978-0078023866 Chapter 7 Internet Exercise and Supplements Part 1

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

Chapter 07 – Business Torts and Product Liability

Internet Exercise and Supplements

Answers to Internet Exercise (p.321)

1. Saints: “States that have relatively low monetary tort losses and/or few litigation risks and

relatively strong tort rules on the books. These states are well-positioned to contain their tort

liability costs in the future if the rules are implemented as written.”

2. According to the study, the United States has the highest tort costs measured as a percentage of

GDP (two percent). According to the press release, high tort costs affect United States

Answers

Answers to ‘Trampled to Death’ Questions (p.278)

a. Damour’s family blames Walmart and the police for Jdimytai’s death. They cite Walmart’s

lack of preparation, absence of training for Damour and other managerial shortcomings.

They point to what they believe to be superior crowd management practices at other large

b. Broadly, one assigns blame responsibility only to those who actually caused the wrong, or

whose negligence foreseeably led to the wrong. If people embrace a broader, more robust

sense of responsibility, they might argue for extending blame to those whose conduct, in

7-1

any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

Chapter 07 – Business Torts and Product Liability

a. Criminal conduct almost certainly was present, but after viewing surveillance tapes, the

b. This can be an opinion based question. Two kinds of conduct are at issue. Many shoppers

3. Whether viewed from a profit maximizing, long-term company interest, or triple bottom line

4. Instructors can initiate a class discussion based on this question. The incident led to the death of

Answer to ‘Nine Hours on Grounded Plane: False Imprisonment?’ Question

(p.281)

1. Ray lost her false imprisonment cause of action. Under Texas law, the elements of a false

imprisonment claim are: (1) willful detention, (2) without consent, and (3) without authority of law.

The lower court ruled that Ray could not satisfy the “without consent” requirement because she

had two opportunities to leave, and she did not notify the crew that she wanted to leave. The

Answer to ‘Father of the Child’ Question (p.281)

1. Yes, Dier can sue Peters on the basis of fraud because a material fact was misrepresented and it

Answer to ‘An Angry Dad’ Question (p.283)

1. An Essex County, New Jersey Superior Court judge dismissed Doherty defamation claim ruling

that Murray’s remarks clearly were opinions. Nor could Doherty prove Murray’s statement was

7-2

any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

Chapter 07 – Business Torts and Product Liability

Answer to ‘Justice for Consumers and for Toyota’ Question (p.290)

1. Instructors can initiate a class discussion based on this question. Students can be asked to visit

Answer to ‘Donald Trump Owes a Duty’ Question (p. 292)

1. Merrill argued that Trump owed him a duty of care. No Indiana case had addressed the extent of

Answer to ‘Do Cheerleaders Assume the Risk of Injury’ Question (p. 307)

1. This can be a discussion based question. The school district’s motion for summary judgment was

Answer to ‘Video Games and The Basketball Diaries’ Question (p. 317)

1. The parents lost. The court ruled that the plaintiffs could not establish a duty of care on the part of

the defendants since the children’s deaths were not the reasonable foreseeable result of the

Answer to ‘Kids Need to Swing’ Question (p. 319)

1. This can be discussion based question. Students might be divided into two groups to discuss the

topic—one assigned to answer the question “yes” and the other as “no” Both the groups should

Cases and Answers

7-3

any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

Chapter 07 – Business Torts and Product Liability

Answers to ‘McDonald’s “Exploding” Chicken Sandwich’ Questions (p. 297)

a. This is an opinion based question. Presumably, one expects a fried chicken sandwich to be

b. Sutton was contributory negligent (contributed to his own harm) by failing to “exercise

Answers to ‘Negligence Defenses: Introduction’ Questions (p. 306)

1. This can be a discussion based question. One point for discussion is whether there is a stronger

2. This can be a discussion based question. What other acts could an amusement park owner take?

One such act, of course, would simply be the removal of all the trampolines. Is that reasonable or

3. This can be a discussion based question. Yes, one has the duty of due care to the customers if

Michela Gallagher v. H.V. Pierhomes, LLC et al. 957 A.2d 628 (Md. Ct. of Spec.

App., 2008) (p. 285)

Syllabus

In 1997, Michaela Gallagher began living in her Inner Harbor Baltimore home which was

constructed shortly before the War of 1812. In 2003, HV Pierhomes began driving piles into the site

of the former Key Highway Shipyard as part of construction of new townhomes. Gallagher claimed

that she heard and felt vibrations from the pile driving in her home and that cracks began to

develop in her plaster walls and other portions of her home soon after the pile driving began and

that cracking stopped once the pile driving was completed. Previously, pile driving was used in

other construction projects located near Gallagher’s home.

HV Pierhomes received permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Maryland Department

of the Environment, and the City of Baltimore for the project, and conducted geotechnical studies

before the pile driving began, and monitored the vibrations to ensure that it did not exceed

acceptable limits. At trial, for the strict liability claim brought by Gallagher, the jury found for

Gallagher, but the judge granted HV Pierhomes’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict,

which was affirmed by the court of appeals, which concluded that pile driving was not an

7-4

any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

Chapter 07 – Business Torts and Product Liability

abnormally dangerous activity for which strict liability applied.

Answers to ‘Michela Gallagher v. H.V. Pierhomes’ Questions (p.285)

a. The plaintiff’s three causes of action include: strict liability, private nuisance, and public

nuisance.

b. The jury is charged with assessing the facts which rather convincingly identified damages for

c. The judge overruled the jury concluding that the applicable law did not support the jury’s

d. Strict Liability: The appeals court agreed with the circuit court that Maryland law did not

support Gallagher’s strict liability claim because the pile driving did not involve the high risk

e. This is an opinion based question. Gallagher appears to have suffered damages that can be

linked to the pile driving, but apparently the work was not negligently performed and careful

2. Yes, Rattigan and Horvitz are the victims of a nuisance. Putting the portable toilets adjacent to

the pool, landing his helicopter on his vacant lot, placing debris such as a rusted crane bucket,

Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Ia. S.Ct. 1971) (p.288)

7-5

any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

Chapter 07 – Business Torts and Product Liability

Syllabus

The defendants owned an unoccupied farm house, which had been broken into on several

occasions. In response, they boarded up the windows, erected no trespassing signs and

set-up a spring gun in one of the bedrooms. The gun was set to shoot at the legs of anyone

opening the bedroom door. No warning was posted outside the room. Plaintiff illegally entered

the house and was shot by the gun, blowing away most of his right leg. He was hospitalized

for 40 days, in a cast for about a year and required to wear a brace for another year. The jury

returned a verdict for plaintiff for $40,000. Defendants appealed. The court held the trial court’s

jury instructions were correct in stating that the law prohibits the use of spring guns unless the

trespasser is committing a felony of violence or one punishable by death, or where the

trespasser was endangering human life.

Answers to ‘Katko v. Briney’ Questions (p. 288)

1. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of Katko because the force used by the Brineys was

2. People such as firefighters, children, etc. are of concern to the court in cases like Katko.

3. Instructors can initiate a class discussion based on this question.

4. The child’s mother sought criminal charges against the store owner, but officials declined. The

Hoyt v. Gutterz Bowl & Lounge 829 N.W.2d 772 (Ia. S.Ct. 2013)

Syllabus

Defendant—appellee Gutterz Bowl & Lounge (Gutterz) is a bowling alley and tavern located in Guthrie

Center, Iowa. March 20, 2009, Curtis Hoyt and several members of his construction crew finished work

and went to Gutterz for refreshments. Curtis Knapp was also a customer at Gutterz that afternoon.

Hoyt soon came to believe that Knapp was scowling at him. Hoyt and Knapp had formerly been

friendly, but tension had arisen between them as a result of Hoyt’s alleged mistreatment of the sister of

Knapp’s friend.

After consuming a few beers, Hoyt and a coworker Chris Brittain approached and verbally confronted

Knapp. Knapp did not respond and continued to scowl at Hoyt. The waitress serving Hoyt and Brittain

observed their behavior with concern and threatened to discontinue serving them unless they calmed

down. Hoyt and Brittain ignored the waitress’s warning, and thus she requested and secured

permission from Gutterz’s owner, Rodney Atkinson, to discontinue serving them. Atkinson, who had

been preparing food in the kitchen, grew concerned that an altercation might occur.

As Hoyt walked through the parking lot toward his vehicle, [Knapp]… struck him in the back of the

head, knocking him unconscious. Hoyt filed this action alleging that Knapp and Gutterz were liable for

the injuries he sustained when Knapp assaulted him.

Answers to ‘Hoyt v. Gutterz Bowl & Lounge’ Questions (p.295)

7-6

any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

Chapter 07 – Business Torts and Product Liability

1.The Iowa Supreme Court concluded that Gutterz owed a duty of reasonable care to Hoyt

because of the risks arising from Hoyt’s conduct. According to the courts verdict, reasonable care

is also applicable to those risks created by a third party’s conduct, whether innocent, negligent, or

intentional. Also Atkinson’s own testimony regarding the concerns of a physical altercation

concludes that a reasonable person might find the risk of harm to Hoyt foreseeable.

2. Even though Hoyt initiated the conflict there was no physical injury involved. Hoyt left the bar

when requested by Atkinson. The act of strucking Hoyt in the back of the head by Knapp,

3. The dissenting opinion was based on the fact that there was no evidence or claim that prior fights

or third party criminal acts showed a need for a bouncer or other security at Gutterz. There was

4. As seen from the facts the death of Mr. Colaitis was a result of a blood-borne infection caused by

a post-operative complication and not due to the tossing of the food. Benihana steakhouse

5. TSR should not be held liable for the death of Johnny Burnett. According to the court TSR did not

owe any duty toward Watter’s son and that the suicide was an intervening superseding cause of

6. The issue here is whether liability is applicable on the miscarriage, and physical and emotional

injury caused due to the shock after witnessing her 17 months old son coming under a truck. The

7-7

any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.

Chapter 07 – Business Torts and Product Liability

7. The fireworks manufacturer could be liable as the product was defective and it did not function the

way it had to. A third person might be liable for the children’s harm such as a babysitter or the one

8. The New Mexico Supreme Court in Bouldin ruled that a vehicle owner who left his/her keys in an

unattended car does not owe a duty to one injured by the acts of a thief who steals the vehicle.

The Court had found that “as a matter of policy, the theft and subsequent accident are too remote

7-8

any manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.