Civil Procedure
A customer shopping at a retail store slipped and fell. She thereafter brought a diversity action against the store in federal court, alleging negligence. The complaint did not provide any factual details about the incident or the alleged cause of the incident. Instead, the complaint merely recited the laws and regulations that the customer believed the store had violated. The store’s owner filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Is the court likely to grant the store’s motion?
Yes, because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
A woman was reading a book in a public library. A security guard at the library saw a man outside approaching the library. The security guard recognized the man as someone who had previously caused problems in the library. Although the man had not been banned from the library, the security guard locked the only door, preventing the man from entering. The security guard kept the door locked for 15 minutes, until the man decided to leave on his own. The woman in the library did not attempt to leave during this time and was unaware that the security guard had locked the door.
Has the security guard committed the tort of false imprisonment against the man or the woman?
No, not against either the man or the woman.
What is Jury nullification? When does it occur?
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.
A person has a seizure and, while falling, knocks over a display and causes an injury to a person near the display. What crime, if any, are they guilty of?
They would not be guilty of a crime for the injury because a key element of the crime is a "voluntary act," which includes conscious bodily movement or a physically capable omission to act. A seizure-induced act is involuntary.
A plaintiff filed an action in federal court against an individual out-of-state defendant. The summons and complaint were served at the defendant's workplace in his home state, where the process server handed the documents to the defendant's boss, who was the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the company.
Was service of process effectively made on the defendant according to the federal rules?
No, because an individual defendant may not be served process by delivering the summons and complaint to a third party at the defendant's workplace.
While hiking in the woods, a hiker saw an acquaintance a little way down the trail. The hiker was very afraid of all snakes, and the acquaintance knew about the hiker’s fear. Wishing to scare him, the acquaintance told the hiker that a small rope in her hand was a snake that she had just found and said she was going to toss it to the hiker. The hiker could only vaguely see something in the acquaintance's hand and became very apprehensive that he was about to be hit by a snake. The hiker started freaking out and shouting for the acquaintance to stop. The acquaintance then swung her hand back like she was going to throw the object in it at the hiker, but she then broke down laughing instead of throwing anything. Although the hiker was never hit by anything, he suffered emotional distress.
If the hiker sues the acquaintance for assault, is it likely that the hiker can establish all the elements of an assault claim?
Yes, because the combination of the acquaintance's words and hand action made it reasonable for the hiker to believe a battery was about to occur.
Intending to kill his neighbor, a man waited at an overpass above the neighbor’s driving route and watched the street below for his neighbor’s car. When he saw a car of the same make and model, he dropped a piece of concrete through the windshield, killing the driver. The driver turned out to be a stranger who happened to drive the same type of car as the man’s neighbor.
The man was charged with first-degree murder, defined in relevant part as intentionally causing the death of another.
Which of the following doctrines would a prosecutor most likely use to prove the mens rea element of the crime?
Transferred Intent.
A law student was walking on the sidewalk after a job interview at a law firm. As the law student waited at a stop sign, he noticed a sports car speeding toward the intersection. The driver of the sports car swerved onto the sidewalk, and the law student jumped back in fear of being hit by the car. At the last moment, the car swerved back into the street and drove away without hitting the law student. The law student has subsequently been prescribed medicine to treat his severe anxiety caused by the experience.
A lawyer who had interviewed the law student for the job but was otherwise unrelated to him was walking down the same sidewalk. She was never in the way of the sports car or in any danger of being hit, but she had nightmares for weeks from the shock of seeing the law student almost get run over by the car.
Who can successfully sue the driver of the sports car to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress
The law student.
A plaintiff sued a defendant for emotional distress that he suffered when he witnessed an accident in which the defendant's car crashed into the car belonging to the plaintiff's brother. The action was brought in a jurisdiction where the "impact rule" requires a physical impact to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff claimed that although he was merely a bystander, he was splashed with rainwater when the cars collided, and that the splash satisfied the impact rule. The defendant filed an answer denying that the plaintiff was splashed with rainwater, and then filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff filed a response asserting that he was splashed, but did not submit supporting evidence.
Is the court likely to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss?
No, because the plaintiff's complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted.
A man and a woman who were playing pool in a bar began arguing. The man called the woman an obscenity, prompting the woman to slap the man across the face. The man shouted “I’m gonna kill you!” and pulled out a knife. The man then lunged for the woman. The woman had a handgun hidden in her purse and pulled it out in self-defense.
In the torts context, does the woman have a lawful right to use deadly force in self-defense against the man?
Yes, because the man’s threat to use deadly force was disproportionate in response to a slap.
A person tries to steal a car but only gets as far as sitting in the driver's seat and trying the ignition. According to Missouri Statutes, what can they be charged with?
Under RSMo 562.012, they could be charged with an attempted robbery because their actions constitute a substantial step towards the crime and are strongly corroborative of their intent to steal the car.
A woman was approached by a robber brandishing a gun. The woman fled into the street, where she was struck by a taxi and injured. An ambulance arrived and, rather than taking the woman to the closest hospital, the ambulance driver decided to drive the woman to a hospital that was slightly farther away because he had heard that the closer hospital was very busy. On arrival, a heavily intoxicated doctor, who had just reported to work after drinking alcohol for several hours at a nearby bar, operated on the woman. The doctor made a number of mistakes during the surgery, and the woman died on the operating table.
Assuming they were all “but for” causes of the woman’s death, what would most likely also amount to an independent intervening cause of the woman’s death, absolving the robber from criminal liability for her death?
The doctor’s action of performing surgery while intoxicated.
On April 7, a man filed suit in federal court against a baseball team for injuries he sustained from a foul ball at a game. On April 14, the team filed its answer, claiming that the man had assumed any possible risks when he attended the game. On May 13, discovery ended, and a pretrial conference was held on May 30, with trial to begin on September 1. On June 18, the baseball team moved for summary judgment, arguing that the man did not have enough evidence to support his claim because he was relying on the testimony of a single witness who contradicted herself in a deposition. There was no court order or local rule that determined when the motion for summary judgment could be made.
How would the court most likely rule on the motion?
Deny the motion, because it was made over 30 days after the close of discovery.
A vendor supplied restaurants with fresh produce. The vendor delivered the produce using a refrigerated truck. One day, the vendor negligently caused a car accident and totaled the refrigerated truck. The vendor was then unable to fulfill its produce orders for the next week. A salad-bar restaurant, which was one of the vendor’s customers, had to close for several days as a result. The restaurant owner wanted to bring a lawsuit against the vendor to recover profits that the restaurant had lost during the closure. Assume that the general rule on pure economic loss in a negligence claim applies (not a special exception).
Is it likely that the restaurant’s lost profits are a recoverable type of damages in a negligence claim against the vendor?
No, because the restaurant’s damages were purely economic damages (without any accompanying physical injury) that are generally not recoverable in a negligence action.
Explain the difference in these two situations regarding whether they are or are not felony murder.
Situation A: A defendant robs a store, and during the robbery, an employee is killed.
Situation B: A defendant gets into a fight, punches the victim, and the victim dies from the blow.
Situation A: The robbery is an independent felony that is not an integral part of the killing, so it does not merge. The defendant could be charged with felony murder based on the robbery.
Situation B: The assault is part of the act that caused the death, so it merges into the murder. The defendant would be charged with murder, not felony murder, based on the assault.
A plaintiff sued a defendant in State A for breach of contract. The defendant resided in State A and the plaintiff resided in State B. The plaintiff’s only contact with State A was the plaintiff’s contract with the defendant. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff was not a resident of State A.
Is a court likely to grant the defendant’s motion on this basis?
No, because the plaintiff consented to the court’s personal jurisdiction by filing suit in State A.
A plaintiff filed an action in state court, alleging that the defendant, her employer, had violated a provision of the state’s antidiscrimination law. The defendant consented to the trial court’s jurisdiction and venue. The court dismissed the original action with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and appeals were unsuccessful. The plaintiff filed a new action in federal court, bringing claims under both federal and state antidiscrimination laws with the same factual allegations and regarding the same timeframe.
Will the defendant be successful if it argues that claims in the federal action are barred by the doctrine of res judicata?
Yes, because dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits.
Ernie let his roommate borrow his car for the specific purpose of picking up some cheesesteaks that the roommates ordered for dinner. The roommate drove to the mall where the cheesesteak store was located and parked there. Instead of going directly to the cheesesteak store, the roommate went into a record store, browsed, and purchased a CD. The roommate then went to the cheesesteak store and picked up the order which had been ready for 15 minutes. Just as the roommate left the store to return to Ernie’s car, another car struck Ernie’s car, causing extensive damage. If Ernie sues roommate on a negligence theory, who will prevail?
Roommate, because he did not create a foreseeable risk of damage to Ernie’s car.
Tom had a heart ailment so serious that his doctors had concluded that only a heart transplant could save his life. They therefore arranged to have him flown to another city to have the operation performed. Dan, Tom's nephew, who stood to inherit from him, poisoned him. The poison produced a reaction which required postponing the journey and keeping Tom in the hospital. The plane on which Tom was to have flown crashed, and all aboard were killed. Tom passed away the day after the plane crash. The autopsy concluded the poison killed Tom, but that his heart was so weak he would have died within several days even had he not been poisoned. What is the most severe crime, if any, can Tom be charged with?
First-degree murder.
A woman shopping at a hardware store saw a light fixture on display at the end of an aisle. The light fixture's box had a label that read: "Clearance – glass cracked." The woman found a replacement part for the cracked glass and purchased both items.
After the woman installed the light fixture, she flipped the switch and the entire fixture exploded, injuring her. The woman brought a strict products liability suit against the manufacturer of the light fixture. During discovery, it was revealed that the light fixture's internal electrical wiring did not adhere to the manufacturer's design specifications.
Will the woman likely prevail in her strict products liability lawsuit?
Yes, because the light fixture’s internal wiring did not adhere to te manufactures design speciications.