A FIFTY YEAR OLD EXPERIENCES THE SOCRATIC METHOD

Mar 8, 2014 | Uncategorized

“Fictional characters like Professor Kingsfield of The Paper Chase have contributed to an image of the quintessential law school professor who puts a student in the “hot seat” and delves into what seems like an intimidating and almost torturous line of inquiry. This pedagogical technique is commonly known as the Socratic method: one of the defining characteristics of the American legal education system, almost universally used during the first year of law school.” ****

Have you heard of the Socratic method? Did you ever watch the movie or TV show “Paper Chase”? Why would anyone subject themselves to this kind of harassment, humiliation and embarrassment?

Ms Quirk, What did you think of the ruling in this case? Really? Is that what you think? Class? Do you agree with her?

Terror, sheer terror. Fear of humiliation – why am I here? What makes me think I can do this. I am going to flunk out. I don’t belong here. My classmates are all smarter. One element of the Socratic Method is to prove your ignorance. Leaving you open for learning — I guess.

This is the study of law. I love it. Notice I said the study of law. Not the practice of law. The two have no relationship whatsoever.

When did I become so enamored of this study based upon such arcane principles started by some old dead guy of long ago who got poisoned for his actions? Socrates! Many a law student has used his name as a curse.

It started for me many years ago with the case of Helen Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad. I will give you the details of the case later but first let me tell you how I came to know Mrs. Palsgraf.

In the late 60’s I was a young bride married to a military officer who decided to go to law school I went from wearing hats and white gloves to meetings of the Officers Wives Club to a little more casual attire of the Law Wives Club. The law wives club, of course, was a supportive group (there were no “law husbands”) of women mainly to help us be supportive of our poor husbands suffering the grinds of law school.

At one of the meetings we welcomed the torts professor, Professor Peck. Torts we learned deals with a civil wrong resulting in a lawsuit. Along with Contracts and Constitutional Law it is a core subject. Professor Peck wanted to give us a sample of an actual law school tort class – along with a demonstration of the Socratic Method. So he told us the story of Mrs. Palsgraf and her ride on the Long Island Railroad. He took us through the torture of the questioning method. How should the court rule? Do you agree with Judge Cardozo or Judge Andrews? Really, Mrs. Quirk? Is that what you really think? Ladies, do you agree with Mrs. Quirk? Etc. etc. He took us through the torture and humiliation of the Socratic Method.

I loved it! I was hooked and knew someday I would study law.

And I did – some 25 years later I found myself in first year law school torts class.

“When do we get to Mrs. Palsgraf?”

“Soon Ms. Quirk, soon.”

Ahh, the day came. Even after 25 years I remembered the facts and that clock on the platform that injured poor Mrs. Palsgraf. But now came the terror.

“Do you agree with the majority opinion of Justice Cardozo or the dissent of Justice Andrews?”

Uh, um. Let me think.

This is a lot more complicated than I thought. I found that Palsgraf is a seminal case on how far we draw the line in negligence and proximate cause.

See, I was learning real lawyer words now.

As grades came out, I tied for first place in that first year torts class. And the rest, as they say, is history. I continue to learn the STUDY of law. Perhaps you will become motivated also by hearing about Mrs. Palsgraf and you too will want to STUDY law.

So here we go.

In the 1920’s Helen Palsgraf (little is actually known about her) was on her way to Rockaway, perhaps to take her daughter to the beach. She was quietly sitting on a bench on the platform waiting for her train. At the same time, a conductor was hurrying some passengers unto a departing train. He gave one of them a push to speed things up and the passenger dropped a package he was carrying. It happens that the package contained fireworks. (Little is known about the passenger and why he was carrying fireworks. Anarchist? Probably some Italians on their way to a celebration) the fireworks exploded causing a large scale to become dislodged off the wall, injuring Mrs. Palsgraf.

Question: Is the Long Island Railroad liable to Mrs. Palsgraf and should they pay for her injuries?

Now here is where we separate the engineers and the scientists from the legal scholars. If you are thinking about how the scales were bolted on the wall or what made the fireworks go off or even who the fireworks carrier was, you are missing the point. The point is:

Did the Long Island Railroad owe a duty of care to Mrs. P? And did they breach that duty? I.e. were they negligent by way of their employee the conductor?

A tort requires three factors: Duty, negligence, injury. There is no question that Mrs. P was injured and few would argue that the RR has a duty of care to its passengers. But should they be responsible for paying for Mrs. P’s injuries?

Here is where we would have the famous Socratic discussion that would last a couple of hours.

Are you bored yet? Exited? Curious?

The court split in its decision and the debate continues today. Speaking for the majority, Justice Cardozo went into a long discussion about foreseeability. Was it foreseeable that a passenger would be carrying dynamite? Is it foreseeable that an explosion could cause the scale to land on someone?

After pages and pages of discussion, Justice Cardozo went for a pragmatic answer that was basically “We have to draw a line somewhere”. In his dissent, Justice Andrews railed against drawing a line and said if there was negligence, then all results of the negligence should be included. Thus giving way to the argument of proximate cause: never mind the butterfly effect – which would mean a line was never drawn.