8 Chapter Seven
driver’s insurance. Without the costs of litigation and excessive jury awards, insurance premiums
would be less.
Cons:
All costs of the injury fall on the victim, who is usually blameless, or at least less blameworthy than
the perpetrator. Not every victim is covered by, nor can readily afford, adequate insurance against
such eventualities (nor can all defendants provide insurance coverage). Even when mandated by
law, many persons fail to purchase policies. The proposed rule violates the maxim of equity:
“There shall be no wrong without a remedy,” (assuming that negligence is a wrong even though it
is a manifestation of human nature). Lack of legal responsibility may lead to erosion or some would
argue further erosion of personal responsibility for ones own personal behavior.
8. Yes, to both. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s finding that the defendant acted reasonably
and with probable cause. The court first addressed the issue of probable cause. Under a Wisconsin
statute, it is the merchant’s privilege to detain a shopper who stole the merchant’s goods. The court
held as a matter of law that the merchant, through its security guard, had probable cause to believe
9. Under the common law, if an automobile is loaned to someone who misuses it, such as running it
into a tree, a civil conversion (equivalent to theft) of the car has occurred. But when a car is loaned,
there is an implied promise that it will be returned. Can it also be said that sperm is “loaned” during
sexual intercourse? Even if that legal hurdle is overcome, what would be the monetary value of the
“misused” sperm? Perhaps the best theory of Mr. Wallis is fraud, i.e., misrepresentation of a
material fact that is relied upon and damages the victim. But what would be the damages? Would
the legal obligation to pay future child support be more than offset by the value of love and
affection of one’s child? A demurrer was sustained to the lawsuit and the dismissal upheld on
10. Yes, the Carter’s can recover without specific proof they were observed. Because the scratched
mirror and the hole in the wall of Room 221 gave Room 221 secret viewing access from the
adjoining room, a jury could find a wrongful intrusion into the Carters’ right to privacy, and a jury