Exam Summer 2005 Question #4: Who might be liable to whom for what?
2 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Hello all,
The presence of another anonymous poster on this blog has inspired me to emerge from the shadows. A few questions on one facet of the problem: 1) What implications did you find concerning the fact that IRL failed to adequately protect itself against trespassers? I suspect that this part of the problem is very significant, but I don't know exactly what to make of it. Contributory negligence seems like the way to go, given that there was a legitimate failure to take due care to protect the property and that it was foreseeable that trespass might occur (especially in light of the fact that REAL had been protesting for weeks). However, what does it mean in this particular context to say there was contributory negligence? How would that affect the rest of the problem?
Since it's not fair for me to take advantage of the web site without offering anything, I'll post the one full paragraph that I was able to write in my response to this one: START IRL might want to hold Ned Nelson liable for the death of the unfortunate female chimp Erma. Ned should be able to clear himself on either the ground of defense of property or self-defense. Given the fact that the newspaper had reported that “WILD, AIDS-INFECTED CHIMPS [were] ON THE LOOSE,” Ned was probably especially frightened by the presence of a chimp on his property and sought to protect it. Perhaps he had learned of the damage to the butcher shop. However you look at it, Ned was taking an appropriate measure in defense of property by shooting Erma, especially since it was clear that his primary intent was to protect the property. He may have also acted in self-defense, fearful that the chimp would either hurt him or somehow transmit HIV to him. Shooting the chimp seems like a proportional, legally protected response to either threat. FINISH
One more thing: What did you make of the failure to file the appropriate paperwork? I argued that it had no bearing on anything since it was not in any way causally relevant to the torts at hand (invoking the Berry case as support, the one with the 'speeding' train hit by a large tree). However, I'm not so sure that's the way to go. Help?
2 comments:
Hello all,
The presence of another anonymous poster on this blog has inspired me to emerge from the shadows.
A few questions on one facet of the problem:
1) What implications did you find concerning the fact that IRL failed to adequately protect itself against trespassers? I suspect that this part of the problem is very significant, but I don't know exactly what to make of it. Contributory negligence seems like the way to go, given that there was a legitimate failure to take due care to protect the property and that it was foreseeable that trespass might occur (especially in light of the fact that REAL had been protesting for weeks). However, what does it mean in this particular context to say there was contributory negligence? How would that affect the rest of the problem?
Since it's not fair for me to take advantage of the web site without offering anything, I'll post the one full paragraph that I was able to write in my response to this one:
START IRL might want to hold Ned Nelson liable for the death of the unfortunate female chimp Erma. Ned should be able to clear himself on either the ground of defense of property or self-defense. Given the fact that the newspaper had reported that “WILD, AIDS-INFECTED CHIMPS [were] ON THE LOOSE,” Ned was probably especially frightened by the presence of a chimp on his property and sought to protect it. Perhaps he had learned of the damage to the butcher shop. However you look at it, Ned was taking an appropriate measure in defense of property by shooting Erma, especially since it was clear that his primary intent was to protect the property. He may have also acted in self-defense, fearful that the chimp would either hurt him or somehow transmit HIV to him. Shooting the chimp seems like a proportional, legally protected response to either threat. FINISH
Any feedback would be much appreciated.
One more thing: What did you make of the failure to file the appropriate paperwork? I argued that it had no bearing on anything since it was not in any way causally relevant to the torts at hand (invoking the Berry case as support, the one with the 'speeding' train hit by a large tree). However, I'm not so sure that's the way to go. Help?
Post a Comment