Thelma purchased a used truck from Hall that had been manufactured by International Harvester. To work on the truck engine, Thelma had to have the cab of the truck raised. When it was so raised, the cab fell unexpectedly and fatally injured Thelma. Suit was brought for her wrongful death against Hall and International Harvester. The suit was based on theories of negligence, strict tort liability, and breach of warranty. The defense was raised that there was no liability because the sale to Thelma had been made “as is” and the truck was a used truck. Were these defenses valid?

Olga, a resident of Maine, was recently injured by a defective product produced by Home Appliance Corporation, which is incorporated in Delaware but has its company headquarters in Virgina. Olga purchased the defective product in Maine. Olga is suing Home Appliance for $60,000. Which courts would have personal jurisdiction in this case? Would a federal court have jurisdiction? Why or why not?

5-3 PROXIMATE CAUSE. Galen Stoller was killed at a railroad crossing when a train hit his car. The crossing was marked with a stop sign and a railroad-crossing symbol. The sign was not obstructed by vegetation, but there were no flashing lights. Galen’s parents filed a suit against Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Corp. The plaintiffs accused the defendant of negligence in the design and maintenance of the crossing. The defendant argued that Galen had not stopped at the stop sign. Was the railroad negligent? What was the proximate cause of the accident? Discuss. [Henderson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., __ F.3d __ (10th Cir. 2011)] (See Negligence.)

In what has been subsequently known as the 'narrow rule', the House of Lords found that a duty of care exist even if the defendant was not present. Accordingly, manufacturers of goods must take reasonable steps to ensure that their products do not cause injury to those that subsequently come into contact with them.   Lord Atkin went on to propose a general maxim of law known as the 'neighbour principle' which would apply generally and preclude the claimant needing to bring the facts of their case within those of a previous case.   REQUIRED:   Concisely sets out what the claimant has to prove in order to succeed in an action in Negligence.                             2. Comment on the situation where the chain of event is broken by an intervening cause.

under the NCC, what are the different acts or omissions of the obligor or debtor which will result in the breach of the obligation for which he can be held liable for damages?

Paula Plaintiff owns Paula’s Boutique, one of the most popular stores in town. William Wicked owns the store next to Paula’s Boutique. William has been jealous of Paula’s success. William, in an effort to increase his own business, begins to tell his customers that Paula is dishonest and unethical. William even puts a sign in his front window warning potential customers not to shop at Paula’s Boutique because of her deceitful and unethical practices. Paula is upset when she finds out what William has been doing. Paula has always been honest and ethical with her customers and now her business is suffering because of William’s dishonesty. Paula decides that something must be done about this situation. What advice would you give Paula? Discuss the possible tort claim Paula might have against William. Be sure to include the elements of the tort and relate those elements to the scenario. If Paula decides to pursue a claim against William, should she consider a lawsuit, mediation, or…

Lend Co. discovered that one of its employees, Dana, is an alcoholic. Her manager realized that Dana's alcoholism must be the reason for her absenteeism. To help Dana overcome her alcoholiśm, the employer provided her with counseling services and also asked her to make a firm choice between treatment and discipline. Lend Co. also offered outpatient treatment, and Dana participated in the program without success. When all of these efforts failed, Lend Co. offered to provide inpatient treatment, and Dana refused. Lend Co. fired Dana. According to the courts: O A. Dana has a valid claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act because she willingly participated in the outpatient treatment, even though it did not produce positive results. O B. Lend Co. is not liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act because it offered a reasonable accommodation, and Dana refused. O C. Lend Co, is liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act because it failed to offer Dana time off from…

Joseph Burger was the owner of a junkyard in Brooklyn, New York. His business consisted, in part, of dismantling automobiles and selling their parts. The state of New York enacted a statute that requires automobile junkyards to keep certain records. The statute authorizes warrantless searches of vehicle dismantlers and automobile junkyards without prior notice. One day, five plain-clothes officers of the Auto Crimes Division of the New York City Police Department entered Burger’s junkyard to conduct a surprise inspection. Burger did not have either a license to conduct the business or records of the automobiles and vehicle parts on his premises, as required by state law. After conducting an inspection of the premises, the officers determined that Burger was in possession of stolen vehicles and parts. He was arrested and charged with criminal possession of stolen property. Burger moved to suppress the evidence. Did Burger act ethically in trying to suppress the evidence? Does the…

An intruder entered through a window and raped McCutchen in her apartment.  MCutchen sued the landlord, Ten Associates, for failure to provide adequate security and failure to warn her of the risk of intrusion through the window.  Ten Associates claimed that they had no way of anticipating an intruder.  Evidence was introduced that revealed the landlord knew or should have known of a prior rape and numerous intrusions through apartment windows.  Does it appear that Ten Associates was negligent in providing for the security of tenants?

Case4 One afternoon, the plaintiff (P) and her husband were out driving for picnic together with their three children. They pull-over in a lay-by, a designated pave area beside a main road where cars can stop temporarily, for a picnic and the plaintiff took one of the children across the road to pick flowers. The defendant, Mr. Berry (D), was driving recklessly and crashed into the couple’s van, where the plaintiff’s husband and the other children were preparing. The plaintiff’s husband was seriously hurt by the crash and died at the scene a few hours later while most of the children suffered injuries. The plaintiff witnessed the entire event and its aftermath, developed long-term “morbid depression”, consequently. Please state the four basic elements of negligence. Plaintiff sued Mr. Berry for the cost and damages as a result from nervous shock that she suffered due to the negligence of the Defendant. Please state your reasons