1. In the first scenario there is an issue where Alexis is jogging on Blake and Krystal’s land in Denver
and gets hurt. However, the por”on of land that she is jogging on is being occupied by vagrants.
These vagrants have set up an obstacle, which, has ul”mately caused Alexis’ injury. Alexis
decides she is going to sue Blake for the medical bills incurred as a result of her injury. So the
ques”on is who owns the land, and, who is responsible to pay the medical bills of the injured
party if the responsible party acted negligently.
First we will examine the ownership of the property. To determine this we must use the
rules of adverse possession.
1. Did the vagrants use or possess the property? Yes, Blake had seen camps set up on
his property, showing that they were, or had, lived there.
2. Were the vagrants openly occupying the property? Yes, as discussed in #1 Blake
knew they were there based on visible evidence.
3. Was it without permission? The evidence doesn’t say if Blake was approving or
disapproving of their ac”ons. He didn’t seem to try to stop them because he never
saw the vagrants directly.
4. Was it exclusive? The evidence seems to say no. Alexis’ jog on the property with
seemingly no connec”on to the vagrants implies that Blake’s land was a veritable
free for all.
5. Was it con”nuous? Colorado state law dictates that someone must be in adverse
possession of the property for 18 years before they can claim it. We cannot
determine from the evidence how long the vagrants have occupied the property. We
have no evidence, furthermore, to determine if they con”nuously lived there or not.
Since only 2 of the rules of adverse possession could be completely met we can
ascertain that the property was in fact owned my Blake and Krystal.
Now, did Blake and Krystal act negligently by not cleaning up the mess that caused
Alexis’ injuries during her trespassing jog through his property? In order to determine that we
need to see if it met the 4 rules of a negligent tort.
1. Did Blake and Crystal have a duty of ordinary care to make sure there property was
clear of debris? No, they did not have the ability to foresee their property to be used
as a public running course. Therefore, they would not have had the duty to make
sure said running course was free of debris.
2. Did they breach this duty? No, as explained in the previous rule, they could not have
known that it would be used in that fashion. They knew it had been used as a
vagrant’s camp ground, and that was it.
3. Was there causa”on? Yes, there failure to clean up the vagrant’s mess did in fact
cause injury.
4. Were there damages caused by this ac”on? Yes, Alexis was hurt and therefore had
medical bills to remedy her situa”on.
Since Blake and Krystal’s ac”ons did not meet all of the rules required to show a
negligent act, Alexis therefore has no case. Furthermore, Alexis’ law suit against only one of the
owner’s property is unfounded. She would have needed to have sued both owners for damages.
And, Alexis may be liable for any damages caused to Blake and Krystal’s property caused by her
trespassing.
2. In this situa”on we have an issue were it seems that Elmer has unknowingly made a quasi-
unilateral contract with Sylvester to exterminate some rabbits from his property on a weekly
basis. Sylvester honors, what he believes to be, a genuine contract and exterminates the rabbits
but Elmer says he never agreed to the contract, and furthermore, Sylvester breached the
contract by not returning the following week to exterminate the rest of the rabbits.
So, did Elmer and Sylvester enter into a legi”mate quasi contract?
1. Was there an o7er an acceptance? Yes, Sylvester made an offer and stated that
unless Elmer said otherwise, it was accepted. We will further explore the acceptance
por”on later on.
2. Was there considera“on? Elmer had ample “me (at least a week) to consider
Sylvester’s offer and to tell him it was unneeded.
3. Did Elmer have the capacity to enter into the contract? Yes, the preponderance of
the evidence does not provide any clues that Elmer did not have the capacity to
enter into a legal binding contract. Being busy does not limit one’s ability to enter
into a contract.
4. Was the contract legal? We don’t have any evidence saying the extermina”on of
rabbits in Elmer’s area is illegal, so we can only assume that it is, in fact, legal to
exterminate the rabbits. So, the contract is legal.
5. Was there genuine consent? Sylvester stated that unless Elmer said otherwise, the
