Complete the following problems from your textbook, located at the end of each respective chapter. Save your work as a WORD document, then SUBMIT it to the SUBMISSION LINK for this assignment.
You do not need to write out the questions. However, you must write out your responses in complete sentences. Please be very thorough and detailed. This is your opportunity to “show-off” what you learned this week.
Defamation. Richard is an employee of the Dun Construction Corp. while delivering materials to a construction site, he carelessly back Dun’s truck into a passenger vehicle driven by Green. This is Richard’s second accident in six months. When the company owner, Dun, learns of this latest accident, a heated discussion ensues, and Dun fires Richard. Dun is so angry that he immediately writes a letter to the union of which Richard is a member and to all other construction companies in the community, stating that Richard is the “worst driven in the city” and that “anyone who hires him is asking for legal liability.” Richard files a suit against Dun, alleging libel on the basis of the statements made in the letters. Discuss the result. (See intentional torts against Persons)
Negligence. Ronal Rawls and Zabian Bailey were in an auto accident in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Bailey rear-ended Rawls at a stoplight. Evidence showed it was more likely than not that Bailey failed to apply his brakes in time to avoid the collision, failed to apply his brake in time to avoid the collision, failed to keep his vehicle under control, and was inattentive to his surrondings. Rawls filed a suit in a Connectitut sate court against his insurance company, Progressive Northern Insurance Co., to obtain benefits under an underinsured motorist clause, alleging that Bailey had been negligent. Could Rawls collect? Discuss.(see unintentional torts negligence)
Product Liability. Jason Clark, an experienced hunter, bought a paintball gun and knew how to screw in the carbon dioxide cartridge, pump the gun, and use its safety and trigger. Although Clark was aware that he could, purchase protective eyewear, he chases not to buy it. Clark had taken gun safety courses and understood that it was “common sense” not to shoot anyone in the face. Clark friend, Chris Wright, also owned a paintball gun and was similarly familiar with the gun’s use and its risks. Clark, Wright, and their friends played a game that involved shooting paintball at cars whose occupants also had the guns. One night, while Clark and wright were cruising with their guns, Wright shot at Clark’s car but hit Clark in the eye. Clark filed a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer of Wright’s painting gun to recover for the injury. Clark claimed that the gun was defectively designed. During the trial, Wright testified that his gun “never malfunctioned.” In whose favor should the court rule? Why? See product liability.
Strict product liability. David Dobrovolny bought a new Ford F-350 pickup truck. A year later, the truck spontaneously caught fire in Dobrovolny’s driveway. The truck was destroyed, but no other property damaged, and no one was injured. Dobrovolny’s filed a suit in a Nebraska state court against Ford Motor Co. on a theory of strict product liability to recover the cost of the truck. Nebraska limits the application to strict product liability to situations involving personal injuries. Id Dobrovolny’s claim likely to succeed? Why or why not? Is there another basis for liability on which he might recover? Explain. (see strict product liability)
Patent Infringement. John and Andrew Doney inverted a hard-bearing device for balancing rotors. Although they obtained a patent for their investment from the U.S patent and trademark office, it was never used as an automobile wheel balance. Some time later, Exerton Corp. produced an automobile balancer that used a hard-bearing device with a support plate similar to that of the Doney’s device. Given that Doney’s had not used their device for automobile wheel balancing, does Exetron’s use of similar device infringe on the Doney’s patent? Why or why not? (see patents).
Copyright Infrigement. SilverEdge Systems Sotwere hired Cathering Conrad to preform a singing telegram. SilverEdge arranged for James Bendewald to record Conrad’s performance of her copyrighted song to post on the Web site. Conrad agreed to wear a microphone to assist in the recording, told Bendwald what to film, and asked for an additional fee only if SilverEdge used the video for a commercial purpose. Later, the company chose to post a video of a diffenrent performer’s singing telegram instead. Conrad filed a lawsuit in a federal court against SilverEdge and Bendewald for copyright infringement. Are the defendants liable? Explain. (see copyright)
Copyright. Savant Homes Inc., is a custom home designer and builder. Using what is called the “Andres Plan.” Savant built a model home un Windsor, Colorado. This was a ranch house with two bedrooms on one side and a master suite on the other, separated by a combined family room, dining room, and kitchen. Ron and Tammie Wagner toured the Savant house. The same month, the Wagner hired a builder Douglas Collins and his firm, Douglas Consulting, LLC, to build a house for them in Windsor. After it was build, Savant right infringement, alleging that the builder had a copyright infringement, alleging that the builder had copied the Andres Plan Consisted of standard elements and standard arrangements of elements. In these circumstances, has infringement occurred? Explain.
Deceptive Advertising. Brian Cleary and Rita Burke filed a suit against cigarette market Philip Morris USA, Inc., seeking class-action status for a claim of deceptive advertising. Cleary and Bruke claimed that the “light” cigarettes, such as Marlboro Lights, were advertised as a safer that regular cigarettes, even though the health effects are the same. They contended that the tobacco companies concealed the true nature of light cigarettes. Philip Morris correctly claimed that it was authorized by the government to advertise cigarettes, including light cigarettes. Assuming that is true, should the plaintiffs still be able to bring a deceptive advertising claim against the tobacco company? Why or why not?
Spotlight on the Grand Canyon- environmental impact statement. The U.S National Park Service (NPS) manages the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona under a management plan that is subject to periodic review. In 2006, after nine years of background work and completion of a comprehensive environmental plan for the park. The plan allowed for the continued use of rafts on the Colorado River, Which runs through the Grand Canyon. The number of rafts was limited, however. Several environmental groups criticized the plan because they felt that it allowed too many rafts on the river. The groups asked appellate court to overturn the plan, claiming that it violated the wilderness status of the national park. When can a federal court overturn a determination by agency such as the NPS? Explain.
Property Ownership. Madison owned a tract of land, but he was not sure that he had full title to the property. When Rafael expressed interest in buying the land, Madison sold it to Rafael and executed a quitclaim deed. Rafael properly recorded the deed immediately. Several months later, Madison learned that he had dad full title to the track of land. He then sold to Linda by warranty deed. Linda knew of the earlier purchase by Rafael but took the deed anyway and later sued to have Rafael evicted from the land. Linda claimed that because she had a warranty deed, her title to the land was better that that conferred by Rafael’s quitclaim deed. Will Linda succeed in claiming title to the land? Explain.
Eminent Domain. Some Catholic organizations propose to build a private independent middle school in a run-down neighborhood in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The asked to Redevelopment Authority of the city of Philadelphia to acquire specific land for the project and sell to them for a nominal price. The land included a house on North Eight Street owned by Mary Smith, whose daughter Veronica lived there with her family. The Authority offered Smith $12,00 for the house and initiated a taking of the property.
Smith field a suit in state court against the Authority, admitting that the house was a “substandard structure in blighted area”, but arguing that the taking was unconstitutional because in beneficiary was private. The Authority asserted that only the public purpose of taking should be considered, not the status of the property’s developer. On what basis can a government entity use of the power of eminent domain to take property? What are the limits to this power? How should the court rule? Why?