2. Pierson v. Post (Supreme Court of NY 1805) excerpt
"... Post, being in possession of certain dogs and
hounds under his command, did, 'upon a certain wild and uninhabited,
unpossessed and waste land, called the beach, find and start one of
those noxious beasts called a fox,' and whilst there hunting, chasing
and pursuing the same with his dogs and hounds, and when in view
thereof, Pierson, well knowing the fox was so hunted and pursued, did
in the sign of Post, to prevent his catching the same, kill and carry
it off."
3. Hammonds v. Central Kentucky Natural Gas Co. (Court of Appeal of Kentucky, 1934) summary
CKNGC leased tracts of land above large deposits of
natural gas. The leased tracts were separated from one another by land
owned by Hammond (who owned 54 acres). The geological dome of natural
gas from which the company drew its supply lay partially under the
leased land and partially under unleased land. When CKNGC extracted
natural gas and oil from the dome, Hammonds sued the company because
the natural gas that was under her land was wrongfully removed.
4. A county ordinance requires houses to be set back
five feet from the property line. Joe buys some heavily wooded land in
an undeveloped area and builds on it. Ten years later Fred buys the
adjoining lot has his land surveyed and discovers that Joe's house
extends two feet over the property line onto Fred's property. Joe
offers to compensate Fred for the respass, but Fred rejects the offer
and sues to have Joe relocate the house in conformity with the
ordinance.
5. The Plaintiff manufactures and sells recreational boats
nationally, and has used the mark, Slickcraft, since 1965 and federally
registered this mark in 1969. The Defendant also manufactures recreational
boats and has used the mark, Sleekcraft,
since 1968. When the Defendant adopted the Sleekcraft mark it was unaware
of Plaintiff’s mark. Plaintiff’s boats are for general family recreation,
and its advertisements focus on family fun, pleasure cruises and sunbathing.
The Defendant’s boats are high performance boats intended for racing enthusiasts
and high speed recreation, and its advertisements project an alluring,
flashier, racing image. In 1970 Plaintiff notified Defendant of potential
trademark infringement, and as a result, Defendant added a distinguishing
identifying phrase, “Boats by Nescher,” on plaques affixed to the boat
and in much off its advertising. The Sleekcraft mark still appears alone
on some stationery, signs, trucks and advertisements. Slickcraft boats
are advertised in magazines of general circulation. The Sleekcraft boats
are advertised almost exclusively in publications for racing enthusiasts.
Plaintiff brought this cause of action in 1971.
a. Identify and describe Plaintiff’s potential
cause of action.
b. What are the elements?
c. Provide an argument if you were the counselor for the plaintiff.
d. Provide an argument if you were the counselor for the defendant.
e. Identify and describe any potential defenses
that Defendant might assert.
d. Evaluate whether this cause of action would
be meritorious.
e. What penalties do you believe should be imposed?
6. Harry Potter v. Hari Puttar
The movie "Hari Puttar-A Comedy of Terrors" opened in India in Sep. 2008.
Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros. unit claimed that
the name was too close to the Harry Potter series. They believe that
the proposed title and marketing confused customers to benefit from the
Harry Potter brand.
The producers, Mirchi Movies, said the movie bore no
resemblance to Harry Potter. Hari is a common name in India. The movie
is the story of an Indian boy and his cousin forgotten at home in
Britain where his family has recently moved, in a plot similar to "Home
Alone". 10-year-old Hari Puttar must guard his scientist father's
top-security computer chip from bumbling burglars while his parents are
away.
A court in New Delhi reviewed the case.
7. Palsgraff v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928)
The Plaintiff was waiting for a train on a train
platform when a train stopped at the station. Two men caught the train
as it was pulling away from the station. The first man got on OK, but
the second was unsteady and was pulled up onto the train by a RR
security guard. As the man was pulled up, he dropped an unmarked
package (wrapped in brown paper). Nothing about the appearance of the packages indicated its contents. The
package contained fireworks, which discharged. The explosion knocked
down some scales at the other end of the platform many feet away, and
the scales struck and injured the plaintiff.
8. Jim Jr. currently earns $36,000 per year and faces a probability of
0.5 that his boss, Michael, will fire him. If he is fired, Jim Jr. will
remain unemployed for a year, earnings nothing (assume no unemployment
benefits).
a. If Jim Jr. prefers earning $18,000 with a
guarantee of employment to his current uncertain situation, what can we
say about his preferences toward risk?
b. Suppose Jim Jr. would be indifferent between the
uncertain situation and a pay cut of $20,000 per year (from his current
$36,000) in exchange for a guarantee of not being fired. What is his risk premium?
c. How do the two compensation packages influence Jim's performance? Why?
9. Vaccines
Wakefield, Andrew, et al. 1998. "Ileal-lymphoic-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children." 1998. The Lancet. Vol. 351: 637-641.
2004: The Lancet offers partial retraction. Says the article offered
"interesting ideas". Publicly revealed that Wakefield had been
paid to conduct his study on children who were clients of a lawyer who
was filing a lawsuit.
Britain's childhood
vaccination rates plummeted from about 92% in the mid 1990s to 80%
in 2004 (<70% in some areas). In 1998, England and Wales had 56
cases of measles. By 2008 that number increased to 1,370, including
some deaths.
Jan. 2010: The General Medical
Council, Britain's medical regulator, ruled that Dr. Wakefield had
acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly." The panel confimed years of
allegations that he had been untruthful about his patients and funding
and had shown a "callous disregard" for the children. The GMC is
considering whether to strip Wakefiled of his medical license.
Feb. 2, 2010. The Lancet fully retracts the original article.
Summary of the entire process.
.
--------------------------------
Hill v. Polecat Motors Inc.
Jury Selection Tue. 10 April Class
Trial Wed. 11 April 10:30-11:30 Hatton-Lovejoy Courtroom,
There is no dispute that Debra Hill purchased the
Polecat vehicle new, and that she was driving it at the time of the
collision and injuries which she sustained. She alleges the
following defects in the car:
a. Its fuel tank was located so
as to be unnecessarily vulnerable to damage and leakage in the event of
a rear-end collision;
b. Its fuel tank was designed and
constructed of materials, and configured so as to be vulnerable to
damage and leakage in the event of a rear-end collision;
c. Its fuel tank did not have a protective rubber or plastic bladder.
To prevail in this case, the plaintiff must show the
defendant negligent in the manufacture of the automobile in one of the
respects referred to in a, b, or c, and that such failure was the
proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. A finding against the
defendant on one or more of the foregoing specifications is sufficient
to sustain the first part of the foregoing requirement.
Defective Product
A product is in a defective condition unreasonably
dangerous to the user when it has a propensity for causing physical
harm beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary user or
consumer. A product is not defective or unreasonably dangerous
merely because it is possible to be injured while using it. One
engaged in the business of selling or distributing products that sells
or distributes a defective product is subject to liability for harm to
persons or property caused by the defect. Plaintiff also claims
that defendant breached its duty to purchasers of the Polecat vehicle
by failing to warn buyers of the fire danger inherent in the car.
A product may be defective because of a defect in manufacture, a defect
in design, or failing to adequately warn the consumer of a hazard
involved in the foreseeable use of the product. The defendant can
be held liable for a failure to warn if the defendant knew or had
reason to know the product was likely to be unreasonably dangerous in
its intended use, the danger was not open and obvious, the defendant
failed to exercise reasonable care to inform consumers of the
unreasonably dangerous conditions and that failure was the legal cause
of plaintiff's injury.