Yesterday, I received a very interesting from a Facebook freind and Law Student Khushali Singh. With her permission I have reproduced it below. On basis of this, I will try to explain “How to Think Like A Lawyer”. I may not reply the actual questions.
“sir m a law student i read your blog so end up asking u the doubt……arouse in my mind. .”
“in the case where the bike rider hit the lady crossing the road it was not his mistake…..as it was a 4 lane highway the biker has to maintain his minimal speed,he took every possible ways to save her,so he got major injuries. now the point comes”
“if fir lodged by the padestrine son, now wat steps the rider can take…….his vehicle is with the police and investigation going to be proceed do, rider can file the suit before the other party takes action”
“also the bike rider is liable to seek compensation?(pedestrine negligence) if then how. ……. many rider not being actual culprits falls in the problem because of lack of knowledge.”
Now here are my suggestions about “How to Think Like A Lawyer”
Rule 1 : Do not try to think at all if question is hypothetical or imaginary. Our minds are highly intellectual and they go on thinking, thinking and overthinking. The Judges also refuse to decide hypothetical questions. They don’t start applying their minds to cases seen and debated on TV or in newspapers. It is a bad habit in which law students and junior lawyers fall early in their career.
Only examine real facts which have 1) Actually happened and are brought on your table, and 2) On which your opinion is asked for by someone affacted by the outcome of case.
Rule 2 : Just as human body has flesh, blood, bones, heart etc, a legal case also has bones, meat, blood, heart etc. In above stories what are the bones? The bones are documents. They are hard. They can be touched. In above story there is a reference to a FIR. That is a bone. Start study with it first. Hear rest of story later.
Rule – 3 Ask, “For whom we have to argue?” In above story, you may have to argue for a biker. Or you may have to argue for the Lady or her son. Both arguments go in opposite directions because we have adversial litigation system. So decide first, for who you have to prepare case.
If you will have to think for bike rider, you will begin to see faults of lady and her son. You will begin to see laws which are in favour of biker and which are against the Lady who got hit.
If you have to prepare case for Lady and her son, you will begin to see, Laws which are against the biker.
This is in breif, how to think like a lawyer.
I have not given actual answer to the problem because I follow Rule 1 above. For me this is a hypothetical case and until someone gives me this case and asks me to give opinion on this, after giving real FIR and facts, then only I need to start thinking over this.
Haresh Raichura 30/9/2017