Name: Dat Nguyen

BUS-230-HA

Instructor: Prof. Raphael J. Glinbizzi

Date: Feb.23, 2009

Homework #1

Chapter 3:

3.1 Federal Question:

Yes, the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear this case because the federal courts have

exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases involving patent cases.

3.2 In Personam Jurisdiction:

Yes, the service of process is good. In this case, if the process server cannot give the

summons directly to the defendant, he is permitted to leave the papers in the mailbox.

3.3 Long-Arm Statute:

No, Oklahoma has no jurisdiction over Magna Verde Corporation because this firm had

never done any business in Oklahoma, and no relationship existed between the state and

this case.

3.4 Minimum Contacts:

Yes, the defendants are subject to suit in California. The magazines had a significant

circulation in California – selling about 600,000 copies each week out of a total national

circulation of about 5,000,000 copies per week. Moreover, a plaintiff was a resident in

California and information which was written in the article made harm plaintiff’s career

there. In another words, Enquirer committed torts within the state.

3.8. Arbitration

Yes, the arbitration agreement is enforceable under The Federal Arbitration Act. The

advertisement about Armor Plate 3000 was published after the agreement in 1983. And it

referred to comparative superiority of a Brunswick bowling product over one of AMF.

Chapter 4:

4.1 Intentional Tort:

Yes, the defendants are liable for the injuries suffered by David Manning when a ball

thrown by Grimsley struck him. The Court held that the defendants were liable for the

intentional tort of battery under the transferred intent doctrine. Under this doctrine, the

law transfers the perpetrator’s intent from the target person to the actual victim of the act.

4.2 Merchant Protection Statute:

No, K-Mart is not liable to Johnson for false imprisonment because K-Mart was protected

under Merchant Protection Statutes. First, K-Mart had reasonable grounds to suspect

Johnson of shoplifting because the price tag remained on the child’s seat and Johnson

was hurrying to leave the store. Second, Johnson was detained for a reasonable time, in

this case, for not more than 20 minutes. And third, the investigation was conducted in a

reasonable manner. The security guard requested Johnson to return to the store, she was

questioned in a reasonable manner, and was released as soon as the evidence indicated

that she had not shoplifted the child’s seat.

4.3 Trespass:

McKinsey wins because Wade committed willfully and wantonly injures a trespasser by

setting traps. And its consequence is that the trespasser was killed.

4.4 Negligence:

No, the Auto Club is not liable. The Auto Club’s Tourbook never made a claim that the

listing and rating service included a finding that the neighborhood surrounding the motel

was safe or that its security measures were adequate. The Tourbook only addressed the

motel’s accommodations as to the quality of its lodging, food, and services. The scope of

any duty of care owed by Auto Club to its members did not extend to neighborhood

safety and security measures.

4.5 Causation:

Yes, there is causation linking the negligence of the defendants to the fatal accident in

which Mr. Davis was killed. A person who commits a negligent act is not liable unless

this act was the actual cause and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. In this case, if

General Motors had not negligently manufactured the alternator, the truck would not

have stalled, and there would not have been a stationary vehicle on the freeway for the

decedent to hit. Therefore, causation in fact existed.

4.6 Negligence Per Se:

Julius Ebanks wins. The Court held that he could recover damages from the New York

City Transit Authority for the injuries suffered when his foot became caught in the

escalator under the doctrine of negligence per se. The building code established the

requirement that a “gap” between an escalator step and escalator wall not exceed 3/8-

inch. Evidence showed that the gap in this case in which Ebanks’ foot became caught

was 2 inches, therefore violating the building code. The building code was adopted by

the city to prevent the type of injury suffered by Ebanks and that he was within the class

of persons to be protected by the building code. Therefore, Transit Authority is liable.

4.7 Liability of Landowners:

Wagners wins. In this case, Doehring was a trespasser. The court heal that an owner does

not owe a duty of ordinary care to a trespasser. Wagners does owe a duty not to willfully

or wantonly injure Doehring. In fact, he marked the chain with reflectors and signs. Thus,

Wagners is not liable.

4.8. Liability of Common Carrier:

Carmen and Carla Lopez win. The Court held that the Southern California Rapid Transit

District breached its duty of care and failed to protect Carmen and Carla from the violent

attack they were victims of while riding an RTD bus. RTD imposes a duty of utmost care

rather than ordinary care on its passengers. The driver was notified of this problem but

ignored it. There is a special relationship exists between the carrier and the passenger

because bus passengers have no control over who is admitted onto the bus, and are fully

dependent on the bus driver to summon help or provide a means of escape when an

occasion arises where such assistance is necessary. Further, the RTD was aware of

previous violent attacks that had occurred on its bus routes. For all of these, therefore,

RTD should be liable.

4.9 Emotional Distress:

Gregory wins. In this case, Gregory sued the defendants (1) for negligence to recover for

his sister’s death and (2) for negligent infliction of emotional distress to recover damage

for the severe distress he suffers and (3) this emotional distress was caused by observing

his sister’s death.

4.10 Defense:

The defendants win. In this case, Maddox (1) had knowledge of the specific risk with the

fact that he commented about the wet field several times to the club’s manager and (2) he

voluntarily assumed that risk with the fact that he continued to play.