Classmates v. OverEnthusiastic Class Discussion Volunteer d.b.a Gunners
323 U.Va 142 (2019)
Pickett, J., and Luévano, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Shmazzle, C.J., Elicegui, Luk, Schmid, Jones, JJ. join.
Justices Pickett and Luévano delivered the opinion of the Court.
I
Despite UVA Law’s reputation for collegiality and friendliness, there remain some students who recklessly misinterpret the school’s unwritten rules and wish to trespass upon classroom interactions to which there is no implied license and no invitation. Given the lack of understanding of the Covenant of the Cold Call, colloquially known as “Minding Your Own Business,” the Court will restore order by condemning the actions of Over-Enthusiastic Class Discussion Volunteers and defining when and how cold calls can be trespassed upon.
II
On October 3, 2019, plaintiff John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (hereinafter ‘JJJS’) suffered a common law school misfortune—he was cold called. JJJS, having been cold called just last class, mistakenly believed he was safe “at least until November.”[1] He was so confident in his safety, in fact, that he had chosen to read ahead for Civil Procedure[2] instead of reading for Torts.
As JJJS searched through his book in a panic to find the paragraph the professor was asking him about, something flickered in the corner of his eye. At first, he thought it would be a fellow student directing him to the mysterious paragraph,[3] as is the typical UVA Law way. But as he glanced over, he quickly realized that it was the section’s Over-Enthusiastic Class Discussion Volunteer (hereinafter ‘The Gunner’) who had made the motion. The Gunner stared JJJS in the eyes and, with an expression akin to that of Scar before pushing Mufasa off the ledge into a herd of stampeding wildebeests,[4] raised his hand to the sky. The professor called on The Gunner, who relieved JJJS of his duties, but the damage was done. Their classmates had witnessed a repeated, reckless disregard for the Covenant of Cold Calling.
After class, the students quickly gathered together to file a complaint on behalf of JJJS against The Gunner and those like him.[5]
III
The Covenant of Cold Calls, again known as Minding Your Own Business, provides that fellow students may intervene in a cold call only when the professor opens it up to the class or in order to subtly suggest the correct answer to their on-call classmate next to them. The Covenant strictly prohibits students from inserting themselves into an on-going cold call, particularly in order to demonstrate their own close reading abilities and self-perceived mastery of the legal issue in question.
The Covenant of Cold Calls is as old as the Cold Call itself, and it is a principle that has been passed down from Peer Advisors to 1Ls for centuries as part of Common Knowledge. First laid out in the case before a fellow court, Elle Woods v. Vivian Kensington, 317 Harv. 11, 98 (2001), the Covenant of Cold Calls was established as a general standard against making your fellow students look stupid in front of their colleagues. It has since been refined to a set of rules defining the act of Minding Your Own Business. McLovin’ v. Professors Who Don’t Cold Call in Alphabetical Order, 159 U.Va. 13, 3 (2007), first recognized the widely followed rule that classmates will always forget another’s cold call (or at least pretend to) and, if asked after class by the person on call, “Was it as bad as it felt?” always respond with “No! You did great! Plus I was barely paying attention.”
Restatement Twelve of Law School Etiquette expanded this doctrine to protect on-call students from classmates infringing upon their right to answer the question, even after taking a long pause or saying nothing in the hopes that the professor forgets they were on call. Finally, the recent case of 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22, 24 (2019), established that, “emotional distress is a harm within the risk of attending law school.” However, in Caesar v. Brutus, 114 U.Va. 19, 31 (1950), this Court clearly carved out an exception for emotional harm at the hands of sectionmates (“Like family, the bond between sectionmates is forged in the fire of 1L, and they are expected to have and protect each others’ backs.”).
The Gunner’s actions were clearly in violation of the Covenant of Cold Calls. Not only did he fail to wait for the professor to open the cold call to the rest of the class, but he also maliciously trespassed upon the cold call of another and willfully embarrassed a sectionmate. While The Gunner attempted to assert a defense of Trying to Move the Class Along, we find that this is the job of the professor, and that there is no place for a student in this duty. The Gunner should have acted like he was similarly confused about the case and comforted JJJS in the aftermath of the bloodbath with words such as, “that was totally unfair” and, “that has to be a tort, we should sue.”
IV
We hold in favor of the plaintiffs and award emotional damages in the form of a round of drinks at Bilt for JJJS and his pals,[6] which is the only proper way to respond to a brutal day of cold calls and make JJJS whole.
[1] JJJS alleges, and this Court finds as fact, that his professor used a randomized system and (almost) never cold called someone twice in a row.
[2] And catch up on the new episodes of the Great British Baking Show...but this fact is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
[3] Which, it turns out, was in a footnote. This would constitute a separate violation under the Covenant of the Cold Call, which recommends that professors avoid questions pertaining to footnotes, dissents, and other wildly unfair material found in a casebook. However, the plaintiff has not alleged that complaint today.
[4] See The Lion King (1994). Not the new one, though. It’s just not the same.
[5] The Gunner is also facing criminal charges for “Impersonating a Police Officer” or “Being a Cop,” as filed by his fellow classmates.
[6] OR if JJJS is not a drinker, we remand this case to the lower court in order to find the non-alcohol equivalent.