Part 1 – Product Liability
- Mary Victim was injured when the car she was driving crashed. It was proven the car’s steering was defective and that was the proximate cause for the accident. Mary sues Car Company, Inc. Mary proves that (1) Car Company was negligent in the design of the car and (2) that Car Company is strictly liable as a matter of public policy for putting a dangerous car on the market.
Mary’s medical bills, pain/suffering, lost wages, etc. are $1.5 million. Will a judge order Car Company to pay Mary $1.5 million or $3 million (since Car Company was liable for both negligent design as well as liable under a strict product liability theory)? Explain why.
- One requirement for proving a manufacturer is liable under strict product liability is to prove the product was “unreasonably dangerous.” What is meant by an “unreasonably dangerous” product? (HINT: The text lists two factors a court will consider – please put those two factors or considerations in your own words as much as possible.)
- What is the difference between a manufacturing defect relative to a product versus a design defect? State the difference in your words. Give an example of each. Do not use the examples in the text – ladder for a manufacturing defect / power saw for design defect. Think of something else (you can do it!).
- 10-Point Question. The last few pages of chapter 5 list seven (7) different defenses a manufacturer can use to avoid (or lessen) liability for an injury caused by an alleged defective product. Some of the more common defenses include misusing the product (open to a wide interpretation), assumption of a risk, comparative fault and commonly known dangers.
As mentioned this really opens things up. For example, if you are using a product that has a known defect (maybe there is not a safety guard by a circulating blade / saw or perhaps you notice your car is not braking quite right and the problem is getting worse) but you continue to use it, it can be argued you assumed a risk by continuing to use the product or that you were negligent in not taking the product to be repaired. So even if there is a defective product on the market the manufacturer can argue it is still not liable if you are hurt (!!).
Does it appear the law favors manufacturers / sellers of products or not? Or do you think consumers have it better than manufacturers? Find at least one article online (or in a regular magazine or publication!) that addresses this topic and use information from that source to help you answer this question. Properly cite to that source. There is not a right or wrong answer – this calls for your opinion. You do want to use logic and perhaps examples to help you justify your answer.
Part 2 – General Questions – Criminal Law
- What are the main differences or objectives of criminal law as opposed to civil law (i.e., lawsuits for money damages)? Provide an overview and give an examples to illustrate your answer.
- What is the difference between murder and manslaughter? Give an example of each of these crimes.
- 10-Point Question. Do you think juveniles who are convicted of very serious crimes should be allowed to get out of prison sooner than, say, an adult who has committed the same type of crime (such as murder)? Let’s say a 15-year old girl kills a man who is her drug dealer (they got into a fight, etc.). Should the 15-year old be allowed to use her age / immaturity to mitigate (minimize / reduce) her sentence? Juvenile crime is an extremely serious issue. Go online and find at least one source that discusses juvenile crime. Use that information to support your answer about the 15-year old who is convicted of murder. Properly cite to your source and be sure to explain how your source supports your answer (do not just paste a URL, etc. and call it good).
Part 3 – Double Jeopardy — A Good Movie but Legally Correct?
In 1999, Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones starred in a movie called Double Jeopardy. In the movie, Libby is framed by her husband and sentenced to prison for killing him — a murder she did not commit. The husband takes off with his girlfriend and their little boy. Libby learns later that her husband is still alive and has their son. She wants to get her son back very, very badly. (If you have not see this movie, it is very good!)
Libby is released on parole to a halfway house that Tommy Lee Jones oversees. She runs off to find her son. While in prison she was told by an ex-lawyer who is now in prison for murder that since she was convicted of murdering her husband, she has every legal right to shoot him known in Times Square if she wants and there is nothing anyone can do! Since she has been convicted of killing her husband, the ex-lawyer tells her that pursuant to the 5th Amendment’s double jeopardy clause, she cannot be convicted of the same offense twice!
- Is the ex-lawyer right?? Can Libby really shoot and kill her husband and not be charged with murder??! (Take a look at the Power Point slides.)
Part 4 – College Education for Prisoners – 10-Point Question
- The 1994 Crime Act (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act) eliminated the ability of prisoners to obtain federal Pell Grants to help pay for college classes. Presidential Candidate Joe Biden was a primary sponsor / author of this Act and today he is having to deal with a law that many people believe only made the criminal justice system worse. In any event, in 2015 President Obama approved a pilot program to allow select inmates to obtain Pell Grant money for college courses.
The Trump Administration is supportive of this program and is pushing to make Pell Grants available for inmates once again (as was the case from the 1970s until 1994). (You don’t hear much if anything about such a bipartisan effort between President Trump and Congress / the Obama administration — not everything is the Mueller Report!) The good thing about a grant is the person does not have to pay the money back (unless they drop out of the course or for some other reasons).
What do you think? Should people who are serving prison sentences in a state or federal prison get a college education paid for by the government (either state or federal)? I mean, if you have committed a really serious crime and are sent away for 30 years (meaning you might get out in 15 or 20 years if not sooner) should our society provide you with a free college education?
If that fair to the person who is working 2 or 3 jobs, raising a family, taking out loans (which must be paid back!) and doing everything she has to do to get a college degree on her own? This is an open question but what are your thoughts on this very general topic? Good idea? Bad idea? Maybe provide something for prisoners but make them pay for it when they get out? Any ideas are welcome on this topic.
Go online and find at least one source that supports your answer (either for or against free college education for prisoners). Properly cite to your source and be sure to use information from your source in your answer.
Part 5 – Miscellaneous Problems / Cases
- Jenny works as a bookkeeper and embezzles $10,000 from her employer. Bob steals $10,000 from his brother-in-law’s garage (while Bob was fixing his brother-in-law’s car). Bob found the money hidden in a box under the work bench. Which of the these two crimes is regarded as more serious (generally speaking)? Explain.
- Look at Critical Legal Thinking problem 8-9. This hypothetical involves a man stealing a purse from a car. The purse contains a lot of cash and a handgun. The man is charged with larceny (theft of the money / purse) and also charged with a felony for stealing a handgun. The man claims he did not know the purse contained a handgun — he says he just grabbed it from the car assuming it had cash. He claims he really did not know the purse had a gun in it. Is it right to charge the thief with the crime of stealing a handgun under these circumstances? Explain your answer.