Chapter 7

1. Interviewing Mr. Goodright

Questions for Mr. Goodright:

 Medical Expenses:
o Can you provide a detailed list of medical treatments received since the incident?
o Do you have records of all medical bills, prescriptions, and follow-up
appointments?
o Were there any future medical treatments recommended by your doctors? If so,
what are the estimated costs?
 Lost Income:
o What was your occupation at the time of the incident?
o How much income have you lost due to your inability to work?
o Were there any bonuses, commissions, or other benefits you missed?
 Lost Future Income:
o Have your doctors indicated any long-term limitations on your ability to work?
o How has the incident affected your career prospects, promotions, or earning
capacity?
 Pain and Suffering:
o Can you describe the physical and emotional pain you’ve experienced since the
incident?
o How has the injury affected your daily life and activities?
o Have you sought therapy or counseling for emotional distress?

2. Information to Elicit for Teddy

From Medical Doctors and Psychologists:

 Medical Doctors:
o Detailed medical history, including the nature and extent of injuries.
o Treatment provided and prognosis for recovery.
o Opinions on how Teddy’s injuries were directly caused or exacerbated by the
incident.
 Psychologists:
o Evaluation of psychological trauma caused by the incident.
o Diagnosis of any conditions like PTSD, anxiety, or depression.
o Expected duration and scope of therapy required for recovery.

3. Harris v. ShopKo Stores, Inc.

Damages to Recover:

 Current medical expenses.

  Future medical expenses related to tailbone and back injuries.
 Lost wages and loss of earning capacity.
 Pain and suffering, including emotional distress.

Determining Monetary Value:

 Use medical records and expert testimony for treatment costs.

 Calculate lost wages based on employment history and potential earnings.
 Assign a value to pain and suffering using precedents and severity of impact on life.

Anticipated Defense Arguments:

 The injuries were pre-existing and not caused by the chair breaking.
 The plaintiff’s damages are inflated or exaggerated.
 The chair met reasonable safety standards, and the incident was unforeseeable.

4. Burley v. Douglas

Anticipated Problems:

 Establishing the grandfather's legal standing to file the wrongful-death claim.

 Determining whether the grandfather was an appropriate representative for the deceased
grandchildren.

Damages Under Survival Statute:

 Medical expenses incurred before death.

 Conscious pain and suffering experienced by the deceased.
 Loss of financial support and companionship.

Sufficient Standing:

 Examine state laws to determine if the grandfather qualifies as a legal representative for
wrongful death and survival claims.

5. Garzilli v. Howard Johnson’s Motor Lodges

Determining Damages:

 Pain and Suffering, Mental Anguish, and Humiliation:

o Use psychiatric evaluations and testimony.
o Quantify emotional damages based on inability to resume her career.
 Loss of Earnings:
o Project lost income over ten years using her prior earnings.
o Include lost opportunities like endorsements and professional engagements.
 Loss of Consortium:
 o Evaluate the husband’s loss of companionship and relationship quality using
testimony.

6. McMahon v. Chryssikos

Compensatory and Punitive Damages:

 Should they be allowed?

o Compensatory damages: Clearly justified for physical injuries and emotional
trauma.
o Punitive damages: Dependent on proving reckless or egregious conduct.
 Is intoxication alone enough?
o Intoxication at 0.22% may demonstrate gross negligence.
o Combine evidence of dangerous driving and disregard for safety to argue for
punitive damages.

7. Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert

Types of Damages to Seek:

 Compensatory:
o Medical expenses for physical and psychological injuries.
o Therapy costs for trauma resulting from the exorcism.
 Non-Economic:
o Pain and suffering, emotional distress, and humiliation.
 Punitive:
o Punish and deter reckless or abusive behavior by the church.

Anticipated Defense Arguments:

 The actions were part of religious practice and protected by the First Amendment.
 Plaintiff consented to the process, negating liability.
 The injuries were not directly caused by the exorcism.

Chapter 8

1. Seat Belt Defense

 Contributory Negligence:
Argue that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care by not wearing a seatbelt, which
directly contributed to their injuries. Introduce evidence such as accident reconstruction
reports showing that wearing a seatbelt would have reduced or prevented injuries.
 Comparative Negligence:
Argue that the plaintiff's failure to wear a seatbelt partly caused their injuries. Introduce
statistical data on seatbelt effectiveness to allocate a percentage of fault to the plaintiff.
  Assumption of Risk:
Argue that by not wearing a seatbelt, the plaintiff willingly exposed themselves to known
risks of injury.
 Failure to Mitigate Damages:
Argue that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to reduce the severity of their
injuries by not wearing a seatbelt. Provide expert testimony on injury severity
comparison with and without a seatbelt.
 Negligence Per Se:
Argue that failing to wear a seatbelt violates traffic laws and therefore constitutes
negligence per se. Provide evidence of legal requirements and expert testimony on
causation.
 Plaintiff's Argument:
Counter these defenses by arguing that:
o The proximate cause of the injuries was the defendant's negligence, not the
absence of a seatbelt.
o The duty to mitigate damages arises only after the accident, not before.
o Lack of a seatbelt may exacerbate but does not cause accidents.

2. Immunity for Gross Negligence (Pile v. City of Brandenburg)

 Defense Arguments:
o Qualified Immunity: Argue the officer was performing a discretionary function
and acted in good faith.
o Lack of Proximate Cause: Argue that the prisoner's criminal actions (stealing
the cruiser and reckless driving) were intervening and superseding causes.
o No Gross Negligence: Emphasize the absence of intentional or reckless disregard
for safety.
 Plaintiff's Arguments:
o Highlight that leaving keys in the ignition with a known risk of escape constitutes
gross negligence.
o Argue that immunity does not cover grossly negligent actions leading to
foreseeable harm.

3. Assumption of Risk in Carnival Rides (Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P.)

 Higher Standard of Care:

The defendant should be held to a higher standard due to the inherent risk of injury in
amusement park rides, which are under their control.
 Assumption of Risk:
The defendant might argue that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the inherent risks of
bumper cars. However, this defense may not apply if the plaintiff can show that the injury
resulted from negligence beyond the inherent risks (e.g., faulty equipment).

4. Metal Wire in Doughnut (Coulter v. American Bakers Co.)

 Defense Arguments:
 o Contributory Negligence: Argue that the plaintiff's method of consuming the
doughnut while driving contributed to the injury.
o Comparative Negligence: Allocate shared fault if the plaintiff's actions (e.g., not
chewing) exacerbated the injury.
 Plaintiff's Arguments:
o The injury was caused by the manufacturer's failure to ensure a safe product,
which was a latent defect.
o Comparative negligence should not absolve the manufacturer of liability for the
defect.

5. Clerical Error Extending Sentence (Kinegak v. State Dept. of Corrections)

 Defense Arguments:
o Sovereign Immunity: Argue the Department of Corrections is immune from suit
for clerical errors under state immunity laws.
o Lack of Intent: Emphasize the lack of malicious or intentional conduct.
 Plaintiff's Arguments:
o Argue that immunity does not apply to negligence resulting in deprivation of
liberty.
o Highlight the emotional and psychological damages suffered due to the extra
detention.

6. Negligence in Courthouse Shooting (Sczyrek v. County of Essex)

 Defense Arguments:
o Government Immunity: Argue that decisions regarding courthouse security are
discretionary functions covered by immunity.
o No Duty of Care: Claim the shooting was an unforeseeable criminal act by a
third party.
 Plaintiff's Arguments:
o Argue gross negligence in failing to enforce adequate security measures.
o Highlight that security lapses directly enabled the attack, breaching the standard
of care.

7. ATV Injury and Statute of Repose (Penley v. Honda Motor Co.)

 Information Needed:
o Statute of Repose: Confirm the exact start date (purchase date or other triggering
events).
o Disability Statute: Determine if temporary incapacitation tolls the statute of
repose.
 Outcome if Plaintiff Fails:
o The claim will be barred if the statute of repose is deemed to have expired.
 Should the Statute Apply?
o The statute of repose serves to limit liability over time but should not bar cases
involving latent defects discovered after reasonable use.
8. Defenses in Bar Fight (Duda v. Phatty McGees, Inc.)

 Defenses for Defendant:

o Self-Defense: Argue the defendant acted to protect themselves from Kevin or
Maurice.
o Defense of Others: If Kevin posed a threat, argue the defendant acted to protect
themselves or others.
o Assumption of Risk: Claim Maurice voluntarily assumed the risk by intervening
in a fight.
 Analysis:
Focus on proving that actions were reasonable under the circumstances, and the injuries
to Maurice were unintended.

Chapter 11

1. Hazardous Waste Disposal

Anyone who disposes off hazardous wastes for example toxic chemicals should be made to
answer for the results of his or her dumping under the principle of strict liability for abnormally
dangerous operations.

 Analogizing Cases: The case is similar to Rylands v. Fletcher, which imposed liability
for risky activities even where the actions are done carefully. Likewise similarly, in the
disposal of toxic wastes, courts have deemed such activity as per se dangerous because of
the risk it poses to the environment and the health of the people.
 Distinguishing Cases: As compared to those operations which are not considered to pose
an inherently abnormally dangerous risk such as transporting water, or running a factory
which does not present significant hazards, even if proper measures are taken in the
handling of hazardous wastes it is a certainty that contamination and harm will occur.
 Key Argument: The risk associated with toxic waste disposal is therefore high, and
unpredictable thus calling for strict liability to encourage absolute precaution to prevent
harms to the public.

2. Bird Fright Incident (Neagle v. Morgan)

Defendants should likely not be held strictly liable for the bird startling the plaintiff.

 Reasoning: Strict liability applies to abnormally dangerous or inherently risky

conditions. In this case, keeping a bird that occasionally flies out of its cage does not
constitute an inherently dangerous activity.
 Negligence Consideration: The defendants may, however, be found negligent for
allowing the bird to fly freely without securing its cage.
 Precedent: Cases involving domestic pets generally require evidence of the owner's
knowledge of dangerous tendencies, which seems absent here.

3. Colt Kicking Incident (Sandy v. Bushey)

Strict liability is unlikely to apply, but negligence might.

 Strict Liability: To impose strict liability for animal behavior, the animal must typically
be classified as inherently dangerous (wild) or the owner must have prior knowledge of
its dangerous propensities. Here, while the colt had known tendencies, it was not
inherently dangerous.
 Defenses: The defendant may argue contributory negligence, as the plaintiff was aware
of the colt’s tendencies yet voluntarily interacted with it.

4. Bull Incident (Kopplin v. Quade)

The court would likely consider the following in deciding liability:

 Strict Liability: Under common law, owners of trespassing animals, especially livestock,
are generally held strictly liable for damages caused.
 Factors Considered: Whether the bull's escape was due to negligence (e.g., an
improperly maintained fence) or whether it was a case of unavoidable accident.
 Public Policy: The pedigree of the heifer might influence the extent of damages but not
the liability itself.

5. Fence Post Hole Incident (Stewart v. Sam Wallace Indus. Co.)

The property owner would likely be found negligent rather than strictly liable.

 Negligence: The failure to mark the holes constitutes a breach of duty to maintain safe
premises, especially given that the plaintiff was lawfully on the property for work.
 Defenses: The defendant might argue that the plaintiff assumed the risk by working in an
area where he knew posts had been removed, or that the plaintiff was contributorily
negligent for not exercising caution in a visibly overgrown area.

6. Gasoline Trailer Explosion (Siegler v. Kuhlman)

Strict liability should likely apply.

 Abnormally Dangerous Activity: Transporting large amounts of gasoline carries

significant risks that cannot be eliminated even with utmost care. The catastrophic
consequences (loss of life and fire) make this case similar to Rylands v. Fletcher.
 Public Policy: Holding the defendants strictly liable encourages heightened care in
hazardous activities and compensates innocent victims for unforeseeable tragedies.

7. Stray Bullet (Miller v. Civil Constructors, Inc.)

The firing range is likely not strictly liable.

 Reasoning: Courts generally do not impose strict liability for lawful activities that are not
considered abnormally dangerous when conducted with reasonable precautions. Target
shooting, while risky, is not inherently dangerous if proper safety measures are in place.
 Negligence Standard: The court may assess whether the range operators failed to
provide adequate safeguards (e.g., backstops or barriers) to prevent stray bullets.
 Outcome: Without evidence of negligence or failure to adhere to safety standards,
liability is unlikely.