Forum Injury Equals Contact
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Civil Procedure1
Example wrong choices
20811_illuminated_psalms_solvent · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice AYes, because Lydia's injury was felt in Maine.
Why it's attractive
The student sees a real Maine fact: Lydia's injury was felt there. The breaker is that personal jurisdiction turns on Barnabas's forum contacts, not Lydia's forum effects.
Why it's wrong
The answer uses the location of Lydia's injury, but the call needs Barnabas's forum contacts.
Spot it next time
Mark injury location as plaintiff-side and return to defendant contacts.
20811_illuminated_psalms_solvent · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BNo, because private workshop injury claims are excluded from federal courts.
Why it's attractive
The student hears formal federal-court language and treats it as a threshold answer. The breaker is that the call asks specific jurisdiction in Maine, not a categorical federal-court exclusion.
Why it's wrong
The answer switches from personal jurisdiction to a federal-court category gate.
Spot it next time
Ask whether the answer addresses personal jurisdiction in Maine.
20811_illuminated_psalms_solvent · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice CYes, because Lydia's hardship is enough to create minimum contacts.
Why it's attractive
The student sympathizes with Lydia and wants the fair forum to win. The breaker is that fairness is second-layer and cannot create the first-layer minimum contacts.
Why it's wrong
The answer treats hardship and fairness as if they create minimum contacts.
Spot it next time
Say: contacts first, fairness second.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →