Aaron Rodriguez
Finance 2050
Professor Khan
December 7th, 2017
Case Briefings
Name of the Case: The Oculist’s Case (1329)
Statement of the Facts : The defendant, attempting to heal the plaintiff, left him blind in one eye. The plaintiff has sued in trespass
Issue ( Question); Can he assign no trespass in his person, inasmuch as he submitted himself to care
Rule ( Statement of the law): The person who kills another person has committed murder
Application: If they are a professional and cause harm to another person and there is no intent then they cannot be held liable.
Conclusion: Since the person is a doctor and did not do it intentionally but on accident he is not liable for the death
Name of the Case: Kuehn v Pub Zone ( 2003)
Statement of the Facts : Maria Kerkoulas owned the pub zone bar. She knew that several motorcycle gangs frequented the tavern. From her past conversations with the police she knew that gangs, including Pagans, were dangerous and prone to attack customers for no reason. Kerkoulas posted a sign prohibiting any motorcycle gangs from entering the bar while wearing “colors” which is insignia of the gang. Rhino, Backdraft and Several other Pagans, all wearing colors, pushed their way passed their taverns bouncer and approached the bar. Although Kerkoulas saw their colors she allowed them to stay for one drink. Backdraft then moved towards the back of the pub, and Kerkoulas believed they were departing. In fact they were following a customer named Karl Kuehn to the men’s room where they savagely beat him. Kuehn was knocked unconscious and suffered brain hemorrhaging, disc herniation, and numerous fractures of facial bones. Keuhn then sued Pub Zone.
Issue ( Question): Is Pub Zone liable for the injuries that Kuehn endured and have a duty to protect him?
Rule ( Statement of the law): Whether a duty exists depends upon an evaluation of a number of factors including the nature of the underlying risk of harm, that is, its foreseeability and severity, the opportunity and ability to exercise care to prevent the harm, the comparative interest of and the relationships between or among the parties and, ultimately, based on considerations of public policy and fairness, the societal interest in the proposed solution
Application: A duty of care does not exist because the plaintiff new that the likelihood of the incident to happen could happen because of past experiences
Conclusion: Pub Zone was only obligated to employ reasonable safety precautions to fulfill its duty. The practice of calling the police when “colors were worn by bikers had proven to be effective. The evidence shows the prohibition was not enforced therefore reasonable precautions were not taken against the attack and the pub is liable.
Name of the Case: Tarasoff v Regents ( 1969)
Statement of the Facts: On October 27, 1969, Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff. Tatiana parents claimed that two months earlier, Poddar confided his intention to kill Tatiana to Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist employed by the University of California at Berkeley. They sued the university, claiming that Dr. Moore should have warned Tatiana and/or should have arranged for Poddars confinement
Issue ( Question) : Did Dr. Moore have a duty to Tatiana Tarasoff, and did he breach the duty?
Rule ( Statement of the law): one person owed no duty to control the conduct of another, nor to warn those endangered by such conduct of another, nor to warn those endangered by such conduct of another.
Application: : In their view, once a therapist does in fact determine, or under applicable professional standards reasonably should have determined, that a patient poses a serious danger of violence to others, he bears a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim of that danger
Conclusion: The therapist was able to forecast the danger to the public.
Name of the Case: Griggs vs Duke Power Co. (1970)
Statement of the Facts Duke Power Company was a public utility corporation that was involved in the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electric power to the general public in North Carolina and South Carolina. Duke Power also supplied electric power to federal government agencies and, for that reason, was subject to an Executive Order that prohibited discrimination in employment
Issue ( Question) : did title 7 of the 1964 civil rights act require that employment tests be job related
Rule ( Statement of the law): To achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove barriers that have operated in the past to favor a identifiable group of white employees over other employees
Application: Negros cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited
Conclusion: On the record before us, neither the high school completion requirement nor the general intelligence test is shown to bear a demonstrable relationship to successful performance of the jobs for which it was used.
Name of the Case: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food and Drug Administration ( 2011)
Statement of the Facts: The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act instructed the FDA to issue regulations requiring cigarette packaging to contain images depicting the negative consequences of Smoking After holding hearings on its proposed regulation, the FDA issued final rules, which required the top half of all cigarette packs to depict the adverse effects of smoking. Tobacco companies filed suit to challenge the FDA regulation, claiming the rule violated the First Amendment by requiring them to speak against their will. The FDA argued it was just educating the public with factual information
Issue ( Question) Could the FDA compel tobacco companies to put graphic and emotionally charged warning labels on their products.
Rule ( Statement of the law): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Application: The district court had applied a stringent standard, called “strict scrutiny,” for analyzing the constitutionality of the rule
Conclusion: A divided Court of Appeals affirmed the district court judgment striking down the FDA’s graphic warning rule.
Name of the Case: United States v BIswell (1972)
Statement of the Facts Biswell operated a pawnshop and had a license to sell “sporting weapons” Treasury Agents demanded to inspect Biswell’s locked storeroom. The officials claimed Gun Control Act of 1968 gave them the right to search without a warrant.
Issue ( Question) : Did the agent's warrantless search violated the Constitution?
Rule ( Statement of the law) :Any records or documents required to be kept by such dealer , and ny firearms or ammunition kept or stored by such a dealer.
Application: When a dealer chooses to engage in this pervasively regulated business and to accept a federal license, he does so with the knowledge that his business records firearms, and ammunition will be subject to effective inspection.
Conclusion: Regulatory inspections further urgent federal interest, and the possibilities of abuse and the threat to privacy are not of impressive dimensions, the inspection may proceed without a warrant where specifically authorized by statute. The seizure of respondent’s sawed-off rifles was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Comments
Post a Comment