“Mad Men” Meets Prosser?

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. A.J. Sutter says:

    It’s not alcoholic, but another example of period excess: I recall one of my profs at UC/Hastings reminiscing about how his late colleague Wm. Prosser used to grade exams sitting on the deck of his boat, recording grades, and tossing the exam bluebooks into San Francisco Bay.

  2. A Non-E Mous says:

    The transition from legal realism to consensus legal thought all of the sudden makes so much more sense.

  3. George Conk says:

    Don’t forget my favorite: Comment i, of Section 402A, defining product defect:

    Good whiskey is not unreasonably dangerous merely because it will make some people drunk, and is especially dangerous to alcoholics; but bad whiskey, containing a dangerous amount of fuel oil, is unreasonably dangerous.
    Good tobacco is not unreasonably dangerous merely because the effects of smoking may be harmful; but tobacco containing something like marijuana may be unreasonably dangerous.

  4. When I was a law clerk in the summer of my college years in the late 1960s and early 1970s, this was still going on. I knew nothing about this but saw it with my own eyes when went to lunch and saw attorneys drinking. I then learned through my mentoring attorneys about the so-called 3 martini lunches. This was a big shock to a very impressionable young man. Mad Men probably still exists today for those with addiction issues, even though it is probably less acceptable then it was way back then.