coach to the front office.With that obviously not happening, the question is will Tortorella's protege still be a candidate, assuming he and the Penguins part ways.Bill & Charlie discuss Sullivan, as well as Andrew Brunette's potential candidacies.Plus, Sean Couturier's comments regarding his former bench boss, a Tankathon spin, and more!

Thibs could be on the hotseat if things don't go well in the playoffs, with recently fired Nuggets head coach Michael Malone available. If they don't get out of the first round or get swept in the second round Thibs could be gone. The Rangers will no doubt have a new head coach next season. NHL head coaches get fired all the time and get rehired again. It's a retread coach league. Some people think Torts will be back. Why do we keep firing coaches we know are good? Shouldn't we get rid of the players instead?

Brodes was joined by Jason Myrtetus of the Flyers Broadcast Network to discuss where the squad goes from here!Green Lawn Fertilizing: https://www.greenlawnfertilizing.com/lp/brodes?utm_campaign=GLF%20-%20Influencer%20Marketing&utm_source=instagram&utm_medium=social&utm_term=brodes Green Lawn Fertilizing: Phone Number: (848) 253-4026DISCORD LINK: https://discord.gg/z9c5cFVGJcBookies.com: https://bookies.com/brodesBUY YOUR TICKETS WITH SEATGEEK PROMO CODE: BRODES FOR $20 OFF YOUR FIRST PURCHASE! www.seatkgeek.comDrink Garage Beer: https://drinkgaragebeer.com/ 

Welcome to Tortle Tank, the show where the world's richest reptiles review your D&D homebrew and decide whether or not to invest their hard-earned eggs. This week, the Torts hear pitches about in-game birthdays, reclassifying healing spells, and a death-defying potion that could help kick your home game into high gear. Let's dive right in!Check out the digital version of Caldwell's Instant Minion Generator here! (Thanks Reed W!)CREDITSProduction and Editing by Trevor LyonEXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal ➼ https:// nordvpn.com/naddpod Try it risk-free now with a 30-day money-back guarantee!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

"Taste that pit." Eva checks in with Kelly and Rave about the latest in the world of the Washington Capitals, including some clever losses, some new Chychrun wellness theories, Protas ascendency, the signing of a new boy, and the return of a beloved color commenter. Plus: The Old Slut Playoffs and a farewell to Torts. This episode was recorded on March 31, 2025. Timecodes: (2:29) Nominative Determinism | (9:55) Caps chat | (50:23) Elsewhere in the NHL Buy merch!Support us on Patreon!

The St. Louis Blues have won 10 straight games as the NHL Playoffs near. We discuss how they got here after a midseason coaching change. Plus, New York Islanders coach Patrick Roy went IN on Anthony Duclair for a lack of effort and there is a new worst team in the Eastern Conference. 0:00 Welcome to What Chaos!5:25 Roy flames Duclair15:33 Torts vs. York22:05 Veggie 18 straight starts40:32 Blues win 10 straight52:52 New worst team in East BUY OUR MERCH: https://store.allcitynetwork.com/collections/what-chaos JOIN OUR DISCORD: https://discord.gg/3brHQ2q5V2 Follow us on Twitter:https://twitter.com/WhatChaosShowhttps://twitter.com/DJ_Beanhttps://twitter.com/PeteBlackburnhttps://twitter.com/shawn_depaz PrizePicks - Download the PrizePicks app today and use code WHATCHAOS to get $50 instantly when you play $5. PrizePicks. Run your game! https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/WHATCHAOS Head to https://factormeals.com/whatchaos50  and use code whatchaos50 to get 50% off! Shady Rays is giving out their best deal of the season. Head to https://shadyrays.com and use code: AC35 for 35% off polarized sunglasses. Try for yourself the shades rated 5 stars by over 300,000 people. HelloFresh - Get 10 FREE meals at https://hellofresh.com/freechaos. Applied across 7 boxes, new subscribers only, varies by plan.

On this episode of The Morning Skate, Ked and Brownie break down the intense Eastern Conference Wildcard race and what it means for the playoffs. Then, things get heated in the crease as Swayman and Kuemper nearly throw hands—should refs really be stepping in? We take a trip down memory lane to revisit some of the most legendary goalie fights, from Binnington vs. Fleury to Potvin vs. Hextall and Emery vs. the world. Plus, if the NHL had a Comeback Player of the Year award, who would take home the hardware? We debate the cases for Dubois, Huberdeau, Kane, Laine, and more. And finally, the Torts era in Philly is over—was it the right call? Buckle up, it's another wild ride on The Morning Skate!

Sean and Ryan talk about the John Tortorella firing, the standings, the Blues, and more. Sponsored by Raycon (buyraycon.com/puck)

This week the guys discuss Torts firing and if he could be the fit for NYR, what Gabe signing means for NYR in these last 8 games and the future and how the team is still in the hunt. Then the guys answer too many 5 star questions and chat about opening baseball weekend late in the show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dimitri Filipovic is joined by Thomas Drance to talk about this weekend's most exciting games, developments in the Western Conference Wild Card race, Draisaitl's return performance against the Flames, dark horse MVP cases, Michkov's first couple of games post John Tortorella, and framing Jakob Chychrun's new deal through the lens of a brave new salary cap world. If you'd like to participate in the conversation and join the community we're building over on Discord, you can do so by signing up for the Hockey PDOcast's server here: https://discord.gg/a2QGRpJc84 The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate.

We recap the past week in the NHL including the Jets and Stars clinching playoff spot, Alexander Ovechkin moving closer to the Great One and the Flyers firing head coach John Tortorella. Rachael Donner, one of the co-hots of Locked on Flyers, joins us to talk about what's going on in Philadelphia. Plus listener e-mails.

John Tortorella is out as head coach of the Philadelphia Flyers, fired at the end of last week and replaced on an interim basis by Brad Shaw. On today's episode, Max and Laz power-rank 10 of Torts' classic media moments and discuss if this will have been his last shot behind an NHL bench. First, the guys break down which trade deadline acquisitions have fit in nicely on their new teams and which have not. And, with nine games left and five goals to go, will Alex Ovechkin break Wayne Gretzky's all-time record this season?Hosts: Max Bultman and Mark LazerusExecutive Producer: Chris FlanneryProducer: Chris Flannery Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Don Cherry's Grapevine Podcast description  Podcast Sponsor Hockey Icon Don Cherry talks hockey and more!  Coach's Closet: https://coopink.ca/collections/coachs-closet Don Cherry's Pet Rescue Foundation : https://www.doncherryspetrescue.org  Twitter: https://twitter.com/CoachsCornerDC  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Doncherrysgrapevine  Podcast available on:  Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/4Mx00CeV9rJRN0C5jfNZ7n?si=_g0b-M0CSROag0qPL8fKSQ  Apple Podcast - https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-don-cherrys-grapevine-podcast/id1488361243  Podbean - https://doncherrysgrapevine.podbean.com

The Philadelphia Flyers surprised fans on Thursday morning, announcing John Tortorella had been relieved of his coaching duties, and associate coach Brad Shaw would be taking over on an interim basis.After Thursday night's 6-4 win over the Playoff-contending Montreal Canadiens, there are still a ton of questions regarding Torts' dismissal.Can Shaw hold the job? Will this spark a draft lottery-ruining run? What really lead to all of this? And what the hell is going on with Cam York?Charlie, Kelly & Bill try to make sense of the Orange & Black's last 36 hours.

Rob Ellis and Mike Sielski and talking Phillies following an up and down victory on Opening Day in Washington and have Jim Salisbury join to break down the team. Plus, plenty of Flyers discussion following the dismissal of John Tortorella as Kevin Kurz joins the program.

On this episode of the South Carolina Lede for March 29, 2025: tort reform is done—in the Senate, for now; we catch up with Sen. Larry Grooms on his subcommittee's report over the 1.8 billion dollar boondoggle and the recommendation to impeach Treasurer Curtis Loftis; the Table Rock Complex fires continue to burn more than 10,000 acres in the Upstate; and more!

In this edition of 32 Thoughts, Kyle Bukauskas and Elliotte Friedman (live from the airport in Winnipeg) begin by unpacking John Tortorella's exit as head coach of the Philadelphia Flyers. Elliotte touches on the speculation that's arisen in Vancouver about Rick Tocchet potentially taking the Flyers job this summer (18:56). They transition to Sidney Crosby and his 20th straight year at a point per game or more (22:15). Elliotte touches on what he's been doing while visiting the Oilers and Jets (25:40). The fellas touch on Brad Marchand nearing his Panthers debut (37:14). They also talk about the pair of college free agents the Maple Leafs lured to Toronto (38:19). Kyle and Elliotte talk about the respect shown by Ovechkin and the Capitals to Marc-Andre Fleury on Thursday night (43:01). The Final Thought focuses on goalie interference (51:20). Kyle and Elliotte answer your questions and respond to your voicemails in the Thought Line (1:06:17).Email the podcast at 32thoughts@sportsnet.ca or call the Thought Line at 1-833-311-3232 and leave us a voicemail.This podcast was produced and mixed by Dominic Sramaty and hosted by Elliotte Friedman & Kyle Bukauskas.The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Sports & Media or any affiliates

For at least one game, the Philadelphia Flyers looked like a team not in the midst of a full-on tank following John Tortorella being relieved of his head coaching duties earlier Thursday.Matvei Michkov recorded his 16th multi-point game, picking up a goal and an assist in a 3-goal first period for the Orange & Black and added a second goal in the 3rd to get to 22 goals and 54 points on the season.Charlie, Kelly & Bill react to the Flyers' first post-Torts performance, and huge nights for the captain and Mad Russian.

Torts is OUT in Philly... what's next? Plus John ranks the toughest fighters in the NHL today.Sign up to become a Friend of the Show to access a Slack community, behind the scenes content, discounts on merch, and more: https://www.patreon.com/dropping_gloves Follow the Show:MerchPatreonFacebookInstagramTwitter / XYouTube Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nick and Jake catch up about all the big storylines around the NHL, including the firing of John Tortorella by the Philadelphia Flyers and upcoming return and Florida Panthers debut of Brad Marchand. The guys banter about Flyers players to consider rostering ahead of a potential coaching bump, other top pickups for the fantasy playoffs and answer some mailbag questions with Pete Jensen. Then, in "On the Money," presented by Bet365, former NHL goalie Carter Hutton joins the show to talk about the St. Louis Blues' dominant stretch, Connor Hellebuyck's Hart Trophy likelihood and more. The guys also give their favorite picks and props for the rest of the week, including some hidden gems in the prop market.

Brodes gives his INSTANT Reaction on the BREAKING NEWS that Flyers fired John Tortorella!Green Lawn Fertilizing: https://www.greenlawnfertilizing.com/lp/brodes?utm_campaign=GLF%20-%20Influencer%20Marketing&utm_source=instagram&utm_medium=social&utm_term=brodes Green Lawn Fertilizing: Phone Number: (848) 253-4026DISCORD LINK: https://discord.gg/z9c5cFVGJcBookies.com: https://bookies.com/brodesBUY YOUR TICKETS WITH SEATGEEK PROMO CODE: BRODES FOR $20 OFF YOUR FIRST PURCHASE! www.seatkgeek.comDrink Garage Beer: https://drinkgaragebeer.com/ 

John Tortorella said on Tuesday night that he's not interested in learning to coach a season like this. Unfortunately a season like this is what Torts has, and now questions are being asked, loudly, about how much longer he has behind Philly's bench.Charlie & Bill debate Tortorella's future as Philadelphia Flyers coach, as well as what might go on in net for this season's final 9 games, as well as next year.Plus, a check-in with Lehigh Valley Phantoms correspondent Madeline Campbell, with reinforcements joining the AHL squad soon, and 9 games remaining until Calder Cup Playoffs.

Brodes joined the WIP Afternoon Show for his Flyers in 50 segment to discuss John Tortorella's recent comments. "I'm not interested in learning how to coach this type of season."Green Lawn Fertilizing: https://www.greenlawnfertilizing.com/lp/brodes?utm_campaign=GLF%20-%20Influencer%20Marketing&utm_source=instagram&utm_medium=social&utm_term=brodes Green Lawn Fertilizing: Phone Number: (848) 253-4026DISCORD LINK: https://discord.gg/z9c5cFVGJcBookies.com: https://bookies.com/brodesBUY YOUR TICKETS WITH SEATGEEK PROMO CODE: BRODES FOR $20 OFF YOUR FIRST PURCHASE! www.seatkgeek.comDrink Garage Beer: https://drinkgaragebeer.com/