Assumption of Risk in Sports: Astrid vs. Ragged Mountain

Negligence Case: Astrid vs. Ragged Mountain

• Ragged Mountain will likely assert assumption of risk as a defense, especially given the state statute for skiers.
• The central issue questions whether the state statute establishing skiers' assumption of risk bars Astrid's suit, where the decision would likely be that it does, because the legislature strengthened the assumption of risk rule.
• Even if the statute only applies to skiing, Astrid's lawsuit would likely fail because assumption of risk generally applies to sporting events unless the host creates unreasonably dangerous, un warned conditions.
• If Astrid was partly at fault, comparative negligence might reduce damages based on her contribution to the accident.

Debate: Assumption of Risk in Sports

• Imposing less liability on sports operators may reduce their investment in safety measures like trail maintenance and ski patrol.
• Applying assumption of risk can lead to cheaper tickets for sports like Alpine skiing due to lower liability insurance costs.
• Participants aware they cannot sue might engage in less reckless behavior.

Negligence and Foreseeability: Jana's Truck

• Raphael can probably recover from Jana if he proves Jana owed him a duty of care, she breached it, he was injured, and the breach caused the injury.
• Jana's actions breached reasonable care, and the falling billboard directly caused Raphael's injury.
• Liability hinges on whether Raphael can connect the breach of duty to the injury, involving a test of proximate cause and foreseeability of the harm.

Defense Against Negligence Claim: The Electrician Case

• Metal Fabrication Company can argue it had no duty to warn the electrician, Nouri, because he should have been aware of the risks due to his experience.
• Comparative negligence could be raised to weigh both parties’ negligence.
• Assumption of risk defense could be used, claiming the electrician voluntarily entered a dangerous situation.

Duty of Care: Weatherford Hotel Case

• Establishing negligence requires proof of duty of care, breach, causation, and legally recognizable injury.
• Business owners must use reasonable care to protect business invitees, including warning of unreasonably dangerous conditions.
• The hotel may have breached its duty by encouraging balcony use while having a dangerous window configuration with a significant drop.
• Potential harm should have been anticipated, and the condition could have been easily remedied.
• The hotel might argue the window/balcony configuration was so obvious it wasn't liable, but the court concluded that the Weatherford did breach its duty of care to Lucario.

Establishing Negligence: Auto Accident Case

• Demonstrating negligence requires proving duty of care, breach, causation, and legally recognizable injury.
• Bailey's duty to Rawls included precautions such as braking, turning, remaining in control of his vehicle, and paying attention to the surroundings.
• Bailey breached his duty by rear-ending Rawls, causing harm. Punitive damages might apply if Bailey was grossly negligent.

Duty of Care to Employees: West Star Transportation Case

• Central to negligence is the duty of care, measured by the reasonable person standard.
• West Star was negligent in failing to provide a safe workplace, as shown by failing to refuse a dangerous job or taking appropriate safety precautions.

Proximate Cause and Arson: Pritchard's Fire

• In arson causing death cases, a jury can find Pritchard guilty if Sparks' death was a direct proximate result of Pritchard’s actions.
• Pritchard should have anticipated firefighters responding to the fire.

Social Host Liability: Bowden Cookout Case

• In some states, statutes may provide a basis for imposing liability on social hosts.
• In the absence of specific laws, alcohol beverage control statutes may be applicable, possibly extending to social hosts.
• Public policy may treat underage individuals without full adult capacity and hold social hosts liable for serving alcohol to them knowingly.
• Some courts might not hold social hosts liable for torts committed by intoxicated guests if the underage drinkers are considered adults.

Product Liability Theories: Kolchek and the Spa

• Kolchek can sue Great Lakes for product liability based on negligence.
• Claims against Great Lakes and Porter can assert strict product liability for spa design defects and inadequate warnings.

Privity of Contract: Product Liability Claims

• Injured consumers can bring product liability or strict liability claims against manufacturers despite the lack of a direct contractual relationship.
• Potential defendants include manufacturers, sellers, and lessors.

Requirements for Strict Product Liability: Great Lakes Spa

• The product must be in a defective condition when sold.
• The defendant must sell or distribute such products in the ordinary course of business.
• The product must be unreasonably dangerous.
• The plaintiff must suffer physical harm/property damage due to product use.
• Injury must be proximately caused by the defect.
• The product must not be substantially changed since sale.

Potential Defenses: Product Liability

• Comparative negligence allows the jury to compute the contributions of both parties to the situation.
• This results in reduction or elimination of the plaitiff's recovery.
• Leaving a young child unnattended may be deemed negligant and thereby reduce the plaitiff's ultimate recovery.

Debate: Liability Suits Against Tobacco Companies

• Some argue smokers know the health dangers, making it a personal choice, meaning there should be no liabilility.
• Others argue cigarette companies misled consumers, warranting liability for smoking-related deaths, especially in the past.

Product Liability and Failure to Inspect: Rim Corporation

• The manufacturer is liable for injuries to the user if a failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product.
• Failure to inspect is failure to use due care, thus making the Rim Corporation liable to the injured buyer, Uri.

Defense of Preemption: Bensing Company Drug Labeling

• Bensing can assert preemption: injured parties can't sue manufacturers of defective products subject to comprehensive federal regulations.
• Compliance with federal drug-labeling requirements protects Bensing from state law liability.

Product Misuse: Stark vs. Ford Motor Co.

• Ford cannot claim Cheyenne misused the seatbelt because it is reasonably foreseeable that a child would wear a seatbelt incorrectly without understanding the risks.

Product Liability and Distraction: Durkee vs. Geologic Solutions

• The accident was caused by Jett's inattention, not the texting device.
• Manufacturers don't have to design products incapable of distracting drivers or guarding against commonly known hazards.
• The duty owed by a manufacturer to the user or consumer of a product does not require guarding against injuries that result from a user's careless conduct.

Product Liability: Duval Ford Case

• Lesnick can't claim Duval and Burkins failed to warn him of the lifted truck's risks because there was nothing inherently dangerous about the truck when sold and Lesnick was aware the truck was lifted.

Defenses to Product Liability: Pfizer, Inc.

• Pfizer's best defense is preemption: Federal law preempts state-law product liability claims when there is a comprehensive federal regulatory scheme.
• Drug makers approved through the FDA’s ANDA process can't change labels without FDA approval, creating an ongoing federal duty of sameness.

Product Misuse with Snapchat

• Manufacturers must use reasonable care to reduce risks from products when selecting from altnerative designs.
• A manufacturer may have a design duty, even when injury is caused by a third-party tortious use of a product.

Product Liability: Bret D'August Case

• The court should dismiss D’Auguste’s complaint as there is no proof as to whether the crack in the hell housing was substantial enough to have caused D’Auguste’s left ski to come off and there is no evidence that the crack consituted a defect.
• D’Auguste could still show that there was a defect in the binding and suceed if his action if he could prove the product did not preform as intended and exclude all other causes for the product’s failure that ar not attributable to the defendant.
• D’Auguste assumed the risk by asserted that he was an experience skier who chose the ski on the icy trail and an be argued he would of known that injuries occur on ski slopes, thus assuming those risks,.
• The manufacturer could claim under the comparative negligence doctrine, that D’Auguste's negligence contirbuted to his injusry.

Theft of Trade Secrets: Roslyn's Kitchen

• Roslyn committed theft of trade secrets by contacting Organic's suppliers and customers, as these lists are protected, and Roslyn most likely signed a contract agreeing not to use the information outside of Organic.

Patent Infringement: Global Products vs. World Copies, Inc

• This is patent infringement, a software maker might protect its product, save on litigation costs, and benefit from its patent through a license.

Intellectual Property: Professor Wise Case

• Professor Wise will prevail, as he has not violated federal copyright laws. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, the reproduction of copyrighted works for teaching services falls under the “fair use” doctrine and is not an infringement of copyright.

Copyright Infringement: United Fabrics International, Inc. vs. Macy’s, Inc.

• Copyright owners protect themselves by registering their copyrights, and this registration is evidence that the copyright is valid. If Macy's wants to challenge the validity of United Fabrics registered copyright, Macy's needs to present evdience that the copyright is invalid.

Denied Patent: Raymond Gianelli Case

• One ground on which the denial of the patent application of the Rowing Machine could be reversed on appeal is that the design of the "Rowing Machine" is not obvious in light of the design of the "Chest Press Apparatus for Exercising Regions of the Upper Body."

Patent Infringement: Finjan, Inc. vs. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.

• Yes, Blue Coat's product infringed on Finjan’s patent as a firm that makes, uses, or sells another's patented product or process commits the tort of patent infringement.

Fair Use Denfense: Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. vs. ComicMix, LLC

• The appeals court ruled ComicMix's mash-up book was not a parody and it took a substantial amount from the copyrighted book and took the "heart" of the copyrighted book.

Administrative Law: SEC Enforcement Rule

• The SEC is an independent regulatory agency because the president cannot appoint and remove federal officers at the SEC.
• The new rule is likely arbitrary and capricious because no rationale was provided for a major change in a rule that should have been subjected to notice-and-comment proceedings.
• The new SEC rule is a major expansion regulatory power that is not the clear intent of Congress.
• Interpretive rules are not subject to the same level of judicial review as new substantive rules.

Administrative Law Judges: Debate

• ALJS's frequently rule against the agencies for which they work which causes a tenancy to favor more unbiased decisions.
• The system of ALJs has worked well for decades and if a party to an ALJ's decision doesn't like the outcome, that party can always appeal the decision to federal court.

Administrative Procedure Act Safeguards

• Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the administrative law judge (ALJ) must be separate from the agency’s investigative and prosecutorial staff.
• Ex parte communications between the ALJ and a party to a proceeding are prohibited.
• Under the APA, an ALJ is exempt from agency discipline except one a showing of good cause.

Firm's Opportunity to express opinion: Techplate Corporation Case

• Administrative rulemaking starts with the publication of a notice of the rulemaking in the Federal Register.
• A public hearing is held at which propogate and opponents can offer evidence and question witnesses.
• After the hearing, the agancy considers what was presented at the hearig and drafts the inal rule.

Misleading Advertising: Sage's Scooter Purchase

• This is a classic example of bait and switch advertisement- luring a customer in with a lower price iterm (the bait), then switching his interest to a more expensive item.

FTC Requirments: Sage Scooter Website Purchase

• Under the FTC's Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise, as amended to include online sales, the dealer would be required to notify Sage when the order cannot be shipped on time.
• If Sage chooses to cancel here order, then the dealer is required to issue a refund within a specific period of time.

Clerk Loan Requiring cosigner: Credit Discrimination

• The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits the denial of credit solely on the basis of race.
• A court would likely find that he dealer violated this act if the clerk required a co signer on Sage 's loan becuase of her race or gender.

Organization with Authority to Ban Sales of scooter: Safety Concern

• The CPSC is the Conumser Product Safety Commision, the organization resonisble for setting safety standards for consumer products and has the authority to can the sale of products that is deems potentially hazardous to consumers.

Debate: Lows Against Bait and Switch Advertising

• In a free society consumers can just say no so no consumer it ever forced to by anything and low priced items with expensive version should exist.
• Retailers mist be prevented from using such unethical tactics must prevent retailers form being in a sotre that is over priced.

Harm in the U.S.

• Under an extensive set of procedures established by the U.S Food and Drug Administration, which administrates the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, drugs must be show to be effective as well as safe before they may be marketed to the public.

Buys a Computer: Gert Case

• Under an extensive set of precedrues, the FDA (Food and Drug Administrations), the drugs must shown to be effective as well as safe before they may be marketed to the public. The FDA administers the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Food Labeling: McDonald's Happy Meal

• Daily nutritonal requirements would be different ecspically for children under for but it would be under the NLEA's different percentage requriments for products specifically intended for children under the age of four.

Deceptive Advertising: Marketing Inc. Case

• Ross be held personally lible for a violation of federal trade, the facts in indicate that IM’s in a appers to be a consumer, then this is violation