Today in BarBri was more on tort law, and in the course of the lecture the professor went over animal law. Basically, if you have a domesticated animal that hurts someone you must have behaved non-negligently with respect to the animal in order not to be liable for the injury. But if you have a wild animal you are liable for any injury it causes no matter how much care you took trying to prevent it.
The professor went on, "Look, on the exam, for a domesticated animal the example will be a dog. And an example of a wild animal will be something like a lion. Don't drive yourself crazy while you are studying trying to figure out the rules for weird animals like llamas and such."
I'm sure he thought he had come up with an obscure hyberbole to illustrate his point, but he was wrong. First, a friend noted that it was not an academic question, since one of his relatives actually had a llama farm. It might therefore have actually been handy to know, in fact, what the related liablity would be.
Then during my swim lessons later today, during Zoo, when it was my turn to pick the animal, on a lark since they were on my mind I proposed that we be llamas. I was prepared for my suggestion to be too esoteric and stump the kids, at which point I'd have to explain to them what a llama was, but I was wrong.
Me: "Do you know what a llama looks like?"
Girl: "I saw a llama today."
Me (incredulously): "Really???"
Girl: "Yes, there was one at the zoo."
Llamas, it seems, are everywhere. Which is just further confirmation of what everyone says, that the bar exam doesn't test law that anyone uses. Because if it did, clearly we would have learned about llama liability.
Edit 6/28: ¡Cuidado - hay llamas!
Photo by Adam Badik. Used by permission.