You Be the Judge book
Transcription
You Be the Judge book
Student Workbook Series No. 1 A Case Studies Workbook in Business & Consumer Law Michael K. Glucksman, Esq. Before using this eBook, please read the following: 1.This eBook can be opened using Adobe Reader, Adobe Acrobat, or an equivalent software application capable of opening a Portable Document Format (PDF). 2.Due to copyright restrictions, the ability to copy and paste any text and/or graphics in this eBook has been disabled. 3.This eBook includes form fields to allow the user to input responses to questions. Note: If using Adobe Reader: Data entered cannot be saved. If using Adobe Acrobat: Data can be saved. 4.Please read the following license agreement that pertains to your purchase. You Be the Judge! eBook License Agreement TERMS & CONDITIONS By opening this eBook, you agree to the terms and conditions of this license agreement set forth below. Any misuse or illegal distribution of this eBook is strictly prohibited and is a violation of U.S. Copyright Law. The PDF file, or a printed version of this eBook, may not be distributed or shared with any other third parties. Unless permission is granted by the publisher, uploading or copying this eBook file to a remote location or publicly accessible Web site is strictly prohibited. SCHOOL LICENSE AGREEMENT This eBook is provided in digital PDF format and is intended to be used by one school only, defined as the “purchasing school.” This license grants only the “purchasing school” permission to: 1.print an unlimited number of copies of this eBook for use by students currently enrolled in the “purchasing school” and/or its faculty or staff and/or; 2.use the eBook on-screen on an unlimited number of workstations within the “purchasing school’s” property and its affiliates (students/staff/faculty) own personal workstations. DISTRICT LICENSE AGREEMENT This eBook is provided in digital PDF format and is intended to be used by one school district only, defined as the “purchasing school district.” This license grants only the “purchasing school district” permission to: 1.print an unlimited number of copies of this eBook for use by students currently enrolled in the “purchasing school district” and/or its faculty/staff and/or; 2.use the eBook on-screen on an unlimited number of workstations within the “purchasing school district’s” property and its affiliates (students/staff/faculty) own personal workstations. www.bepublishing.com ©2011 B.E. Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. A Case Studies Workbook in Business & Consumer Law Student Workbook Series No. 1 Michael K. Glucksman, Esq. www.bepublishing.com ©2011 B.E. Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. A Case Studies Workbook in Business & Consumer Law Student Workbook SeriesNo.1 PUBLISHEDBY You Be the Judge! • Student Workbook ISBN:1-934422-23-1 Copyright©2011byB.E.Publishing,Inc. AllRightsReserved.Nopartofthisworkcoveredby copyrighthereonmaybereproducedorusedinany formorbyanymeans—includingbutnotlimited tographic,electronic,ormechanical,including photocopying,recording,taping,Webdistribution,or informationstorageandretrievalsystems—withoutthe expressedwrittenpermissionofthepublisher. Author MichaelK.Glucksman,Esq. Editors GinaSimonelliBaxter,Esq. KathleenHicks DianeSilvia LindaViveiros Design FernandoBotelho Permissions Tousematerialsfromthistext,pleasecontactus: B.E.Publishing,Inc. P.O.Box8558 Warwick,RI02888 U.S.A. Tel:888.781.6921 Fax:401.781.7608 E-mail:[email protected] Allreferencesmadetospecificsoftwareapplications and/orcompaniesusedwithinthisbookareregistered trademarksoftheirrespectivecompanies. PrintedintheU.S.A. About the Author MichaelK.Glucksman,Esq.,iscurrentlyalicensed, practicingattorneyinthestatesofRhodeIslandand Massachusetts,aswellasintheFederalCourts.Mr. Glucksmanhasextensivelegalexpertiseinavariety ofcivilandcriminallawareas,andalsoservesasaCity SolicitorandAssistantProsecutorwhereheoversees municipal,contract,andlaborissues.Mr.Glucksman alsoservesasanadjunctfacultymemberatthe universitylevelwhereheteachesBusiness,Criminal,and Employmentlawcourses.Mr.Glucksmanobtainedhis LawDegreefromtheUniversityofMiamiSchoolofLaw. Contents Introduction Curriculum Guide v viii Commonwealth v. Snyder 1 M.D., a minor, v. Morgan Hill Unified School District 9 State v. Stallman 17 People v. William D. 25 Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc. 33 Sharon v. City of Newton 41 Bowling v. Sperry 49 Holmes v. Lerner 57 Selwyn v. Ward 65 Tobin v. Norwood Country Club, Inc. 73 Johnston v. Poulin 81 Volpe v. Gallagher 89 Nicholson v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of New York 97 Nivens v. 7-11 Hoagy’s Corner 105 Medley v. Home Depot, Inc. 113 Sollami v. Eaton 121 Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc. 129 Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters 137 Lacoste Alligator, S.A. v. Bluestein’s Men’s Wear, Inc. 145 American Heart Association v. County of Greenville 153 You Be the Judge! iii Introduction Welcome to a new and exciting approach to learning business and consumer law, one of the most important topics you will study in today’s changing world. Every student throughout his or her lifetime can benefit from the knowledge of contracts, intellectual property, partnerships, liability, and negligence. And whether you decide on a career in accounting, finance, economics, or even medicine, you should have at least a general understanding of business and consumer law in order to function in the real world. One of the best ways to learn about the law is to analyze court cases. You Be the Judge! contains a comprehensive collection of real-world case studies where you, based on your knowledge of the law, act as the judge and render a decision as to what you think the outcome should be. Your Role in You Be the Judge! As the judge in each case, you act as the decision-maker, as you decide which party should win and which party should lose. You will base your decision on the facts of each case, the rule of law, and the distinct issue that you must consider. To get started with each case, you will be provided with a brief background of the facts, a summary of the terms and law pertinent to the particular case, and the essential question or issue that you will ultimately have to answer. The Skills You Will Be Drawing on Throughout This Book While reading each case, you will determine which party is more credible, and whether the plaintiff has enough facts to prove their case! The following is a list of the skills you will be drawing on throuhgout this case studies workbook: • Understanding law concepts • Decision-making • Critical thinking • Applying rules of law • Reading comprehension • Analytical skills (case analysis) Prerequisite Skills This workbook should be used as a supplement in conjunction with a Business and Consumer Law textbook. It is assumed that you have a clear working knowledge of concepts and laws included in the cases within this workbook. Although terms and definitions have been provided to you at the beginning of each case, these should be used only for quick reference and not as a replacement to a more thorough learning of the subject. Copyright Notice About the Cases in This Book The cases in this workbook are real court cases that have been, or in the process of being, decided in a court of law. Exact extractions from the actual published decisions have been used in this workbook; however, for ease of reading purposes, many times the format and the language used have been modified. You Be the Judge! v Introduction Understanding the Format of This Book Case Title Constitutional Law Case 1: High School Locker Search CASE: 1 Thisworkbookhasbeenorganizedintoaneasy-to-readformattohelp youmakeadecisionineachcase.Toprepareyouinthedecisionmaking process,eachcasehasbeendividedintoaseriesofindividualsections. Thefollowingisabriefexplanationoftheindividualsectionsthatmake upthepartsofeachcase. Commonwealth v. Snyder Providesthetitleofthecase. Fourth Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures objective oBJecTiVe To understand how the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against warrantless searches and whether this protection extends to a locker search of a high school student. Theobjectiveofthecase. ToPicS coVered RR Fourth Topics Covered Amendment of the United States Constitution RR Students’ RR Search Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Warrants Supported by Probable Cause RR Balancing School Safety/Disciplinary Policies with Students’ Constitutional Rights CASE: 1 You Be the Judge! Commonwealth v. Snyder Fourth Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Background • WithoutinformingJeffrey,theprincipalauthorizedasearchofhislockerwhilehewasinclass. Schooladministratorsfoundmarijuanainhislocker. • Baseduponthesearch,Jeffreywascalledintotheprincipal’soffice.Whenconfrontedwiththe marijuanafoundinhislocker,heconfessedtopossessionofmarijuanawithintenttoselltoother students. • JeffreyclaimedthattheschoolviolatedtheFourthAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution byfailingtoobtainasearchwarrantbeforeseizingtheillegaldrugsfromhislocker. Providesabriefbackgroundsummaryof thecase. is the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution? RR What RR What is a “reasonable expectation of privacy”? UndertheFourthAmendment,theU.S. SupremeCourtassertsthatapersonhasa “reasonableexpectationofprivacy”when: (1)theindividualSUBJECTIVELYbelieves thataparticularareaisprivate,suchasacar, alocker,apocketbook,orahome,and(2) OBJECTIVELY,whethersocietyrecognizesthat expectationasreasonable.Assuch,thecourt lookstothesubjectiveintentoftheperson beingsearched(forexample,didtheperson infactbelievethatacertainareawasprivate?) andtotheobjectiveintentastowhetherthat person’sbeliefofprivacywillberecognizedby societyasawhole. Termsanddefinitionsofthelawsandkey conceptspertinenttothecase. is a search warrant? Inthemajorityofcases,beforesearching areaswhereapersonhasareasonable expectationofprivacy,thegovernment (thepolice)mustobtainwrittenpermission fromajudgetoconductasearch.Thepolice mustsupporttheirrequestwithfactsthat showtheyhaveextremelygoodreasons, or“probablecause,”toconductasearch. Ifpermissionisgranted,thecourtissuesa searchwarrant. TheFourthAmendmentprotectspersons accusedofcrimesbyrequiringasearch warrantbeforegovernmentofficialscan searchaperson,ahome,oranyplacewhere apersonhasa“reasonableexpectationof privacy.” Before You Begin On December 21, at 12:45 pm, Linda Day, the principal of Monument Mountain Regional High School in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, was told by a faculty member that a student reported being approached by Jeffrey Snyder to purchase marijuana for $25. The reporting faculty member had worked at the school for approximately 15 years, had extensive contact with students, and many times had provided reliable information to school administrators. Principal Day asked John F. Canning, the assistant principal, to join her and the faculty member in her office, whereupon the faculty member repeated the information. The faculty member added that Before you Begin RR What Whether the warrantless search of a student’s locker for marijuana was reasonable under the circumstances of the case. THe facTS • AteacherinformedtheprincipalofahighschoolthatJeffreySnyder,astudentattheschool, attemptedtosellillegaldrugs(marijuana)toanotherstudent. Background iSSue Before THe courT 1 CASE: 1 Alistofthelawconceptscoveredinthecase. RR What is Balancing School Safety/ Disciplinary Policies with Students’ Constitutional Rights? Incasesofsearchingstudents’lockers, thelawrequiresthecourttobalancethe constitutionalrightsofthestudentagainst theneedforschoolofficialstokeeptheschool safeandorderlyforallstudents. the student had reported the attempted sale at about 10:30 am. The student said that Jeffrey showed him a videocassette case that contained three bags of marijuana and that he then put the videocassette case in his book bag. The administrators decided to locate Jeffrey. Assistant Principal Canning found Jeffrey in the student center, which was crowded with students. From a distance, Canning could not see Jeffrey’s book bag. Since he did not know if other students were involved, he did not want ent th Amendm The Four Constitution to the U.S. against guards ches able sear unreason when the and seizures y has a part searched ctation ble expe “reasona of privacy.” to arouse suspicion by approaching Jeffrey in the student center. The two administrators decided to wait until the beginning of the next period (about 1:20 pm) when Jeffrey was scheduled to be in a class and to search his locker for the book bag at that time. It is important to note that the school’s student code stated that each student had the right not to have his/her locker subject to an “unreasonable” search. At approximately 1:20 pm, the two administrators opened the locker using the combination to the locker that was available at the school’s main office. They found the book bag, the videocassette case, and three bags containing marijuana. They took these items to Principal Day’s office and concealed them behind her desk. Principal Day located Jeffrey and brought him to her office. There, 2 You Be the Judge! You Be the Judge! 3 CASE: 1 in Assistant Principal Canning’s presence, Principal Day asked Jeffrey if it was true, as reported to her, that he had offered to sell marijuana in the school. Jeffrey admitted that he had. Jeffrey, who was very upset, said that he could not believe this was happening and had never before engaged in this type of activity. Jeffrey explained that a friend had given him the marijuana to sell, that he had become troubled about doing it, and he had called his friend to come to the school at 2 pm to take back what he had not sold. Jeffrey admitted that the book bag, the videocassette case, and the bags of marijuana belonged to him. Jeffrey said there were four bags of marijuana but he had sold one for $25 to a student. Principal Day called Jeffrey’s mother, who came to the school, while Assistant Principal Canning called the police. side Notes At trial, Snyder argued that since he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his locker as per the school code, all evidence taken was illegally seized and not admissable against him. Additionallawconceptsandfunfacts relatedtothecase. The Commonwealth argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy as to his locker and in the alternative, even if there was, the locker search was valid as school administrators conducted a search of the locker that was reasonable under all the circumstances. In other words, while school administrators must be “reasonable,” they are not restricted by the probable cause or warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. sources Identifiesthesource(s)ofthecase. Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. Commonwealthv.Snyder,413Mass.521,597N.E.2d1363(1992). SupremeJudicialCourtofMassachusetts,Berkshire August25,1992.OpinionwrittenbytheHonorableHerbertP.Wilkins. 4 vi You Be the Judge! You Be the Judge! Probable Cause: Evidence that would lead a reason able person to believ e that a crime was or is being committed by the person being accused. In the U.S., the police (or other law enforcement officials) cannot simply search someone for no reason. If proper legal steps are not followed, that search can be classified as unreasonable. issue Before the Court Theessentialquestionthat isbeingaskedofthecourt. The Facts Providesthedetailedfacts ofthecase. Introduction The Answer Forms NAME CASE: 1 Following“TheFacts”sectionofeachcase,thereareaseriesofforms thatyoumustcomplete.Theanswersonthefirstform,“ReviewtheCase,” willcomedirectlyfrom“TheFacts”section.Tocompletethe“Makethe Argument”form,youwillmakeconclusions,baseduponyouranswers inthe“ReviewtheCase”form.Finally,youwilldecidewhatyouthinkthe outcomeshouldbebycompletingthe“YouBetheJudge”form. DATE Review the Case AfterreadingCommonwealthv.Snyder,answerthefollowing: 1. IdentifythePlaintiff(s)inthecase. 2. IdentifytheDefendant(s)inthecase. 3. Isthisacriminalproceedingoracivilproceeding?Explain. 4. HowdidtheschooladministratorsinitiallydiscoverthatJeffreymightbesellingmarijuana? review the Case Form 5. WhydidPrincipalDaygivecredibilitytothereportingteacherregardingJeffrey’spossessionofmarijuana? 6. Explainthereason(s)theprincipalandassistantprincipaldidnotapproachJeffreyinthestudentcenter. 7. WheredidtheadministratorsfindthecombinationtoJeffrey’slocker? CASE: 1 You Be the Judge! NAME DATE NAME DATE Make the Argument Review the Case (continued) Inorderforthejudgeorjurytorenderadecision,thefollowingaresomeofthequestionsthat mustbeconsidered: 8. Whatdidtheschool’sstudentpolicysayaboutsearchesofstudentlockers? 5 CASE: 1 The“ReviewtheCase”formrequiresyoutoansweraseriesoffactual questionswithdefinitiveanswersderivedfrom“TheFacts”sectionofthe case.Thesequestionshaveatwofoldpurpose:(1)totestyourknowledge ofthecase;and,(2)tohelpyouunderstandadetailedfactpatternby goingthroughthequestionandanswerprocess. 1. Wastheinformationreceivedbytheschooladministratorsreliable?Explain. 9. WhatdidtheprincipalandassistantprincipalfindduringtheirsearchofJeffrey’slocker? 2. DidJeffreyhavean“expectationofprivacy”inhislockeratschool?Explain. Make the argument Form 10. WhatdidJeffreydowhenhewasconfrontedwiththeevidenceagainsthim? Inordertocompletethe“Makethe Argument”form,youmustfirstcomplete the“ReviewtheCase”form.Similartoa juryforminarealcourtcase,youwilluse youranswersfromthe“ReviewtheCase” formtoanswertheanalyticalquestions onthe“MaketheArgument”form. 3. Wastheschool’ssearchofthelockerjustifiedandreasonable?Explain. 4. Didtheschoolhaveareasonablesuspicionthatacrimewasbeingcommitted?Explain. 5. D idtheschool’sinteresttoenforceschoolpoliciesandadequatelydisciplineitsstudentsoverridethe importanceofJeffrey’sprivacyinhislocker? 6. DidthestudenthandbookstatethattheDefendanthadanexpectationofprivacyinhislocker? CASE: 1 6 You Be the Judge Form You Be the Judge! You Be the Judge! NAME 7 DATE You Be the Judge Havingreviewedthecaseandconsideredthequestionsinvolved,decidethecaseforeitherthePlaintiff ortheDefendant: Decision for the Plaintiff Decision for the Defendant Commonwealth of Massachusetts Jeffrey Snyder Finally,the“YouBetheJudge”form requiresyoutoreachaconclusion baseduponyouranswersfromthe “MaketheArgument”form.Upon completionofthisform,youwillhave decidedwhatyouthinktheoutcomeof thecaseshouldbe.Youwillanswerthe question,“Whoshouldwinthecase?” 8 You Be the Judge! You Be the Judge! vii Curriculum Guide Case Topics Covered 1 Commonwealth v. Constitutional Law Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution Students’ Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Search Warrants Supported by Probable Cause Balancing School Safety/Disciplinary Policies with Students’ Constitutional Rights 2 M.D., a minor, v. Constitutional Law First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution Freedom of Speech Balancing School Safety/Disciplinary Policies with Students’ Constitutional Rights 3 State v. Stallman Constitutional Law Ordinance Misdemeanor Intrastate Travel Defining “Unconstitutional” Police Power and Constitutional Standards/Test 4 People v. William D. Criminal Law Assault and Battery Defense of Others Reasonable Force 5 Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Contract Law Employment contracts Non-compete clauses Employee’s “duty of loyalty” to employer “Fair and just” non-compete clauses 6 Sharon v. City of Contract Law Contract Not to Sue Capacity of a Minor Child to Enter into a Contract Validity of Release as Condition to Participation in Extra-curricular Activities Parental Consent 7 Bowling v. Sperry Contract Law Capacity of a Minor to Enter into a Contract Voidable Contracts Minor’s Disaffirmance of Contracts Contracts for Necessities 8 Holmes v. Lerner Business Law: Partnerships Business Organizations Partnerships Verbal Contracts 9 Selwyn v. Ward Tort Law: Negligence and Strict Liability Dram Shop Act Negligence Action Strict Product Liability Ultrahazardous Activity Tort Law: Negligence Dram Shop Act Duty of Care Reasonable Care Snyder Morgan Hill Unified School District Entertainment, Inc. Newton 10 Tobin v. Norwood Country Club, Inc viii You Be the Judge! Curriculum Guide (continued) Case Topics Covered 11 Johnston v. Poulin Tort Law: Strict Liability Strict Liability for Roaming Animals Roaming or “At Large” Animals 12 Volpe v. Gallagher Tort Law: Negligence Landowner’s duty of care to prevent criminal acts of third persons “licensees” on his/her property Exception to rule of landowner’s duty of care to prevent criminal acts of third person “licensees” on his/her property Duty to Inspect Property 13 Nicholson v. Bd. of Tort Law: Negligence Municipality’s duty of care to maintain school playgrounds Municipality’s liability for criminal activities at school playgrounds Municipality’s duty to provide supervision at school playgrounds 14 Nivens v. 7-11 Hoagy’s Tort Law: Negligence Negligence Business Invitee Duty of Care for Criminal Acts of Third Persons Special Relationship Exception to the Duty of Care for Criminal Acts of Third Persons Forseeable Act 15 Medley v. Home Tort Law: Negligence Negligence Slip and Fall Injury Business Invitee A Business Owner’s Duty to Inspect 16 Sollami v. Eaton Consumer Law: Product Liability Product Liability Unreasonably Dangerous Product Duty to Warn Defense to Product Liability, the “Open and Obvious” Doctrine 17 Malletier v. Dooney & Trademark Law Trademark Trademark Infringement Injunction 18 Abercrombie & Trademark Law Intentional Tort Trademark Trademark Infringement Trade Dress 19 Lacoste Alligator, S.A. Trademark Law Intentional Tort Trademark Trademark Infringement Exclusive Licensee of a Trademark 20 American Heart Family and Probate Law Educ. of the City of New York Corner Depot, Inc. Bourke, Inc. Fitch Stores, Inc. v. AmericanEagle Outfitters v. Bluestein’s Men’s Wear, Inc. Association v. County of Greenville Last Will & Testament Probate Executor Probate Property/EstatePublic Document You Be the Judge! ix Constitutional Law CASE: 1 Case 1: High School Locker Search Commonwealth v. Snyder Fourth Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures oBJecTiVe To understand how the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against warrantless searches and whether this protection extends to a locker search of a high school student. ToPicS coVered RR Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution RR Students’ RR Search Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Warrants Supported by Probable Cause RR Balancing School Safety/Disciplinary Policies with Students’ Constitutional Rights You Be the Judge! 1 CASE: 1 Commonwealth v. Snyder Fourth Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Background • A teacher informed the principal of a high school that Jeffrey Snyder, a student at the school, attempted to sell illegal drugs (marijuana) to another student. • Without informing Jeffrey, the principal authorized a search of his locker while he was in class. School administrators found marijuana in his locker. • Based upon the search, Jeffrey was called into the principal’s office. When confronted with the marijuana found in his locker, he confessed to possession of marijuana with intent to sell to other students. • Jeffrey claimed that the school violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution by failing to obtain a search warrant before seizing the illegal drugs from his locker. Before you Begin RR What is the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution? The Fourth Amendment protects persons accused of crimes by requiring a search warrant before government officials can search a person, a home, or any place where a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” RR What is a “reasonable expectation of privacy”? Under the Fourth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court asserts that a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” when: (1) the individual SUBJECTIVELY believes that a particular area is private, such as a car, a locker, a pocketbook, or a home, and (2) OBJECTIVELY, whether society recognizes that expectation as reasonable. As such, the court looks to the subjective intent of the person being searched (for example, did the person in fact believe that a certain area was private?) and to the objective intent as to whether that person’s belief of privacy will be recognized by society as a whole. 2 You Be the Judge! RR What is a search warrant? In the majority of cases, before searching areas where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, the government (the police) must obtain written permission from a judge to conduct a search. The police must support their request with facts that show they have extremely good reasons, or “probable cause,” to conduct a search. If permission is granted, the court issues a search warrant. RR What is Balancing School Safety/ Disciplinary Policies with Students’ Constitutional Rights? In cases of searching students’ lockers, the law requires the court to balance the constitutional rights of the student against the need for school officials to keep the school safe and orderly for all students. Whether the warrantless search of a student’s locker for marijuana was reasonable under the circumstances of the case. CASE: 1 iSSue Before THe courT THe facTS On December 21, at 12:45 pm, Linda Day, the principal of Monument Mountain Regional High School in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, was told by a faculty member that a student reported being approached by Jeffrey Snyder to purchase marijuana for $25. The reporting faculty member had worked at the school for approximately 15 years, had extensive contact with students, and many times had provided reliable information to school administrators. Principal Day asked John F. Canning, the assistant principal, to join her and the faculty member in her office, whereupon the faculty member repeated the information. The faculty member added that the student had reported the attempted sale at about 10:30 am. The student said that Jeffrey showed him a videocassette case that contained three bags of marijuana and that he then put the videocassette case in his book bag. The administrators decided to locate Jeffrey. Assistant Principal Canning found Jeffrey in the student center, which was crowded with students. From a distance, Canning could not see Jeffrey’s book bag. Since he did not know if other students were involved, he did not want to arouse suspicion by approaching Jeffrey in the student center. The two administrators decided to wait until the beginning of the next period (about 1:20 pm) when Jeffrey was scheduled to be in a class and to search his locker for the book bag at that time. It is important to note that the school’s student code stated that each student had the right not to have his/her locker subject to an “unreasonable” search. dment th Amen The Four Constitution .S. to the U gainst guards a ches able sear unreason s when the re and seizu arty has a p searched xpectation le b e “reasona ivacy.” of pr At approximately 1:20 pm, the two administrators opened the locker using the combination to the locker that was available at the school’s main office. They found the book bag, the videocassette case, and three bags containing marijuana. They took these items to Principal Day’s office and concealed them behind her desk. Principal Day located Jeffrey and brought him to her office. There, You Be the Judge! 3 CASE: 1 in Assistant Principal Canning’s presence, Principal Day asked Jeffrey if it was true, as reported to her, that he had offered to sell marijuana in the school. Jeffrey admitted that he had. Jeffrey, who was very upset, said that he could not believe this was happening and had never before engaged in this type of activity. Jeffrey explained that a friend had given him the marijuana to sell, that he had become troubled about doing it, and he had called his friend to come to the school at 2 pm to take back what he had not sold. Jeffrey admitted that the book bag, the videocassette case, and the bags of marijuana belonged to him. Jeffrey said there were four bags of marijuana but he had sold one for $25 to a student. Principal Day called Jeffrey’s mother, who came to the school, while Assistant Principal Canning called the police. At trial, Snyder argued that since he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his locker as per the school code, all evidence taken was illegally seized and not admissable against him. The Commonwealth argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy as to his locker and in the alternative, even if there was, the locker search was valid as school administrators conducted a search of the locker that was reasonable under all the circumstances. In other words, while school administrators must be “reasonable,” they are not restricted by the probable cause or warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. Commonwealthv.Snyder,413Mass.521,597N.E.2d1363(1992). SupremeJudicialCourtofMassachusetts,Berkshire August25,1992.OpinionwrittenbytheHonorableHerbertP.Wilkins. 4 You Be the Judge! Probable Cau se: Evidence that would lead a reason able person to bel ieve that a crime was or is being committed b y the person being accused. In the U.S., the police (or other law enforcement officials) cannot simply search someone for no reason. If proper legal steps are not followed, that search can be classified as unreasonable. CASE: 1 NAME Date Review the Case After reading Commonwealth v. Snyder, answer the following: 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. Is this a criminal proceeding or a civil proceeding? Explain. 4. How did the school administrators initially discover that Jeffrey might be selling marijuana? 5. Why did Principal Day give credibility to the reporting teacher regarding Jeffrey’s possession of marijuana? 6. Explain the reason(s) the principal and assistant principal did not approach Jeffrey in the student center. 7. Where did the administrators find the combination to Jeffrey’s locker? You Be the Judge! 5 CASE: 1 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) 8. What did the school’s student policy say about searches of student lockers? 9. What did the principal and assistant principal find during their search of Jeffrey’s locker? 10. What did Jeffrey do when he was confronted with the evidence against him? 6 You Be the Judge! Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: CASE: 1 NAME 1. Was the information received by the school administrators reliable? Explain. 2. Did Jeffrey have an “expectation of privacy” in his locker at school? Explain. 3. Was the school’s search of the locker justified and reasonable? Explain. 4. Did the school have a reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed? Explain. 5. D id the school’s interest to enforce school policies and adequately discipline its students override the importance of Jeffrey’s privacy in his locker? 6. Did the student handbook state that the Defendant had an expectation of privacy in his locker? You Be the Judge! 7 CASE: 1 8 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Plaintiff Decision for the Defendant Commonwealth of Massachusetts Jeffrey Snyder You Be the Judge! M.D., a minor, v. Morgan Hill Unified School District CASE: 2 Constitutional Law Case 2: “You Can‛t Wear That to School” First Amendment and Freedom of Speech oBJecTiVe To understand the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and how it applies to “Freedom of Speech” in a school setting. ToPicS coVered RR First Amendment of the United States Constitution RR Freedom of Speech RR Balancing School Safety/Disciplinary Policies with Students’ Constitutional Rights You Be the Judge! 9 M.D., a minor v. Morgan Hill Unified School District First Amendment and Freedom of Speech CASE: 2 Background • On May 5, “Cinco de Mayo,” a holiday celebrated in Mexico, five teenage students, wearing American flag t-shirts and bandannas, were sitting at a table outside Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California. The Assistant Principal, Miguel Rodriguez, asked two of the students to remove their American flag bandannas. • The five students were also told that although it would not be considered a suspension, they must turn their American flag t-shirts inside out or be sent home. Due to the large MexicanAmerican student population at Live Oak High School, school administration feared that fights would break out between Mexican-American students celebrating their heritage day and those students wearing clothing with American flags. • The teenagers refused to turn their shirts inside out as they felt it was disrespectful to the United States of America, so the school administrators asked the students’ parents to take them home. Before you Begin RR What is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution? The First Amendment is the first of the original 13 amendments called the “Bill of Rights.” The First Amendment gives American citizens the right to Freedom of Speech. RR What is Freedom of Speech? The First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting any laws that prohibit a citizen’s right to free speech. The United States Supreme Court qualified this freedom of speech in several cases. Examples of restricted speech include instances when a person: (a) uses “fighting words,” (b) makes threatening speech toward another individual, (c) engages in “defamatory” speech (words meant to injure another person’s reputation in the community), and (d) uses “obscene” speech (words or actions that are not appropriate for the average citizen). 10 You Be the Judge! RR What is Balancing School Safety/ Disciplinary Policy with Students’ Constitutional Rights? In cases involving students’ Freedom of Speech, the law requires the court to balance the constitutional rights of the student against the need for the school officials to keep the school safe and orderly for all students. iSSue Before THe courT Whether a public school can limit a student’s choice to wear American flag clothing or accessories to school without violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. CASE: 2 THe facTS On May 5, 2010, “Cinco de Mayo,” a Mexican holiday, five students of Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California, were approached by the school’s Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez. The students were dressed in American flag t-shirts and American flag bandannas on their heads. Mr. Rodriguez asked two of the students to remove their American flag bandannas. Although the students complied, they were asked to accompany Mr. Rodriguez to the principal’s office after one of the students questioned his request. According to the complaint filed by the students, Rodriguez told the five students, including minors M.D., D.M., and D.G., that they must turn their American flag t-shirts inside out or they would be sent home for the day without suspension. He explained to the students that there is a large Mexican-American population at Live Oak w is a tional La Constitu ng with law deali nd f o y d o b ibution a the distr overnment of g exercise power. High School, and he did not want to risk any fights breaking out between Mexican-American students celebrating their heritage and the students wearing American flags. There had not been any fighting issues in the past, and on this particular day, the students had been on school grounds for three hours without any incident. While in the principal’s office, the teenagers told Rodriguez and school Principal Nick Boden that turning their t-shirts inside out was disrespectful to the citizens of the United States of America. So, school officials contacted their parents, and the students were sent home. While the school’s dress code policy banned the wearing of bandannas of any color, the policy did not contain references to American flag clothing. The school policy did prohibit students from wearing any clothing or decoration that detracted from the school’s learning environment. As such, the school claimed it had You Be the Judge! 11 the right to request that any student dressed inappropriately for school must either: (a) change into other clothes, (b) go home to change, and/or (c) be subject to disciplinary action. The students brought a civil case against Morgan Hill Unified School District claiming that Live Oak High School violated the CASE: 2 students’ right to Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution, which provides its citizens with various protections, such as, in this case, the right to Freedom of Speech. Morgan Hill Unified School District defended itself by stating that keeping the students of Live Oak High School safe was more important than the disciplined students’ right to Freedom of Speech. Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. M.D.,aminorv.MorganHillUnifiedSchoolDistrict,CV-10-02745. ComplaintpreparedandfiledbyWilliamJ.Becker,TheBeckerLawFirm,andaffi liated withtheThomasMoreLawCenter,andRobertJ.Muise,theThomasMoreLawCenter. 12 You Be the Judge! Freedom of S peech is the right to express information, ideas, or opinions fr ee of government re strictions based on cont ent. NAME Date Review the Case After reading M.D., a minor, v. Morgan Hill Unified School District, answer the following: CASE: 2 1. Identify one of the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. What is Cinco de Mayo? 4. What was the school policy regarding bandannas? 5. What was the school policy regarding wearing American flag clothing? 6. Explain Vice Principal Rodriguez’s reason for requesting that the students turn their t-shirts inside out. 7. How long had the students been on school grounds when they were approached by Vice Principal Rodriguez? 8. Why did the teenagers refuse to turn their American flag t-shirts inside out? You Be the Judge! 13 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) CASE: 2 9. Was there any evidence that the American flag t-shirts were disrupting the classrooms? 14 10. Were there any past incidents, like fighting, at the school that stemmed from students wearing the American flag t-shirts on Cinco De Mayo? 11. BONUS: Do you agree with the school that wearing an American flag t-shirt on Cinco de Mayo is inappropriate? You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: CASE: 2 1. Did the students wear American flag clothing on school grounds? 2. Does wearing the American flag clothing fall within the protections afforded under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as “free speech”? 3. Was there any evidence that the flags actually caused violence at Live Oak High School or disrupted learning at the school? 4. Does the school’s interest to enforce school policies and adequately discipline its students override the importance of the students’ freedom of speech? You Be the Judge! 15 NAME Date You Be the Judge CASE: 2 Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: 16 Decision for the Plaintiff Decision for the Defendant M.D., a minor Morgan Hill Unified School District You Be the Judge! Constitutional Law Case 3: To Cruise or Not to Cruise! The Constitutional “Right to Travel” oBJecTiVe CASE: 3 State v. Stallman To understand the constitutional right to liberty with respect to the right to travel about the United States. ToPicS coVered RR Ordinance RR Misdemeanor RR Intrastate Travel RR Unconstitutional RR Police Power and Constitutional Standards/Test You Be the Judge! 17 State v. Stallman The Constitutional “Right to Travel” Background • The City of Anoka, Minnesota passed an ordinance which restricted driving in certain designated areas of the city called “no cruising zones.” This “anti-cruising” ordinance was targeted at teenagers who would cruise up and down certain roads causing traffic congestion and public disturbances, such as fighting, underage drinking, vandalism, and other more serious criminal offenses. • Jason Edward Stallman drove his car in a “no cruising zone” when he was stopped and charged with the misdemeanor crime of violating the “anti-cruising” ordinance. He challenged the charge as an unconstitutional infringement on his liberty and right to intrastate travel. CASE: 3 • Anoka Police alleged that the ordinance was a necessary tool of their police power to keep order in the city. Before you Begin RR What is an ordinance? An ordinance is a law enacted by a city or a town by its governing body—usually a mayor, a city council, or a town council. RR What is a misdemeanor? A misdemeanor is a minor criminal offense usually punishable by less than a $500 fine and/or less than one year in jail. RR What is intrastate travel? Intrastate travel is traveling within the borders of a city or state. Although the United States Supreme Court has not addressed the issue of whether the constitutional right to interstate travel (traveling to different states) includes the right to intrastate travel, both lower federal courts and state courts have found a fundamental right to intrastate travel. 18 You Be the Judge! RR What does unconstitutional mean? An unconstitutional law is a law or an action pursuant to that law that conflicts with the United States Constitution—the supreme law of the United States of America. No state law shall conflict with the Constitution. In this case, the Defendant challenges the “anticruising” ordinance as an unconstitutional infringement on the right to travel within the borders of a state. RR What is Police Power and Constitutional Standards/Test? While a government has authority to pass laws to keep its citizens safe from harm, these laws need to meet constitutional requirements. Here, an “anti-cruising” ordinance must be narrowly tailored to meet significant city objectives of protecting the general public. iSSue Before THe courT Does Anoka’s “anti-cruising” ordinance violate a fundamental right to intrastate travel? Is Anoka’s “anti-cruising” ordinance unconstitutional? THe facTS On May 6, at approximately 9 pm, an officer of the Anoka Police Department selected a traffic control point within the city’s “no cruising zone” and began monitoring. About 30 minutes later, the officer observed a red Mercury operated by Jason Edward Stallman drive past the traffic control point. The officer observed Stallman’s vehicle travel past him four times within approximately ten minutes. The police officer stopped the vehicle and Stallman was issued a misdemeanor citation for “cruising” in violation of Anoka’s “anti-cruising” ordinance. The Anoka City Council passed the ordinance as a response to the increase in fighting, underage drinking, vandalism, traffic violations, drug trafficking, and traffic congestion around its main streets. el t to trav The righ izen of hat a cit rty t s t r e s s a e as the lib d/ a state h an , in e resid l, e v a r t o t rt of in any pa or work one e where the stat ct ith respe pleases (w hts of ig for the r others). CASE: 3 “Cruising” has been a part of our culture for decades and was made famous by the 1973 movie “American Graffiti.” For years, teenagers have been driving cars after school and on weekends cruising on city streets and meeting at various destinations. The police department argued that the traffic congestion created a safety hazard. Emergency vehicles had had difficulty getting through the congestion, and had to use alternate, less direct routes to respond to emergency calls, delaying their response time. The Anoka Chief of Police stated that on a typical Saturday night between 400 and 500 teenagers milled about provoking petty crimes, such as fights, traffic violations, underage drinking, and vandalism, which escalated to more serious crimes, such as physical/sexual assaults and drug trafficking. The ordinance stated: 1) “Cruising” means the operation of a motor vehicle, other than commercial, emergency, or buses, driving past a “traffic control point” three or more times, between the hours of 9 pm You Be the Judge! 19 and 2 am in a “No Cruising Zone.” 2) “Traffic Control Point” means any point or points within a “No Cruising Zone” where cruising is monitored by police. 3) “Cruising is prohibited and no person shall operate a motor vehicle in such a manner so as to constitute cruising. A violation of this section shall constitute a petty misdemeanor.” To remain in or hang around an ar ea for no obvious purp ose is known as loitering. CASE: 3 The city council established “no cruising zones” at Main Street and one block on each side of Main Street, from a park at one end to the Anoka city limits. Large signs leading into Anoka read, “Cruising and Loitering Ordinances Are Enforced.” On Main Street, signs read “No Cruising 9 pm to 2 am.” The signs did not indicate the boundaries of the zone. The signs did not indicate that a traffic control point was at any intersection or at any other point where the police selected to set up temporary monitoring. The Anoka Police Department had the discretion to choose a traffic control point at any location during the pertinent time frame. The officer could arbitrarily choose to be at the point for minutes or hours. Although ensuring the safe passage of emergency vehicles was one of the reasons for the ordinance, nothing in the ordinance expressly or impliedly directed those areas to be traffic control points. Stallman argued that the “anti-cruising” ordinance was unconstitutional becasue it impermissibly restricted intrastate travel. The city argued that the ordinance was a necessary tool of its police powers to control traffic and crime in Anoka. Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. Statev.Stallman,519N.W.2d903(Minn.App.1994). CourtofAppealsofMinnesota July26,1994.OpinionwrittenbytheHonorableJusticeR.A.Randall. 20 You Be the Judge! Anti-cruising ordinances were designed to alleviate traffic in specific areas. They prohibited cars from cruising between certain checkpoints more than two times within a given time frame. NAME Date Review the Case After reading State v. Stallman, answer the following: 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. How many times did Stallman drive past the police officer and in what span of time? CASE: 3 4. How does the city ordinance define “cruising”? 5. How does the city ordinance define a “traffic control point”? 6. How does a police officer choose a “traffic control point”? 7. State the reasons the city council established an “anti-cruising” ordinance around its main streets? You Be the Judge! 21 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) 8. What type of notices did drivers receive regarding the “no cruising” law in Anoka? 9. Did the notices explain “cruising” to the driver entering a “no cruise” zone? CASE: 3 10. Did the notice explain to drivers the consequences of traveling past a traffic control point within the five-hour period? 11. What is “intrastate travel”? 12. Did the ordinance allow a suspected driver to offer a lawful explanation for why he/she drove past the traffic control points three or more times within the five-hour period? 13. Why did Stallman believe the “anti-cruising” ordinance was unconstitutional? 22 You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: 1. Did the ordinance sufficiently define “cruising”? 3. Did the signs give adequate notice to drivers of the consequences of passing a police vehicle three times at a traffic control point within the five-hour period? CASE: 3 2. Were the “traffic control point” signs adequate to give drivers notice of exactly where the zones were located? 4. W as the “anti-cruising” ordinance narrowly tailored to meet significant city objectives? In other words, was the City of Anoka’s objective in reducing traffic congestion, eliminating safety hazards, ensuring clear passage for emergency vehicles, and reducing the criminal activity resolved by this ordinance at the expense of infringing on legitimate rights to travel in the affected areas? You Be the Judge! 23 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Defendant State of Minnesota Jason Edward Stallman CASE: 3 Decision for the Plaintiff 24 You Be the Judge! Criminal Law Case 4: Don‛t Mess With My Friends People v. William D. The “Defense of Others” Defense oBJecTiVe To understand the use of “defense of others” as a defense to the charge of assault and battery in a school fight. RR Assault and Battery RR Defense of Others RR Reasonable CASE: 4 ToPicS coVered Force You Be the Judge! 25 People v. William D. The “Defense of Others” Defense Background • The victim, Fabrizio, a 6-foot tall high school student, was engaged in conversation with Danny, a 5-foot 3-inch student, regarding an incident in the high school lunchroom where Danny threw food at Fabrizio. • William D., the Defendant, was also a student at the high school, and Danny’s friend. • William D. allegedly threatened and then punched Fabrizio in the face when Fabrizio was about to strike Danny, and as such, was defending Danny. • William D. was charged with assault and battery against Fabrizio. William D. did not dispute that he punched Fabrizio, but claimed that he was using reasonable force in defense of others, namely, Danny. Before you Begin CASE: 4 RR What is Assault and Battery? Assault and battery are two separate crimes. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension or fear in another person of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. The “act” consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another, typically considered the defendant’s “following through” with the assault. RR What is the “Defense of Others” Defense? A person may defend another against an imminent assault or battery by use of force against an attacker. Reasonable force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent harm to himself or another person. A person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary under the circumstances. 26 You Be the Judge! RR What is Reasonable Force? Reasonable force is the amount of force necessary to protect oneself or one’s property. Reasonable force is a term associated with defending one’s person or property from a violent attack, theft, or other type of unlawful aggression. If one uses excessive force, or more than the force necessary for such protection, he or she may be considered to have forfeited the right to defense. Reasonable force is also known as “legal force.” iSSue Before THe courT Was Danny in imminent danger when the Defendant intervened in the argument between Danny and Fabrizio? Was the level of force that the Defendant used “reasonable” to prevent injury to Danny, or was the force “excessive” under the circumstances? THe facTS Fabrizio testified that the incident began when Fabrizio accused Danny of throwing food at him in the school lunchroom. Later that day, Fabrizio approached Danny and asked, “What was that all about?” Danny began calling Fabrizio names and protested that he never threw food at him. Fabrizio believed Danny was trying to get him angry by calling him names, and stated that he refrained from action because of their size difference (Fabrizio is 6 feet tall and Danny is 5 feet 3 inches tall). Fabrizio walked away from the confrontation to cool off. William then approached Fabrizio and told him “not to mess with his friends” and punched him. to claim In order s,” of other “defense ant must nd the Defe there was at h t believe or e need f it n fi a de the tion, and interven ed, ho is aid person w ate e a legitim e. must hav ns self defe claim to Several students witnessed the incident and, based on the friendships, had differing versions of what took place. Three of Fabrizio’s friends testified that Danny taunted Fabrizio, then Fabrizio and Danny pushed each other, and William punched Fabrizio. CASE: 4 William D., Danny, and Fabrizio were all students at La Jolla High School in California. On September 19, 2003, after a lunchroom incident, William D. punched Fabrizio in the face. The punch fractured Fabrizio’s left malar bone and required his hospitalization. William D. was criminally charged with assault and battery. Two of William’s friends testified that Fabrizio and Danny were arguing, Fabrizio said he wanted to go elsewhere and fight Danny, Danny looked intimidated, and Fabrizio shoved Danny. William arrived and told Fabrizio not to mess with his friends. Fabrizio approached William with his fist clenched, and William punched Fabrizio. William was charged as a juvenile for assault and battery. William argued that he used reasonable force to defend Danny, in other words, the “defense of others” defense. You Be the Judge! 27 CASE: 4 Sources The case briefing above contains excerpts and direct extractions from the sources noted below that have been combined with the author’s own expert legal input. The case has been condensed and formatted from its original content for purposes of this workbook. People v. William D., 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3563. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One April 22, 2005. Opinion written by Judge McDonald. Published by Lexis Nexis 28 You Be the Judge! NAME Date Review the Case After reading People v. William D., answer the following: 1. Identify the Plantiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. What injuries did Fabrizio suffer? 4. How many times did William D. hit Fabrizio? 5. What is the size difference between Fabrizio and Danny? CASE: 4 6. In Fabrizio’s opinion, what was Danny trying to do when Fabrizio confronted him? 7. According to Fabrizio, what did he plan to do after he confronted Danny? 8. According to the testimony, what did William say when he approached Fabrizio? You Be the Judge! 29 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) 9. According to William’s friends, how did Fabrizio approach William? CASE: 4 10. Fabrizio’s friends offer a different version of events than William’s. In Fabrizio’s friends’ version, what occurred immediately prior to the punch? Does their version help or hurt William’s case of defense of others? Why? 30 You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: 1. Was Fabrizio in fear of imminent bodily harm when William D. approached him? Explain. 2. Did William D. hit Fabrizio with the intention to injure him? Explain. CASE: 4 3. Was Danny afraid that Fabrizio was going to attack him at the time William punched Fabrizio? Explain. 4. Did William use reasonable force to protect Danny from Fabrizio? Explain. You Be the Judge! 31 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Defendant State of California William D. CASE: 4 Decision for the Plaintiff 32 You Be the Judge! Contract Law Case 5: Barbie v. Bratz Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc. Employment Contracts and NonCompete Clauses oBJecTiVe To understand the use of an employment contract that includes a non-compete clause between an employer and an employee and the concept of an employee’s “duty of loyalty” to an employer. ToPicS coVered RR Employment contracts RR Non-compete RR Employee’s “duty of loyalty” to employer and just” non-compete clauses CASE: 5 RR “Fair clauses You Be the Judge! 33 Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc. Employment Contracts and Non-Compete Clauses Background • Mattel, the creator of Barbie dolls, sued its former employee, Carter Bryant, and his employer, MGA Entertainment, Inc., manufacturer of Bratz dolls, for breach of an employment contract. • Carter Bryant signed an employment contract, which included a non-compete clause, with Mattel. Under this contract, the parties agreed that anything Carter Bryant created while working for Mattel was the property of Mattel. The contract prohibited Carter Bryant from working for any of Mattel’s competitors during the term of the contract. • Mattel claimed that Carter Bryant violated the employment contract and his “duty of loyalty” to Mattel by developing the Bratz doll while still employed by Mattel. Mattel also alleged that Carter Bryant then conspired with MGA Entertainment, Inc., a competitor, to manufacture and distribute the Bratz doll. Before you Begin RR What is an employment contract? An employment contract is a document that exchanges promises between an employer and an employee and describes the terms and obligations of each party during the employment. RR What is a non-compete clause in an employment contract? A non-compete clause, when included in an employment contract, prohibits an employee from working with a competitor of the employer while employed by the employer and for a period of time after employment. CASE: 5 RR What 34 is the purpose of a non-compete clause? One of the purposes of a non-compete clause is to protect confidential information of the employer. You Be the Judge! RR What is an employee’s “duty of loyalty” to his employer? An employee, as an agent of an employer, has a “duty of loyalty” to his employer to work in the best interest of the employer and not for his own self-interest. RR What is a “fair and just” non-compete clause? For a non-compete clause to be enforced, it must be fair and just to the employee and must not unfairly restrict the employee trying to pursue his profession. Courts balance the rights of business owners to protect their assets and the rights of the employee to earn a living. iSSue Before THe courT Whether a signed employment contract that includes a non-compete clause is enforceable by an employer to protect confidential designs created by an employee from being sold to a competitor. THe facTS In 2004, the Plaintiff, Mattel, Inc. (Mattel), the world’s largest toy manufacturer and the owner of Barbie dolls, filed a complaint against its former employee, Carter Bryant (Bryant), the creator of the Bratz line of dolls and MGA Entertainment, Inc. (MGA Entertainment), the manufacturer of the Bratz dolls. Bratz toys were first introduced in June 2001, and had since become one of the world’s premiere toy lines and girls’ lifestyle brands. Bratz dolls have pouty lips and edgy, urban clothes that have drawn young girls to estimated annual sales of $500 million. Mattel claimed ownership rights to the Bratz line because it alleged that Bratz’ creator, Bryant, developed the sketches while working for Mattel. Mattel asserted claims against the Defendants for: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of duty of loyalty, and (3) wrongful interference with a contract. Mattel sought money damages and a court order preventing MGA Entertainment from making future Bratz dolls and related products. he most One of t f causes o common ent m y f emplo breach o is s it lawsu contract ence in r the diffe the t a t ion of interpre s of n io condit d n a s m ter ement. the agre CASE: 5 Mattel employed Bryant as a product designer twice from September 1995 through April 1998 and January 1999 through October 2000. Upon starting his second term, Bryant signed an Employee Confidential Information and Inventions Agreement in which he agreed not to engage in any employment or business other than with Mattel or to assist any competing business of Mattel. Bryant assigned to Mattel all rights, title, and interest in any inventions he conceived of during his employment. In exchange, he was paid a salary without any royalties. Bryant also completed Mattel’s Conflict of Interest Questionnaire. Bryant certified that he had not worked for any of Mattel’s competitors in the prior 12 months and had not engaged in any business dealings creating a conflict of interest. Bryant agreed to notify Mattel of You Be the Judge! 35 any future events that raised a question of conflict of interest. After Bryant left employment, Mattel’s CEO alleged that he had received an anonymous letter stating that Bryant had created the Bratz doll while working at Mattel and that Bryant had taken a vacation day from Mattel to discuss the doll with MGA Entertainment. As evidence, Mattel produced a new employment agreement between Bryant and MGA Entertainment that Bryant signed September 18, 2000, while Bryant was still employed by Mattel. A situation w hich has a potential to un dermine the impartialit y of a person becau se of the possibility of a clash between the person‛s self-interest and professional interest is known as co nflict of interest. Pursuant to MGA Entertainment’s employment agreement, Bryant agreed to provide product design services for MGA’s line of Bratz dolls. In return, MGA Entertainment agreed to pay Bryant $5,500 per month for the first six months and $5,000 per month for the next three months. In addition, MGA Entertainment also agreed to pay Bryant a 3% royalty on the future sales of the Bratz line. CASE: 5 Bryant testified during trial that the sketches he showed MGA Entertainment in 2000 were transferred from originals he made in the summer of 1998 in between his two periods of employment with Mattel. Bryant testified that observing students walking from school, browsing through Steve Madden shoe ads in Seventeen, and looking at the cover of the Dixie Chicks album “Chicks With Attitude” inspired the sketches. Bryant claimed that since he was a clothing designer for Barbie, the sketches at issue had nothing to do with his work at Mattel. Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. Mattel,Inc.v.MGAEntertainment,Inc.,616F.3d904(9thCir.2010). UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals,9thCircuit July22,2010.OpinionwrittenbytheHonorableChiefJusticeAlexKozinski. 36 You Be the Judge! Ruth Handler, creator of Barbie and Ken, named the dolls after her daughter Barbara and son Kenneth. NAME Date Review the Case After reading Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., answer the following: 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify two of the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. Is the Plaintiff seeking money damages? 4. Is the Plaintiff seeking any other type of court order? 5. What is a non-compete clause? How does this clause protect Mattel’s business? CASE: 5 6. Explain Bryant’s duties under the employment contract with Mattel. 7. How did Mattel compensate Bryant under the employment agreement? You Be the Judge! 37 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) 8. Bryant completed a Conflict of Interest Questionnaire for Mattel. What did Bryant certify in the questionnaire? 9. What are the dates that Bryant worked for Mattel? 10. According to Mattel, explain how Bryant violated the terms of his employment contract. 11. When did Bryant claim that he developed the Bratz doll? 12. What inspired Bryant to develop the Bratz doll? CASE: 5 13. What were Bryant’s duties under the MGA Entertainment Employment Contract? 38 14. According to their employment contract, how was Bryant compensated by MGA Entertainment? 15. BONUS: Based on this case, do you believe employment contracts are fair to employees? Explain. You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: 1. Did the Defendant, Bryant, sign an employment contract with the Plaintiff? 2. Did the Defendant, Bryant, violate the terms of the employment contract by entering into an agreement with MGA Entertainment? CASE: 5 3. Is the enforcement of Bryant’s employment contract fair and just to all parties? You Be the Judge! 39 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Defendant Mattel, Inc. MGA Entertainment, Inc. and Carter Bryant CASE: 5 Decision for the Plaintiff 40 You Be the Judge! Contract Law CASE: 6 Case 6: The Tumbled Cheerleader Sharon v. City of Newton Contracts Not to Sue oBJecTiVe To understand the use of a release to limit a party’s liability for injuries caused by its own alleged negligent acts. ToPicS coVered RR Contract Not to Sue RR Capacity of a Minor Child to Enter into a Contract RR Validity of Release as Condition to Participation in Extra-curricular Activities RR Parental Consent You Be the Judge! 41 CASE: 6 Sharon v. City of Newton Contracts Not to Sue Background • Merav Sharon, a high school junior, had been a cheerleader for her school’s football and basketball teams since her freshman year. • During her junior year, while still a minor, the high school she attended required all students and at least one parent/guardian to sign a release in the event a student was injured during a voluntary extra-curricular activity. • Merav and her father signed the release. • Merav fell from a teammate’s shoulders while rehearsing a pyramid formation cheer and sustained a severe injury to her left arm ultimately resulting in surgery. • Merav alleged that the high school was negligent in its failure to train and supervise the cheerleaders. • The school argued that since Merav and her father signed a parental consent release, the school was not responsible for her injuries. Before you Begin RR What is a contract? A contract is an agreement between two or more competent parties to perform or to refrain from performing some legal act. If one party breaches the contract, the other party can attempt to enforce their contractual rights in a court of law. RR What is a parental consent release? In the absence of fraud, a person, or parent/ guardian on behalf of a minor, may enter into a contract with another party which releases the party (school) from any liability caused by its own alleged negligent acts. RR Can a minor enter into a contract? A contract cannot be entered into by a minor (a person 17 or younger). If a minor signs a contract, that contract will not be enforceable against the minor unless a parent or guardian represented the minor at the time of the contract formation. A parent/guardian acting in the best interest of the child has a fundamental right to make decisions regarding the minor’s health and safety. RR Is a release valid as a condition to participate in extra-curricular activities? Yes, releases are widely used by educational institutions to protect the school from lawsuits by students who are injured during participation in these activities. 42 You Be the Judge! Whether a release signed by the parent of a minor child for the purpose of permitting the child to engage in public school extra-curricular sports activities is a valid way to protect the school from liability where a student gets injured while engaged in the activities. CASE: 6 iSSue Before THe courT THe facTS On November 8, 1995, 16-year-old Merav Sharon was injured while participating in cheerleading practice at Newton North High School in Massachusetts. Merav fell from a teammate’s shoulders while rehearsing a pyramid formation cheer and sustained a serious compound fracture to her left arm that required surgery. At the time of her injury, Merav had four seasons of cheerleading experience at the high school level. On November 5, 1998, having reached the age of majority (18 years old), Merav filed a lawsuit against the City of Newton, alleging negligence and the negligent hiring and retention of the cheerleading coach. Merav sued for money damages resulting from her injury. In late October 1999, the city produced a document entitled “Parental Consent Release from Liability and Indemnity Agreement” signed by Merav and her father in August 1995, three months prior to the injury. The relevant part of the release read as follows: sue is nt not to ed a n e v o c A er ment ent o an agree wh n o s per into by a laim c l a g a le may have the nother in against a agrees not ut future, b the claim. e u s r to pu “I, the undersigned [father of] . . . Merav Sharon, a minor, do hereby consent to [her] participation in voluntary athletic programs and do forever RELEASE, acquit, discharge, and covenant to hold harmless the City of Newton . . . from any and all actions, causes of action, [and] claims . . . [for] personal injuries or property damage which [I] may now or hereafter have as the parent . . . of said minor, and also all claims or right of action for damages which said minor has or hereafter may acquire, either before or after [she] has reached [her] majority resulting . . . from [her] participation in the Newton Public Schools Physical Education Department’s athletic programs. . .” Merav argued that neither she nor her father realized that by signing the release they were waiving their future claims against the school. You Be the Judge! 43 CASE: 6 Merav and her father both signed the front of the release, which they indicated was for the sport of cheerleading. In addition, they filled out the back of the release that called for information regarding Merav’s address, date of birth, health insurance provider, and emergency contacts, and provided the opportunity for them to purchase student accidental insurance through the school (an option which they explicitly declined on the form). Merav’s father signed the back of the release giving parental consent to a physical examination of Merav prior to her participation in the cheerleading program. The City of Newton argued that the release was a clearly labeled, two-sided document, which Merav brought home from school for her parents to review. As such, both Merav and her father had ample time to read and understand the release before signing it, and they should be deemed to have understood the release was a waiver of liability against the school. Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. Sharonv.CityofNewton,437Mass.99,769N.E.2d738(Mass.2002). SupremeJudicialCourtofMassachusetts,Middlesex June10,2002.OpinionwrittenbytheHonorableJusticeRobertJ.Cordy. 44 You Be the Judge! Studies have shown that cheerlea ding is the number on e cause of catastroph ic injuries among high sc hool and college athle tes. CASE: 6 NAME Date Review the Case After reading Sharon v. City of Newton, answer the following: 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. Is the Plaintiff seeking money for her injuries? 4. Describe the incident in which Merav was injured. 5. Describe Merav’s injuries from her fall. 6. What was Merav’s cheerleading experience at the time of her injury? 7. What is a parental consent release form? You Be the Judge! 45 CASE: 6 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) 8. Explain the City of Newton’s reason(s) for asking the court to enforce the parental consent release. 9. List the facts that support the school’s argument that Merav and her father understood the terms of the parental consent release. 10. Did Merav voluntarily assume any risks associated with cheerleading? 11. BONUS: What is your school’s policy on extracurricular activities? Are parents/guardians required to sign a release prior to participation? Explain. 46 You Be the Judge! Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: CASE: 6 NAME 1. Did the Plaintiff and one of her parents sign a parental consent release? 2. Did the Plaintiff and at least one of her parents understand the parental consent release? 3. Should the school be permitted to protect itself against lawsuits by having parents/guardians sign parental consent release forms? You Be the Judge! 47 CASE: 6 48 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Plaintiff Decision for the Defendant Merav Sharon City of Newton You Be the Judge! CASE: 7 Contract Law Case 7: Teen‛s First Car Bowling v. Sperry Minor’s Capacity to Enter Into Contracts oBJecTiVe To understand the concept of a minor’s “capacity to contract” and under what circumstances a minor can “disaffirm” a contract. ToPicS coVered RR Capacity of a Minor to Enter into a Contract RR Voidable Contracts RR Minor’s Disaffirmance of Contracts RR Contracts for Necessities You Be the Judge! 49 Bowling v. Sperry Minor’s Capacity to Enter Into Contracts CASE: 7 Background • The Plaintiff, Larry Bowling, was a 16-year-old high school student who purchased his first car from a used car lot owned by the Defendant, Sperry Ford Sales. • A short time after the purchase, the car broke down and Bowling wanted to return the vehicle to Sperry Ford Sales. • Bowling claimed that he did not have contractual capacity to enter into the contract, and as such, the contract was voidable thus allowing him to disaffirm the contract. • Sperry argued that because the contract was for necessities, the minor had no right to disaffirm the contract. Before you Begin RR Capacity to Contract In order to enter into a binding contract, each party must have legal contractual “capacity.” To have legal capacity to enter into a contract, each of the parties must have reached the “age of majority.” In other words, 18 years old. RR Voidable Contracts Contracts that are entered into by minors are “voidable” at the option of the minor, unless a parent or guardian represented the minor at the time of the contract formation. While minors may cancel a contract that they entered into, the other party to the contract does not have the same right to cancel an otherwise valid contract. 50 You Be the Judge! RR Disaffirmance Where a minor cancels, or disaffirms, a contract before he or she reaches 18 years of age. RR Contracts for Necessities An exception to a minor’s right to disaffirm a contract is in the case of a contract for necessities, for example, food, clothing, and shelter. Minors cannot cancel these types of contracts. The court looks to whether the item, in this case a “car,” is so needed by a minor, in view of his situation in life, his social status, and financial position, that he could not maintain that lifestyle without it. iSSue Before THe courT Whether a minor, when accompanied by an adult, who purchases an automobile from a car dealer, may disaffirm the sale after the automobile breaks down and needs repair. CASE: 7 Whether an automobile was a necessity for the minor. THe facTS The Plaintiff, Larry Bowling, a minor, sued the Defendant, Max E. Sperry (Sperry Ford Sales), in an effort to disaffirm and set aside a contract for the purchase of an automobile on the grounds that he was a minor when he entered into the contract. Larry, a 16-year-old high school student from Cromwell, Indiana, worked at a restaurant in Syracuse, Indiana. Because this summer job was at a restaurant eight to nine miles away from his home, he decided to buy a car. On June 29, 1957, Larry went to the local car dealer, Sperry Ford Sales, with his aunt and grandmother. Larry had lived with his grandmother for most of his life. He decided to purchase a 1947 Plymouth automobile for the sum of $140 from Sperry Ford Sales. He put $50 down on that day and returned July 1 to pay the balance of $90 and take possession of the car. obile an autom $140 for alent iv the equ in 1947 is ximately of appro ay. a car tod r o f 0 0 $2,5 The acting manager for Sperry Ford Sales, who sold Larry the car, testified that when Larry’s aunt and grandmother came to the sales lot on June 29, “they” said Larry needed something for him to get back and forth to work. Larry then selected the car, and his aunt drove the car around the lot at that time. Sperry delivered to Larry a certificate of title and a written receipt in Larry’s name alone. This receipt stated that as of June 29, 1957, Sperry Ford Sales sold to Larry Bowling a 1947 Plymouth for the amount of $140 paid in full. Sperry was fully aware of Larry’s age when the sale was negotiated. Larry drove the car several times during the following week and discovered that the main bearing was burned out. He brought the car back to Sperry’s where Larry learned it would cost $45 to $95 to make You Be the Judge! 51 CASE: 7 repairs. He refused to pay this amount and left the car on Sperry’s lot. Subsequently, he mailed a letter to Sperry to the effect that he disaffirmed the contract of purchase and demanded the return of his money. Upon Sperry’s refusal to pay back the $140, this lawsuit followed. At trial, Sperry defended the action on grounds that Larry was with his grandmother and aunt on the day he purchased the car and that his aunt actually paid for the car. It was also revealed at trial that Larry’s aunt loaned him $90 in order to make final payment on the car and that he began paying his aunt back at $10 a week. Larry testified that during the short period of time he had possession of the 1947 Plymouth, he only used it for pleasure and did not drive it to work. Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. Bowling,etc.v.Sperry,etc.,133Ind.App.692,184N.E.2d901(1962). CourtofAppealsIndiana September10,1962.OpinionwrittenbytheHonorableJusticeWalterMyers,Jr. 52 You Be the Judge! An automobile can be considered a necessity in the moder n world. NAME Date Review the Case After reading Bowling v. Sperry, answer the following: CASE: 7 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. What remedy did the Plaintiff seek from the court? 4. How old was Larry Bowling when he purchased the vehicle? 5. Who did Larry live with at home? 6. Who accompanied Larry when he went to Sperry Ford Sales? 7. Why did Larry need a car? 8. Did Larry purchase a car? If so, what model did he buy and for how much money? You Be the Judge! 53 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) CASE: 7 9. Did Larry test drive the car before he purchased it? 10. What problems did Larry discover the car had? How much would it cost to fix the car? 11. What did Larry do when he was told about the price of repair? 12. Did Larry use the car to drive to work while it was in his possession? 13. What is Sperry Ford’s defense to Larry canceling the contract and demanding his money back? 14. Bonus: Do you believe that a teenager owning his/her own car is as necessary as food, clothing, or living in a home or apartment? 54 You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: CASE: 7 1. Did a contract exist between Larry and Sperry Ford Sales? 2. Was Larry a minor at the time he entered into the contract? 3. Did Larry use the car for pleasure or for work? Was it a necessity in view of his situation in life, his social status, and his financial condition, so that he could not maintain his lifestyle without it? You Be the Judge! 55 NAME Date You Be the Judge CASE: 7 Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: 56 Decision for the Plaintiff Decision for the Defendant Larry Bowling Sperry Ford Sales You Be the Judge! Business Law: Partnerships Case 8: Makeup Madness! A Case in Partnership Formation oBJecTiVe To understand the basic formation of a partnership between two individuals. CASE: 8 Holmes v. Lerner ToPicS coVered RR Business Organizations RR Partnerships RR Verbal Contracts You Be the Judge! 57 Holmes v. Lerner A Case in Partnership Formation Background • Two friends, Patricia Holmes, a horse trainer, and Sandra Kruger Lerner, a multi-millionaire businesswoman, agreed to form a business organization to start a cosmetics company known as “Urban Decay.” • After returning from a trip to England to purchase horses, the two friends began experimenting with different colors for nail polish. This experiment blossomed into selecting names for the colors, securing funding for market research and product development, and naming their company “Urban Decay.” CASE: 8 • Holmes claimed that the two friends formed a partnership, and as the business began to succeed, Lerner pushed her out of this business. • Lerner claimed that there was no partnership, and although Holmes helped with the original idea, it was Lerner’s business experience and financial connections that made the business successful. Before you Begin RR What is a business organization? A business organization is an entity formed to make a profit. The entity may be in the form of a sole proprietorship, a partnership, a limited liability company, or a corporation. RR What is a partnership? A partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners of a business for profit. The partners must “intend” to form a partnership. This requires the court to look at the “terms” of their agreement, their conduct, the sharing of profits, and any other surrounding circumstances that are relevant to the case. 58 You Be the Judge! RR Can a contract be verbal? A contract can be verbal or in writing. Some contracts are required to be in writing; for example, contracts for the sale of goods over $500, contracts for the sale of real estate, contracts that require over a year to complete, contracts in contemplation of marriage, and contracts where one person guarantees to pay for the debt of another. iSSue Before THe courT Whether there are sufficient facts to prove that a partnership existed between two individuals. THe facTS Patricia Holmes was a horse trainer when she met Lerner in late 1993. Lerner visited Holmes’ horse training facility to arrange for the training and boarding of two horses she imported from England. Holmes and Lerner became friends, and after an initial six-month training contract expired, Holmes continued to train Lerner’s horses without a contract and without cost. In 1995, Lerner asked Holmes to travel to England with her to attend a horse show and to buy horses with her. While in England, Lerner decided that she wanted to celebrate her 40th birthday by going out to pubs in Dublin, Ireland. ional Dysfunct are hips partners ource of s a major failure. business CASE: 8 Sandra Kruger Lerner was a successful entrepreneur and an experienced businesswoman. She and her husband, Len Bosack, were the original founders of Cisco Systems, a very successful computer company. When she sold her interest in that company, she received a substantial amount of money, and her net worth was in excess of $47 million at the time of the trial. As the two got dressed in Lerner’s mansion outside of London, Lerner gave Holmes a manicuring kit, telling her to find a color Holmes could wear. Lerner wore what Holmes termed “alternative clothes” with black nail polish and encouraged Holmes to do the same. Holmes, however, did not like black nail polish and was unable to find a suitable color in the English stores. Holmes looked through the kit, tried different colors, and eventually developed her own color by layering a raspberry color over black nail polish. This produced a purple color that Holmes liked. Holmes showed the new color to Lerner, who also liked it. On July 31, 1995, the two friends returned from England. While sitting at the kitchen table in Lerner’s posh West Hollywood condominium, they discussed nail polish and colors. Lerner’s husband was in and out of the room during the conversation. For almost two hours, Lerner and Holmes worked to try to recreYou Be the Judge! 59 ate the purple color Holmes had made in England. Lerner made a different shade of purple, and Holmes commented that it looked just like a bruise and called it “Plague.” Holmes had been reading about 16th century England and how people with the plague developed purple sores. She thought the color looked like the plague sores. CASE: 8 Lerner and Holmes decided to create names with an urban theme, such as “bruise,” “plague,” “mildew,” “smog,” “uzi,” and “oil slick.” Len Bosack heard the conversation about the urban theme and suggested “decay.” The two women liked the idea and decided that Urban Decay was a good name for their concept. Lerner stated, “This seems like a good thing; it’s something that we both like and it isn’t out there. Do you think we should start a company?” Holmes responded, “Yes, I think it’s a great idea.” 60 Urban Decay ‛s colors were inspired by the unique hues of America‛s modern edgy urban scene. Lerner’s housekeeper testified that she heard Lerner tell Holmes, “It’s going to be our baby, and we’re going to work on it together. It was all Pat’s idea over in England, but I’ve got the money to make it work.” Lerner also told her housekeeper that she hoped to sell Urban Decay to Estee Lauder for $50 million. Neither woman had experience in cosmetics, but they began to work on their idea immediately. Holmes and Lerner did market research by going to stores, talking with people about nail polish, checking what nail polishes were available, and buying samples to bring back to discuss with each other. Using Lerner’s home as a laboratory, they experimented with nail colors, taking pictures of various color mixing sessions. They met with a graphic artist to create a logo, and secured a trademark for Urban Decay. Lerner and Holmes discussed visiting chemical companies and hiring people to handle the daily operations of the company. Sources Eventually, Lerner stopped including Holmes in meetings and business decisions of the company. Feeling edged out of the business, Holmes confronted Lerner. Lerner claimed she was just being nice to Holmes by including her in the Urban Decay business and denied Holmes had any role in creating the colors, names, or concepts for Urban Decay. Furious, Holmes sued for breach of a partnership contract. Thecasebriefingabovecontains excerptsanddirectextractions fromthesourcesnotedbelow thathavebeencombined withtheauthor’sownexpert legalinput.Thecasehasbeen condensedandformattedfromits originalcontentforpurposesof thisworkbook. At trial, Lerner maintained that because the two women did not discuss sharing profits and losses of the business during their earliest conversations about the business, there can be no partnership. Holmesv.Lerner,74Cal.App.4th 442,88Cal.Rptr.2d.130(1999). CaliforniaCourtofAppeals,First District,DivisionOne September7,1999.Opinion writtenbytheHonorableJustice JamesJ.Marchiano. You Be the Judge! NAME Date Review the Case After reading Holmes v. Lerner, answer the following: 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify one of the Defendants in the case. CASE: 8 3. How did the parties meet? 4. What was Patricia Holmes’ profession prior to Urban Decay? 5. What business did Sandra Kruger Lerner own prior to Urban Decay? Was it financially successful? 6. List specific facts that will help the jury understand Lerner’s wealth. 7. What prior experience did the parties have in nail polish? 8. Who came up with the name “Urban Decay”? You Be the Judge! 61 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) 9. Who came up with the idea of an “urban” theme for nail polish? CASE: 8 10. Who created the original “purple” color in England, and what was it called? What information helped to name the “purple” color? 11. What did the housekeeper overhear during the conversation in the kitchen between Lerner and Holmes? 12. BONUS: What could the parties have done to avoid this lawsuit? 62 You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: 1. Did Sandra Kruger Lerner and Patricia Holmes intend to carry on as co-owners of a business for profit? To make this determination as to intent, the court must consider the following: a. What were the terms of their agreement? CASE: 8 b. What was the conduct of the parties? For example, did the parties act like they were in business together? c. What were the surrounding circumstances of the agreement? 2. Was the agreement between Lerner and Holmes sufficiently “definite”? In other words, did the parties agree “upon the same thing, in the same sense”? Explain. You Be the Judge! 63 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Defendant Patricia Holmes Sandra Kruger Lerner CASE: 8 Decision for the Plaintiff 64 You Be the Judge! Tort Law: Negligence and Strict Liability Case 9: Grain Alcohol and “Fire Play” Selwyn v. Ward Duty of Care in Negligence and Strict Liability Actions To understand the concept of negligence and strict liability as it relates to the sale of alcohol to minors where injury was caused by “fire play.” ToPicS coVered RR Dram Shop Act RR Negligence RR Strict Action Product Liability RR Ultrahazardous CASE: 9 oBJecTiVe Activity You Be the Judge! 65 Selwyn v. Ward Duty of Care in Negligence and Strict Liability Actions Background • A minor, Taylor Ward, was hosting a teenage party in a barn located in the back of his parents’ house where partygoers were drinking and using illegal drugs. • The Plaintiff, Bridget Selwyn, a teenage girl, was injured at the party when one of the teenagers poured a bottle of Everclear grain alcohol onto an open fire, which exploded. • A minor, Lauren Andrews, not present at the party, purchased the bottle of Everclear from RC Liquors, Inc. several weeks prior to the incident. • Relying on the R.I. Dram Shop Act, the Plaintiff sued, among others, RC Liquors for selling alcohol to a minor alleging (a) negligence and (b) strict liability. Under her negligence theory, Selwyn alleged that RC Liquors breached its duty of care when it sold grain alcohol to Lauren Andrews because it knew or should have known of the “fire play” linked to grain alcohol. Under her strict liability theory, Selwyn stated that selling alcohol to minors is an ultrahazardous activity. Before you Begin CASE: 9 RR What is a Dram Shop Act? A Dram Shop Act creates liability for liquor stores and other commercial establishments that serve alcoholic beverages to minors. Dram Shop Acts establish liability of establishments from the sale of alcohol to minors where said minors are injured or cause injury to third parties. RR What are the factors to consider in a Negligence action? To win a negligence case, the Plaintiff must establish a duty owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, a breach of that duty, proximate cause between the conduct and the injury, and actual loss or damage. RR What is Strict (Products) Liability? In a strict liability lawsuit, Plantiffs claim that their injuries are proximately caused by some ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activity of the Defendant. 66 You Be the Judge! RR What is an “ultrahazardous” and “abnormally dangerous” activity? An ultrahazardous and abnormally dangerous activity is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity should be held strictly liable for injuries caused to another person—even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others from being injured. To determine whether an activity is ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous, courts consider various factors: (a) the risk of harm to others, (b) the likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great, (c) the inability to reasonably eliminate the risk by exercising reasonable care, (d) the commonality of the activity, (e) the inappropriateness of the activity, and (f) the value of the activity to the community. iSSue Before THe courT Whether the Defendant breached its duty of care when it sold grain alcohol to a minor because it knew or should have known of the link between grain alcohol and “fire play.” Whether the Defendant’s sale of grain alcohol to a minor is an ultrahazardous activity, warranting application of strict liability. THe facTS “It’s an all too familiar scenario—a group of high school students manages to obtain some alcoholic beverages, act irresponsibly, and someone gets hurt.” In this version, however, the injuries did not result from the consumption of illegally obtained alcohol but from a minor igniting it and causing an explosion. The Plaintiff, Bridget Selwyn, was the victim in this tragedy and sought to recover for her injuries from several named Defendants, including RC Liquors, Inc. ngers, of its da e s u a c e B t sell tes do no some sta hol or any o grain alc % over 75.5 h it w liquor alcohol. CASE: 9 In the early morning of August 26, 2000, the Plaintiff and several others gathered at the home of Karen Ward (Ward) in Warwick, Rhode Island. The Ward property included an outbuilding, referred to as “the barn,” in which Ward’s son, Taylor, and his friends often socialized. On the night of the incident, the gathering at the barn included Bridget Selwyn, Taylor Ward, Michael A. Buonanno, and several other teenagers. Various people at the party were smoking marijuana and/or ingesting ecstasy in the barn. There was also a partially consumed 1.75 liter bottle of 190-proof grain alcohol or “Everclear” at the party. The bottle had a large label on it that stated, “Warning! Extremely Flammable.” At about 4:30 am on August 26, 2000, the bottle of Everclear became the catalyst for disaster when Buonanno poured some of the grain alcohol onto an open flame, causing an intense explosion that burned Selwyn. The bottle of Everclear was not purchased by Buonanno, but by another teenager, Lauren Andrews. She purchased the Everclear for a gathering at the barn the previous month. Andrews purchased the Everclear at RC Liquors and stated at trial that she was never asked for identification to prove she was over 21 years of age—the You Be the Judge! 67 legal drinking age in Rhode Island. Andrews further testified that she used the alcohol at the previous gathering to mix up a batch of “Jungle Juice,” a combination of Kool-Aid and Everclear—and left the remaining grain alcohol in the barn. She did not purchase the bottle for fire use or “fire play.” CASE: 9 Thomas J. Paolino, a physician and psychiatrist, concentrating his practice on treating substance abuse issues with teenagers, testified that consumption of grain alcohol by teenagers can lead to “rapid intoxication” and young adults will typically engage in risky or dangerous behavior when severely impaired by alcohol. He further testified that grain alcohol is extremely flammable and it was foreseeable that teenagers who drink grain alcohol would often light it on fire. The Plaintiff had two theories of liability for RC Liquors. First, Negligence: The Plaintiff alleged that RC Liquors breached its duty of care when it sold the grain alcohol to Lauren Andrews. Although she admitted that the injury was not due to the intoxication of a minor, but rather “horseplay,” Selwyn argued that RC Liquors was aware, or should have been aware that recipes and Web sites encouraged “fire play” with grain alcohol and that adolescents tend to ignite grain alcohol. Further, the Plaintiff argued that RC Liquors violated the Dram Shop Act, which supported her claim for negligence as a matter of public policy. Second, Strict Liability: The Plaintiff also alleged that selling grain alcohol to a minor was an ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activity, which warranted the application of strict liability. Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. Selwynv.Ward,879A.2d882(R.I.2005). RhodeIslandSupremeCourt OpinionwrittenbytheHonorableJusticesFrankJ.Williams,C.J.,MaureenMcKenna Goldberg,PaulA.Suttell,andWilliamP.Robinson,III,JJ. 68 You Be the Judge! The term dra m shop refers to a sh op where “spirits” are sold by the “dram,” a sm all unit of liquid. The first Dram Shop Act was passed in Illinois in 1872. NAME Date Review the Case After reading Selwyn v. Ward, answer the following: 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify two of the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. Is the Plaintiff asking for money damages? 4. Who purchased the bottle of Everclear? Was he/she present at the party? 5. Where was the grain alcohol purchased? CASE: 9 6. When was the grain alcohol purchased? 7. Who was the owner of the property where the party was hosted? 8. Where on the property was the party located? 9. How was Bridget Selwyn injured? You Be the Judge! 69 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) 10. What could the Defendant, RC Liquors, have done to prevent the injury to the Plaintiff? 11. What is an ultrahazardous activity? CASE: 9 12. BONUS: In your opinion, do you think RC Liquors knew or at least should have known that by selling the grain alcohol to Lauren Andrews, a teenager, the bottle would fall into the hands of other teenagers who would then pour the alcohol onto an open flame? 70 You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: 1. Plaintiff’s negligence theory: a. Did RC Liquors sell the grain alcohol to a minor, namely, Lauren Andrews? b. Is it reasonably foreseeable to RC Liquors that by selling a bottle of Everclear to a minor that the minor may use it for “fire play”? Explain. CASE: 9 2. Plaintiff’s strict liability theory: a. Did RC Liquors fail to warn the user of the dangers of the product it sold? b. Is the selling of grain alcohol an activity that cannot be made safe by the exercise of reasonable care? You Be the Judge! 71 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Defendant Bridget Selwyn RC Liquors, Inc. CASE: 9 Decision for the Plaintiff 72 You Be the Judge! Tort Law: Negligence Case 10: Underage Drinking Tobin v. Norwood Country Club, Inc. Duty of Care to Refrain from Serving Alcohol to Minors oBJecTiVe To understand in a negligence action what the duty of care is for business owners who serve alcohol to customers. ToPicS coVered RR Dram of Care RR Reasonable Care CASE: 10 RR Duty Shop Act You Be the Judge! 73 Tobin v. Norwood Country Club, Inc. Duty of Care in Refraining from Serving Alcohol to Minors Background • The Defendant, Norwood Country Club, is a commercial establishment that serves meals and alcoholic beverages to the general public. It also makes its facility available for private parties by special arrangement. • A teenage girl became severely intoxicated at the club, which was hosting a party for her boyfriend’s family. After fighting with her boyfriend at the club, she left on foot, and, while speaking with her friends who were urging her to get into their car, was struck by a vehicle in the middle of the highway. The minor’s blood alcohol level was recorded as .229—nearly three times the legal limit of .08. • The Plaintiff, the family of the deceased teenager (John M. Tobin, Administrator of the Estate) sued the club following the death of a teenage girl utilizing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Dram Shop Act. • The minor’s family alleged that Norwood Country Club was negligent in breaching its duty of care owed to their daughter since it knew or should have known that minors were drinking alcohol during the party. Before you Begin RR What is a Dram Shop Act? A Dram Shop Act creates liability for liquor stores and other commercial establishments that serve alcoholic beverages to minors. Dram Shop Acts establish liability of establishments from the sale of alcohol to minors where said minors are injured or cause injury to third parties. CASE: 10 RR What 74 is the duty of care? The duty of care is the first of four elements that a plaintiff must prove to establish a negligence action against a defendant. The duty of care element requires proof that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care to protect him/her from harm. The amount or level of care owed by the defendant to a plaintiff is qualified by the type of relationship the parties are engaged in: such as, lawyerclient, physician-patient, employer-employee, and in this case, landowner-invited guest, otherwise known as a business invitee. You Be the Judge! RR What is reasonable care? Reasonable care is the obligation of a person to behave as a reasonably prudent person using the ordinary degree of care required in the circumstance. iSSue Before THe courT Whether an establishment serving alcohol has a duty to use reasonable care to refrain from selling or making alcohol available to minors where the establishment knew or should have known that minors were on the premises and were attempting to drink alcohol. THe facTS The Defendant, Norwood Country Club, is a commercial establishment located in Norwood, Massachusetts that serves meals and alcoholic beverages to the general public. It also makes its facility available for private parties by special arrangement. On the night in question, a Norwood Country Club employee, Paul Moran, organized a family reunion to be held in a private room at the club. The party lasted from 7 pm to after midnight. The party had approximately 100 guests, including six minors, with assigned seating at eight tables. The deceased teen, a 17-year-old female, was the girlfriend of a family member who was 16 years of age. Paul Moran, a family member and full-time bartender at the club, reserved the room free of charge. The family paid the club for the drinks consumed at the party and paid for a caterer to supply the food. elling lty for s a n e p e h T o a minor alcohol t t state, bu varies by e fin , a cludes a in y ll a u s u case or in the warning, uyer, a ividual b n. of an ind uspensio license s Michael Mercer was the club’s bartender supervisor. Mercer approved Moran to use a room at the club for his private function free of charge, although he was unaware that Moran was drinking alcohol that night. Mercer acknowledged that minors were present at the party. CASE: 10 At 9 pm that evening, Moran told Mercer to go home and he would take responsibility for the private party room. Moran asked family members to help him police the party to make sure there was no underage drinking. Patricia Erwin, the bartender on duty that night, could not see the private party room from the bar. That night, she served drinks to party and public guests. She did not enter the private party room during the evening to check if there were any alcohol-related problems. Erwin explained that although this was part of her normal practice, You Be the Judge! 75 she believed Moran was in charge of that responsibility. While the club had a policy of serving only two drinks at a time to a customer, it came out at trial that many customers from the family party came away with several drinks in hand to take to the function room. Erwin testified that she neither served anyone who appeared to be a minor nor saw anyone she did serve hand a drink to a minor. One of the teenagers at the party contradicted this testimony and stated that on at least three occasions, he helped two adults by carrying multiple drinks (on one occasion between 9 and 12 Sea Breeze vodka drinks) from the bar. The first Dra m Shop Act was pass ed in Illinois in 187 2. Further, witnesses testified that many of the teenagers seemed drunk by the end of the party and their tables contained several empty and half-empty glasses of pink liquid that is consistent with the color of a Sea Breeze vodka drink. CASE: 10 At the close of the party, the decedent had an argument with her boyfriend and left the club alone. She walked down the breakdown lane of the highway near the club’s location. Several teenagers left the party in a van in search of a place to continue their drinking. When they encountered the decedent walking in the breakdown lane, they stopped the van and tried to persuade her to get into the van. When she refused and continued walking, the van followed, pulled ahead of her and stopped. The decedent walked in front of the van, pounded on the front hood and then veered diagonally toward the center of the highway. She was struck by a passing vehicle and suffered the injuries from which she died two days later. The decedent’s blood alcohol level two hours after the accident was .229, nearly three times the legal limit of .08. 76 Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. Tobinv.NorwoodCountryClub,Inc.,422Mass.126,661N.E.2d627(1996). SupremeJudicialCourtofMassachusetts,Suffolk February22,1996.OpinionwrittenbytheHonorableJusticeCharlesFried. You Be the Judge! The term dram shop refers to a shop where “spirits” are sold by the “dram,” a small unit of liquid. NAME Date Review the Case After reading Tobin v. Norwood Country Club, Inc., answer the following: 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. Is/Are the Plaintiff(s) seeking money as compensation for their damages? 4. Who rented the room for the party? 5. Did the party pay for the room? If not, explain. 6. What were the party organizers responsible to pay for? CASE: 10 7. What was Norwood Country Club’s policy on the number of drinks served to a customer at any one time? Was this policy followed? Give specifics. 8. Did Norwood Country Club know minors were at the party? You Be the Judge! 77 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) 9. Did Norwood Country Club know the minors were drinking alcohol? If not, what facts illustrate that the club should have known? 10. Who is Paul Moran, and what was his “role” at the party? 11. What actions did Paul Moran take to prevent underage drinking at the party? 12. Who is Patricia Erwin, and what actions did she take to prevent underage drinking? 13. What was the decedent’s blood alcohol level two hours after her death? CASE: 10 14. BONUS: In your opinion, was the deceased teenage girl responsible or partially responsible for her own fate in this case? 78 You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: 1. Did Norwood Country Club owe a duty of care to the minor? 2. Was the duty of care breached? Explain. 3. Was the breach of the duty of care the actual cause of the injury to the minor? In other words, but for the club serving alcohol to the minor to the point of intoxication, would she have walked into the middle of the street and been killed by oncoming traffic? Explain. 5. Did the minor contribute to her own death in any way? If so, please assign a percentage of liability to her for her actions. Explain. You Be the Judge! CASE: 10 4. Was the death of the minor a reasonably foreseeable result of the club’s failure to control the underage drinking at the party? In other words, by failing to prevent underage drinking at the party, was it reasonably foreseeable that the teenage girl would drink to the point of intoxication and later be injured? Explain. 79 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Defendant John M. Tobin, Estate Administrator Norwood Country Club, Inc. CASE: 10 Decision for the Plaintiff 80 You Be the Judge! Tort Law: Strict Liability CASE: 11 Case 11: Where is My Horse? Johnston v. Poulin Strict Liability for Roaming Animals oBJecTiVe To understand the concept of strict liability as it applies to roaming or “at large” animals. ToPicS coVered RR Strict Liability for Roaming Animals RR Roaming or “At Large” Animals You Be the Judge! 81 CASE: 11 Johnston v. Poulin Strict Liability for Roaming Animals Background • Defendants, 16-year-old Jon Poulin and his mother, Barbara Poulin, owned a horse named Twig. The Poulins kept Twig in a fenced-in area of their property in Foster, Rhode Island. • Twig escaped from the property and roamed “at large.” With the help of a policeman, who had experience with horses, Twig was found, but she refused to be led into a horse trailer. • Since Twig refused to get into a horse trailer, the policeman walked Twig to Plaintiff Phillip Johnston’s farm house to board her for the night. While Mr. Johnston attempted to secure Twig in a stall, the horse kicked him in the head resulting in severe personal injuries. • Mr. Johnston alleged that the Poulins were liable for his injuries under a theory of strict liability because, as the horse was a roaming animal, an owner is liable for all damages resulting while the animal is “at large.” Before you Begin RR What is a roaming or “at large” animal? A roaming animal is one that breaks free from its enclosure and is roaming and wandering under its own free will. To determine whether an animal is “at large,” the court must determine at what point there is control and restraint exercised over the animal while it is off its owner’s premises. RR What is strict liability for roaming animals? Under the applicable Rhode Island law, an owner of certain defined animals is strictly liable for the damage caused by the owner’s animal if it breaks free from its enclosure— regardless of the owner’s care to ensure that the animal does not break free. 82 You Be the Judge! RR What types of animals are defined in the Rhode Island law as roaming animals? The types of animals that are roaming animals are a horse, a bull, a boar, a ram, or a goat. Whether, given the facts of the case, the horse Twig was “at large” for purposes of strict liability at the time of the Plaintiff’s injury. CASE: 11 iSSue Before THe courT THe facTS Barbara Poulin and her 16-year-old son, Jon, were the owners of a horse named Twig. The Poulins kept Twig fenced in on Mrs. Poulin’s property in Foster, Rhode Island. On the night of November 10, 1997, a strong wind caused a tree branch to fall on the electric fence that corralled the horse. Twig escaped from her enclosure, and around 11 pm, the Foster Police Department received a report that Twig was running wild on a local road approximately two miles from home. Shortly before midnight, Foster Police Lieutenant Chapman arrived at the Poulin home and spoke to Jon. Barbara Poulin was at work. Jon went with Lt. Chapman to attempt to restrain Twig in a horse trailer, but they were unsuccessful. After 45 minutes, they walked Twig to Plaintiff Phillip Johnston’s farm house to board her for the night. Lt. Chapman recommended Mr. Johnston, an experienced horseman with facilities capable of maintaining Twig for the night. ered l is consid An anima if it is not ” “at large ow or someh confined . d controlle By the time the group arrived at Mr. Johnston’s farm 30 minutes later, Twig had calmed down. Upon entering the barn, Twig became nervous and reared, but she eventually calmed and was led by the halter into the barn. Once inside, Lt. Chapman requested Mr. Johnston’s assistance in placing the horse into the barn stall. Lt. Chapman handed the lead rope to Mr. Johnston, who walked the horse into the stall and clipped a wall rope to the halter without difficulty. Mr. Johnston then walked past the horse and left the stall to get some hay. Upon his return, Mr. Johnston walked along Twig’s left side and deposited the hay in a trough in front of her head. As he attempted to leave the stall, Mr. Johnston brushed against Twig causing the horse to pull back and rear up, and the wall rope broke. Twig lost her footing and fell down, knocking Mr. Johnston to the ground. While Twig was attempting to get back on her feet, she struck Mr. Johnston in the head with her hind hoof. Twig then ran out of the stall to an open You Be the Judge! 83 CASE: 11 field behind the barn. Although Mr. Johnston indicated to the police that he was okay, the next day he woke up in pain and went to the hospital. Subsequent medical reports showed that Mr. Johnston suffered a concussion and injured his neck, jaw, and head. Mr. Johnston received stitches to his head. There was evidence presented at trial that Twig was in a state of excitability when she entered the barn and was never fully brought under control. There was also contradicting evidence that Twig had been restrained and was indeed brought under control. Jon Poulin testified that Mr. Johnston antagonized the horse by slapping her on the rear when she stood up abruptly as he slid past her left side. Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. Johnstonv.Poulin,844A.2d707(R.I.2004). RhodeIslandSupremeCourt March29,2004.OpinionwrittenbytheHonorableJusticePaulA.Suttell. 84 You Be the Judge! By 1900, Nor th America had an estim ated two mill ion free-roaming horses. Most of the horses were mustang s which began to decrease in number due to human abuse. U.S. Congress passed the W ild Free-Roamin g Horse and Burro Act of 1971 which provid ed for protection of mustangs and other an imals. CASE: 11 NAME Date Review the Case After reading Johnston v. Poulin , answer the following: 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. Is the Plaintiff seeking money as compensation for his injuries? 4. Who is “Twig”? 5. Did the Poulin’s yard have a fence? If so what kind? 6. How did Twig escape from the Poulin’s yard? 7. Where did Lt. Chapman find Twig? 8. How long did Lt. Chapman attempt to get Twig into a trailer? You Be the Judge! 85 CASE: 11 NAME Review the Case (continued) 9. Why did Lt. Chapman decide to bring Twig to Mr. Johnston’s barn? 10. How did Twig initially react to Mr. Johnston’s barn? 11. Did Lt. Chapman request Mr. Johnston help him bring Twig into his barn? 12. What caused Twig to kick Mr. Johnston? 13. What did Twig do immediately after kicking Mr. Johnston in the head? 14. When did Mr. Johnston realize that he was injured by Twig? 86 You Be the Judge! Date Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: CASE: 11 NAME 1. Is Twig considered a roaming animal? Explain. 2. Did the Defendants own Twig at the time of the accident? 3. Did Twig break free from the Defendant’s property? 4. How was the Plaintiff injured by Twig? 5. Was Twig “at large” at the time that she kicked the Plaintiff? To make this determination, you must decide whether the Plaintiff exercised control and restraint over Twig at the time he was injured. You Be the Judge! 87 CASE: 11 88 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Plaintiff Decision for the Defendant Phillip Johnston Barbara and Jon Poulin You Be the Judge! Volpe v. Gallagher CASE: 12 Tort Law: Negligence Case 12: When Neighbors Attack Landowner’s Duty of Care to Control Actions of a Person on His/Her Property oBJecTiVe To understand the duty of homeowners for actions taken by individuals on their property. ToPicS coVered RR Landowner’s duty of care to prevent criminal acts of third person “licensees” on his/her property RR Exception to rule of landowner’s duty of care to prevent criminal acts of third person “licensees” on his/her property RR Duty to Inspect Property You Be the Judge! 89 Volpe v. Gallagher Landowner’s Duty of Care to Control Actions of a Person on His/Her Property CASE: 12 Background • The Plaintiffs, Raymond Volpe and Joyce Almonte, accused their neighbor, the Defendant, Mrs. Sara Gallagher, of negligence by failing to inspect the bedroom of her son, James Gallagher. They alleged that Mrs. Gallagher, as the owner of property, had a duty to inspect the premises for dangerous conditions. • James Andrew Gallagher, a mentally ill 34-year-old adult and an occupant at the Defendant’s home, kept guns and ammunition in the Defendant’s home and used these firearms to shoot and kill his next-door neighbor, Ronald Volpe, for no apparent reason. • Mrs. Gallagher asserts that she did not know that her son kept guns or ammunition on her property; and even if she did know, she could not have known that her son would use them to murder her next door neighbor, as he had no history of violence prior to this tragedy. Before you Begin RR What is a landowner’s duty of care for criminal acts of third persons? A landowner has no duty to protect another from intentional criminal acts of third parties that take place on his/her property or the public way. RR What is an exception to the landowner’s duty of care for criminal acts of third persons? Landowners have a duty to prevent third persons that they permit to use their property from intentionally harming or creating an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others— where the landowner has the ability to control the third person and knows, or should know, of the need to exercise such control. 90 You Be the Judge! RR What is the landowner’s duty to inspect property? A possessor of land has a duty to inspect the premises for dangerous conditions. iSSue Before THe courT CASE: 12 Whether the Defendant Gallagher, as a landowner, owed a duty to her neighbors, Plaintiffs Volpe and Almonte, to prevent her mentally ill son, a licensee, from conducting himself on her property in a manner that created an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to her neighbor. THe facTS “Who knew? In essence, that was the defense to the charge of negligence in this lawsuit.” The Plaintiffs, Raymond Volpe and Joyce Almonte, accused the homeowner, Defendant Mrs. Sara Gallagher, of negligently allowing her mentally ill adult son, James Andrew Gallagher, to keep guns and ammunition on her property. On July 3, 1994, the date of the murder—James Andrew Gallagher, 34 years old, lived with his mother, Mrs. Gallagher, in her small North Providence, Rhode Island, ranch house. James, who had no job and no friends, suffered from hallucinations, imaginary conversations, and paranoia. James spent long hours by himself in his bedroom located in the basement of Mrs. Gallagher’s home. In this basement bedroom, James kept a shotgun, a pistol, boxes of ammunition, and related gun paraphernalia. On the date in question, for no known reason, James suddenly emerged from the basement of the Defendant’s home with his loaded shotgun in hand and shot his neighbor, Ronald Volpe, three times while the victim was trimming the hedges between their two houses. rson e is a pe A license e property th who is on er (with h t o n of a he despite t ), n io s is m r t e r p pe y t the pro fact tha en to the is not op ublic. general p After discharging the shotgun three times into Volpe’s head and body, James returned, shotgun in hand, to his basement leaving the victim’s dead body facedown in the hedges. After hearing the gunshots, Mrs. Gallagher stood at her side door as James brushed by her on his way back down to the basement. James admitted to her that he had just shot the victim. Thinking that her son just might be hallucinating again, but troubled by the “fireworks” she had heard, Mrs. Gallagher called her two daughters who lived nearby and asked them to come over to the house right away. They did so and quickly enlisted the help of a neighbor. You Be the Judge! 91 CASE: 12 Walking over to the hedges that bordered the Volpe and Gallagher houses, the neighbor soon discovered Volpe’s body and called the police. Meanwhile, one of the Defendant’s daughters entered the basement, removed a handgun from a dresser drawer, and hid it under a pillow on the living room couch until the police arrived and arrested James. The Plaintiffs brought a wrongful-death lawsuit against Mrs. Gallagher. They also attempted to sue the incarcerated James Andrew Gallagher, but he did not testify or otherwise participate in the trial of this civil case. Charged with first-degree murder by the state, James eventually dropped his insanity defense and pled nolo contendere (no contest) to a reduced criminal charge of second-degree murder. Throughout this trial action, James remained imprisoned for this crime. According to Mr. Volpe and Ms. Almonte, the Defendant knew or should have known that by allowing her mentally ill son to possess guns and ammunition under his condition, she created an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others. Although James was not formally diagnosed with mental illness, at trial, Mrs. Gallagher admitted, “I knew he wasn’t right. I just didn’t know what was wrong with him [...] he just wasn’t acting right. He always wanted to be alone in darkness. He was acting peculiar.” However, Mrs. Gallagher stated, “I just wouldn’t allow anybody to have guns in the house. I was afraid of them and didn’t want them. If I had known that my son had a gun, I would have told him to get rid of it. If he didn’t, I would have.” Gallagher argued that she did not know that James had guns and ammunition in her home. Further, even if she had known, her son had no history of violence. Therefore, she argued that she could not have foreseen that one day he would shoot their next door neighbor using any of the guns and ammunition that he kept at her home. Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. Volpev.Gallagher,821A.2d699(R.I.2003). RhodeIslandSupremeCourt May12,2003.OpinionwrittenbytheHonorableJusticeRobertG.Flanders. 92 Nolo Conten dere (no contest) is a Latin term which means “I do not wis h to contest.” It refers to the plea by an individual in a criminal case where he/she does not wish to contest th e charges against him/h er. You Be the Judge! The duty of care is a legal obligation set on an individual that they act with a standard of reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm to others. If a person‛s actions do not meet this standard of care, then the acts are considered negligent, and any damages resulting may be claimed in a lawsuit of negligence. NAME Date Review the Case After reading Volpe v. Gallagher , answer the following: CASE: 12 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. Are the Plaintiff(s) looking for compensation in the form of money from the Defendant? 4. What is the relationship between Mrs. Gallagher and James Gallagher? 5. How old was James Gallagher when he committed the criminal act? 6. What symptoms of mental illness did James Gallagher suffer from? 7. Did a medical physician ever diagnose James Gallagher regarding his mental illness? 8. What crime(s), if any, was James Gallagher charged with, and how were those criminal charges ultimately decided? 9. Did Mrs. Gallagher periodically inspect her son’s room for guns or any other weapons? You Be the Judge! 93 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) CASE: 12 10. Did Mrs. Gallagher have a right, as the owner of the property, to inspect her son’s room for weapons, even though he was an adult at the time of the incident? 94 11. What were Mrs. Gallagher’s arguments as to why she should not be responsible for the actions of her son? Be specific. You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: 2. Did the Defendant, Mrs. Gallagher, as the owner of the property, know that James Andrew Gallagher had weapons in his room? CASE: 12 1. Did Mrs. Gallagher, as the owner of the property, have a duty to her neighbors to keep her premises safe from dangerous conditions, in this case, her son harboring weapons? Explain. 3. Should Mrs. Gallagher, as the owner of the property, have known that her son had dangerous weapons in his room? 4. Did Mrs. Gallagher know that her son, James, was a dangerous person? Explain. 5. Did Mrs. Gallagher breach her duty of care to her neighbors by failing to inspect the premises for dangerous conditions, i.e., guns in her son’s room? Explain. 6. Could Mrs. Gallagher control her son’s actions where she could demand he remove the guns from his room? Explain. 7. D id the fact that James Gallagher harbored weapons in his room create an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm to the Volpes/Almontes? Explain. You Be the Judge! 95 NAME Date You Be the Judge CASE: 12 Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: 96 Decision for the Plaintiff Decision for the Defendant Raymond Volpe and Joyce Almonte Mrs. Sara Gallagher You Be the Judge! Tort Law: Negligence Case 13: Fireworks at School School District’s Liability for Criminal Acts of Third Persons on School Grounds oBJecTiVe CASE: 13 Nicholson v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of New York To understand a school’s liability for injuries that occur on school grounds after school hours. ToPicS coVered RR Municipality’s duty of care to maintain school playgrounds RR Municipality’s liability for criminal activities on school playgrounds RR Municipality’s duty to provide supervision on school playgrounds You Be the Judge! 97 Nicholson v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of New York School District’s Liability for Criminal Acts of Third Persons on School Grounds Background • Brian Nicholson, a 7-year-old boy, lived across the street from elementary school Public School 94, in Brooklyn, New York. On the day in question, Brian walked across the street around 4:30 pm and sat down in a corner of the school yard. • At that time, ten other children, each about 12 years of age, were playing with fireworks in the schoolyard. One of the children called Brian’s name. When Brian turned around, he was hit in the left eye by a firecracker. After several successive operations, the eye was removed and an artificial one put in its place. CASE: 13 • Brian, through his mother, Margaret Nicholson, brought an action against the Board of Education for the City of New York for the injuries sustained from the criminal activity, i.e., setting off fireworks, an illegal activity in New York at the time of the incident. Before you Begin RR What is a municipality’s duty of care to persons using its parks and playgrounds? A municipality is under a duty to maintain its parks and playground facilities in a reasonably safe condition. RR What is a municipality’s liability to injured parties caused by criminal activities at public playgrounds? A municipality that is aware people are using its park or playground as a site for criminal activities needs to take appropriate preventative measures to protect others from harm. If it fails to do so, the municipality will be liable for resulting injuries. 98 You Be the Judge! RR What is a municipality’s duty of care regarding supervision of parks and playgrounds? A municipality may be obligated to have an adequate degree of general supervision and regulation to prevent activities by park visitors that endanger other visitors. iSSue Before THe courT Whether a municipality, aware that its playground is being used by children as a site for the unlawful discharge of fireworks, is liable for resulting injuries when it fails to take appropriate preventative measures. THe facTS At the time Brian entered the playground, ten other children, each about 12 years of age, were playing with fireworks. Brian heard his name called, and when he turned around, a firecracker hit him in the left eye. After several operations, the eye was removed and an artificial one replaced it. The school yard was not run as an official, supervised area for after-school play. The Defendant, the Board of Education for the City of New York, did not assign school personnel to supervise play. Nevertheless, young children in the neighborhood, a congested tenement house area, played at P.S. 94 after school, as it was the closest playground to their houses. The school yard was separated from the public sidewalk by a high metal fence. However, the gates of the fence had been missing for years. istrative An admin sed of a ompo division c ritory and er defined t known as a is n io populat ipality. ic n u m CASE: 13 In June 1968, at about 4:30 pm, 7-year-old Plaintiff Brian Nicholson, walked across the street into the school yard at elementary school P.S. 94 in Brooklyn, New York. Brian sat down in a corner to watch the “big” kids play. He was not a student of P.S. 94, nor of any formal after-school program conducted by the school. The school playground was across the street from where Brian lived. For two years prior to Brian’s injuries, the Defendant had received constant warnings that people were exploding firecrackers, setting papers on fire, and throwing bottles and garbage in the schoolyard. These destructive episodes became more frequent during April and May, the two months preceding Brian’s injury. To combat this behavior of fireworks, fire, and garbage, members of the Block Association met with the principal to request that gates be installed to close the school yard or that supervision be provided. The principal honored neither request. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for money damages resulting You Be the Judge! 99 from his injuries and argued that the Defendant was negligent in allowing the children on school grounds where it knew or should have known that the kids were lighting fireworks. CASE: 13 The Defendant argued that because the accident took place in a school yard, rather than a public park, there was no duty to the Plaintiff except to prevent an intentional wrongful act. It also argued that its duty was limited to maintaining the yard in physically good condition. Sources The case briefing above contains excerpts and direct extractions from the sources noted below that have been combined with the author’s own expert legal input. The case has been condensed and formatted from its original content for purposes of this workbook. Nicholson v. Board of Educ. of the City of New York, 36 N.Y.2d 798, 369 N.Y.S.2d 703 (1975). New York Court of Appeals April 7, 1975. Opinion written per curiam by the Honorable Justices Charles D. Breitel, Matthew J. Jasen, Domenick Gabrielli, Jones, Solomon Wachtler and Lawrence Cooke. 100 You Be the Judge! NAME Date Review the Case After reading Nicholson v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of New York, answer the following: 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. CASE: 13 3. Is the Plaintiff seeking money for his injuries in this case? 4. What were Brian’s injuries? 5. Why did Brian go to the playground the day of the incident? 6. Was Brian a student at the school? 7. What age was Brian when he was injured? How old were the other children in the playground? 8. What time did the incident occur? 9. Where was Brian’s house in relation to the playground? You Be the Judge! 101 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) 10. Were there any prior incidents of fireworks being lit off at the playground? Explain. 11. Describe the neighborhood surrounding the school. CASE: 13 12. Did the principal have knowledge of the childrens’ fireworks activity? Explain. 13. Were there gates around the school yard at the time of the incident? 14. Did the Block Association ever meet with the principal regarding the playground? If yes, what did the Block Association request? 15. BONUS: What could the Board of Education have done to prevent this accident? 102 You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: 1. Did the Board of Education owe a duty of care to Brian Nicholson? Explain. 3. Was it foreseeable to the Board of Education that if they failed to take adequate precautions to protect minor children, like Brian, in the playground, someone would get hurt? Explain. CASE: 13 2. Was the duty of care breached by the Board of Education for failing to take adequate precautions to protect Brian Nicholson? Explain. 4. Was the Board of Education’s failure to take adequate precautions to prevent fireworks at the school yard the cause of the injury to Brian Nicholson? Explain. 5. What were Brian’s injuries? You Be the Judge! 103 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Defendant Brian Nicholson Board of Education of the City of New York CASE: 13 Decision for the Plaintiff 104 You Be the Judge! Tort Law: Negligence Case 14: Parking Lot Attack Nivens v. 7-11 Hoagy’s Corner Duty of Care of Business Owners Against Criminal Attacks on Their Customers To understand what a business owner’s duty of care is to his/her customers (otherwise known as “business invitees”) to protect the customers from criminal attacks. ToPicS coVered RR Negligence RR Business RR Duty CASE: 14 oBJecTiVe Invitee of Care for Criminal Acts of Third Persons RR Special Relationship Exception to the Duty of Care for Criminal Acts of Third Persons RR Forseeable Act You Be the Judge! 105 Nivens v. 7-11 Hoagy’s Corner Duty of Care of Business Owners Against Criminal Attacks on Their Customers Background • The Plaintiff, Ken Nivens, was attacked by a group of youths in the parking lot of a 7-11 after he refused to buy them beer. • Nivens alleged that 7-11 was responsible for his injuries. He argued that the employees knew or should have known that the teenagers frequently gathered in the parking lot and solicited the customers to buy them beer and that this combination of teenagers and drinking could cause someone to get hurt. • 7-11 responded that Nivens’ injuries were the result of a random criminal attack which was impossible to foresee. Before you Begin RR What is negligence? Negligence is the breach of a duty of care by a Defendant which is the cause of injuries to another person whom the Defendant has an obligation to protect from harm. CASE: 14 RR What 106 is a business invitee? A business invitee is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land for the purpose of conducting business with the occupier of the premises—for example, a customer in a retail store. RR What is the general duty of care to protect another from criminal acts? In general, a person does not owe a duty of care to protect another from criminal acts of third parties. You Be the Judge! RR What is a “Special Relationship” exception to duty of care to protect another from criminal acts? A person has a duty to protect another from the criminal acts of third persons when a special relationship is present. A special relationship exists between a business and its invitees. The business has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent its invitees from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties. RR What is a foreseeable act? Foreseeable acts are acts about which the business owner knows about or has reason to know. iSSue Before THe courT Whether a business owes a duty to business invitees to protect them against criminal acts by third persons on the business premises. THe facTS On December 26, at about 10 pm, the Plaintiff, Ken Nivens, parked his car in the parking lot in front of a 7-11 store called Hoagy’s Corner. He had been a customer of 7-11 for several years. As he approached the store entrance, Nivens noticed a group of teenagers. One of the teens, Robert Figueroa, asked Nivens to buy beer. When Nivens refused, some of the youths called him names and Figueroa grabbed him from behind. Nivens was hit and kicked in the head, neck, shoulders, and ribs. Nivens sued 7-11 for damages for his resulting injuries. The investigating officer, Deputy Sheriff Barnhill, acknowledged on the stand that while loitering by teens (lingering or hanging around a public place or business) usually included drinking alcohol and taking illegal drugs resulting in fights or assaults, he did not recall any instance of violence at the store other than the one in which Nivens was involved. e world‛s 7-11 is th enience onv e largest c with mor in a h c store s in 16 00 store ,5 9 3 n a h t s. countrie CASE: 14 Nivens testified that for the last six years, between 10 and 100 young people would gather in the parking lot of the 7-11 store. Figueroa confirmed this and added that he and his friends would often solicit 7-11 customers to buy beer for them. A 7-11 employee testified that the teenagers would fight among themselves in the 7-11 parking lot, but they rarely bothered customers. The store presented evidence that it took adequate precautions to prevent assaults on customers. 7-11 required every store to post a sign stating “no soliciting, no loitering, and no loud music.” In addition, 7-11 had an explicit policy requiring clerks to ask persons drinking on the premises to dispose of any alcohol or leave. Clerks were to watch for loiterers and tell them to leave. If they did not leave, clerks were to call the police. These policies were also written in two separate employee manuals. You Be the Judge! 107 7-11 called a longtime customer, John Shadduck, as a witness. He had no recollection of any acts of violence at the store. In fact, Shadduck stated customers had to be well-behaved or they would be asked to leave. 7-11 employee, Kathleen Anderson, testified that the majority of teens and young adults who came to the store did not cause trouble and were well-behaved. For the entire year preceding the incident, she never observed any fights or altercations between customers and the teens in the parking lot and no customer complaints had been received. Plaintiff Nivens sued the Defendant for money damages for his injuries claiming that the Defendant was negligent in failing to provide adequate security at the 7-11 store. CASE: 14 Defendant, 7-11, argued that because there was no evidence of prior violence toward customers, the criminal act was unforeseeable— it did not know and had no reason to know that a criminal act would occur. Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. Nivensv.7-11Hoagy’sCorner,133Wash.2d192,943P.2d286,(Wash.1997). SupremeCourtofWashington October1,1997.AmendedopinionwrittenbytheHonorableJusticePhillipTalmadge. 108 You Be the Judge! Small busines ses use employee han dbooks to inform employ ees of the company‛s po licies and expectations . NAME Date Review the Case After reading Nivens v. 7-11 Hoagy’s Corner, answer the following: 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. Is the Plaintiff seeking money for his injuries? 4. Describe the injuries to Nivens. 6. Did 7-11 have any signs posted at the store that are important to deciding this case? If yes, what did the sign(s) state? CASE: 14 5. Although Nivens was attacked by a “group” of youths, only one testified at trial. What was his name and summarize his testimony? 7. Who is John Shadduck? What did he testify to with respect to any history of violence? You Be the Judge! 109 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) 8. Who is Kathleen Anderson, and what did she testify? 9. What was 7-11’s policy regarding drinking alcohol on the store’s premises? CASE: 14 10. What were 7-11 employees required to do if they discovered drinking of alcohol on the premises? 110 11. BONUS: What could 7-11 have done to prevent this attack? You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: 1. Did the Defendant, 7-11, owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff, Ken Nivens? What specifically was the duty that was owed? 2. If there was a duty of care, was it breached? 4. Was the failure to adequately protect Nivens from the criminal acts of the teens the cause of the injury to the Plaintiff? Explain. CASE: 14 3. Was the teen’s attack on Nivens a forseeable consequence? Explain. 5. How was the Plaintiff injured? You Be the Judge! 111 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Defendant Ken Nivens 7-11 Hoagy’s Corner CASE: 14 Decision for the Plaintiff 112 You Be the Judge! Tort Law: Negligence Case 15: Teens Wreak Havoc in a Store Medley v. Home Depot, Inc. Duty of Care of Business Owners Against Personal Injury to Their Customers oBJecTiVe To understand what a business owner’s duty of care is to his/her customers (otherwise known as “business invitees”) to protect the customers from injury while on the store premises. ToPicS coVered RR Negligence and Fall Injury RR Business RR A Invitee CASE: 15 RR Slip Business Owner’s Duty to Inspect You Be the Judge! 113 Medley v. Home Depot, Inc. Duty of Care of Business Owners Against Personal Injury to Their Customers Background • Ms. Dee Dee Medley, a business invitee, brought a negligence lawsuit against the well-known retail store, Home Depot, for injuries she sustained while in the store. • While shopping in Home Depot, Ms. Medley slipped and fell on a slippery substance, later discovered to be oil. • Ms. Medley alleged that at the time of the incident, a group of teenagers, who were running wild in the store, intentionally opened a can of oil and poured it on the floor. • Ms. Medley claimed that Home Depot had a duty to inspect the aisles for dangerous conditions, especially since Home Depot knew about the teens’ mischief, which resulted in the oil on the floor and injury to her. Before you Begin RR What is negligence? Negligence is the breach of a duty of care by a defendant which is the cause of injuries to another person whom the defendant has an obligation to protect from harm. RR What is a “slip and fall” injury? A slip and fall injury stems from a person slipping and falling on the ground, allegedly caused by the negligence of the owner or possessor of the property. CASE: 15 RR What 114 is a business invitee? A business invitee is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land for the purpose of conducting business dealings with the occupier of the premises—for example, a customer in a retail store. You Be the Judge! RR What is a business owner’s duty to inspect? An owner/possessor of land has a duty to warn business invitees of dangers it actually knows about, as well as dangers that it should have known about through reasonable inspection, on the premises. This requires that all business owners conduct regular inspections of the premises for potential dangers. iSSue Before THe courT Whether a business owner owes a duty to business invitees to protect them against negligent acts by third persons on the business premises. THe facTS Ms. Dee Dee Medley filed suit against Home Depot, Inc., for damages she claimed occurred from a slip and fall injury at Home Depot. Ms. Medley was shopping at Home Depot looking for an extension cord. She pushed her shopping cart halfway down an aisle and left it to go ask Andrew Attaway, the department manager, for help in locating the product. As Ms. Medley headed back to her cart, still looking for the extension cord, she slipped and fell on oil spilled on the floor. Ms. Medley never saw the oil or any liquid on the floor, but a Home Depot employee told her at the scene that she had slipped on oil. While an oil container was found on the floor near Ms. Medley’s fall, no oil was sold in the area in which Ms. Medley fell. The bottle had been deliberately punctured open, as if with a screwdriver, and it appeared that the oil had been deliberately poured onto the floor. The bottle containing the rest of the oil had been thrown between some boxes on the side of the aisle. ven e over se There ar all” lip and f million “s h year. filed eac s it u s w la After her fall, Ms. Medley went to the hospital, where a Home Depot loss prevention supervisor, Steven Hester, visited her. Mr. Hester stated that he believed a group of teenagers had poured the oil onto the floor. CASE: 15 With respect to non-shoppers, Home Depot’s storewide policy required supervisors to monitor the store for any persons who are non-shoppers and ask them to leave the store. Hester testified at trial that he was aware of three teenagers who were running through the store—playing hide and seek. He stated that these young people were not shoppers, but horsing around, playing tag, and killing time. Hester was monitoring the teens to make sure the situation did not get out of hand, and at one point, he told them to behave or find their parents and leave. You Be the Judge! 115 With respect to keeping the aisles safe, Home Depot’s storewide policy requires that department supervisors patrol the aisles to make sure they are clear. Andrew Attaway, the department manager, testified that on the incident date, there were five aisles in the electrical department of Home Depot. Four employees were working in the five aisles. Attaway stated that he inspected the area in which Ms. Medley fell within five minutes before her fall and had not seen any oil. When notified of her fall, Attaway alleged he was about 20 yards away from Ms. Medley’s location. Attaway also testified as to the teens’ presence in the store. He stated that the teens regularly came into the store on Friday afternoons and “messed things up.” He indicated that the kids had spilled things previously, and that both Hester and Home Depot knew that the teens might spill substances that might be hazardous to shoppers. CASE: 15 Ms. Medley argued that Home Depot did not follow its own policies in failing to more closely monitor the teens, and Home Depot knew that the non-shoppers had previously spilled items on the floor. Sources 116 You Be the Judge! Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. Medleyv.HomeDepot,Inc.,252Ga.App.398,555S.E.2d736(2001). CourtofAppealsofGeorgia September18,2001.OpinionwrittenbytheHonorablePresidingJusticeMarionT.Pope,Jr. With over 2,2 00 The Home Dep stores, ot, Inc. is the world‛s la rgest home improvement specialty retailer in th e U.S. NAME Date Review the Case After reading Medley v. Home Depot, Inc., answer the following: 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. Is the Plaintiff seeking money for her damages? 4. As a business invitee of Home Depot, explain the duty of care that the store owed to Ms. Medley. 5. What was Home Depot’s policy for “non-shoppers”? CASE: 15 6. What was Andrew Attaway’s position at Home Depot? What was his duty regarding the aisles in the electrical department? 7. What was Steven Hester’s position at Home Depot? You Be the Judge! 117 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) 8. Should Hester have done anything according to Home Depot policy regarding the teenagers? 9. State the facts that illustrate Home Depot knew the teens might cause trouble in the store. 10. State the number of employees and aisles in the electrical department at the time Ms. Medley fell. 11. BONUS: In your opinion, what could Home Depot have done to prevent this incident? CASE: 15 12. BONUS: In your opinion, did the Plaintiff do anything to contribute to her own injuries? 118 You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: 1. Did Home Depot owe a duty of care to Ms. Medley? Explain. 2. Did Home Depot breach its duty of care to Ms. Medley by not removing the teenagers from the building in a timely manner? Explain. 3. Was it reasonably foreseeable to Home Depot that by failing to remove the teenagers in a timely manner, Home Depot would create an unreasonable risk of harm to Ms. Medley? Explain. CASE: 15 4. Did Home Depot know, or should they have known, that shoppers could be harmed by the teenagers’ presence in the store? 5. Was the Plaintiff injured? You Be the Judge! 119 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Defendant Dee Dee Medley Home Depot, Inc. CASE: 15 Decision for the Plaintiff 120 You Be the Judge! CASE: 16 Consumer Law: Product Liability Case 16: What Goes Up, Must Come Down! Sollami v. Eaton Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn in Product Liability Action oBJecTiVe To understand the standards of a manufacturer’s liability when it produces a product that injures a consumer using the product. ToPicS coVered RR Product Liability RR Unreasonably RR Duty Dangerous Product to Warn RR Defense to Product Liability, the “Open and Obvious” Doctrine You Be the Judge! 121 CASE: 16 Sollami v. Eaton Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn in Product Liability Action Background • The Plaintiff, Kathleen M. Sollami, a 15-year-old girl, went to her friend’s house to play on the friend’s trampoline while the friend’s parents were not home. • Sollami suffered a bad knee injury while playing a game called “rocket jumps” in which one jumper is propelled higher than the other jumpers. • Among the claims in their lawsuit, Sollami’s parents brought a product liability claim against the manufacturer arguing that the manufacturer failed to warn the consumers of the danger in using the trampoline and that the trampoline was an unreasonably dangerous product to the average consumer. • The manufacturer defended that any danger posed by the product to the teenagers was open and obvious and, as such, there was no duty to warn of the product’s danger. Before you Begin RR What is Product Liability? A product liability lawsuit is a type of civil action brought by a Plaintiff against manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, (and/or others who make products available to the public) in an effort to hold them responsible for injuries caused by such products. RR What is an unreasonably dangerous product? A product may be found “unreasonably dangerous” due to a physical flaw, a design defect, or where a manufacturer either fails to adequately warn of the product’s dangerousness or fails to instruct on the proper use of the product. If the product is an unreasonably dangerous one, and the condition existed at the time the product left the manufacturer’s control, then the manufacturer may be liable for personal injuries to the users. 122 You Be the Judge! RR What is the duty to warn? A manufacturer has a duty to warn the average consumer of any dangers associated with the use of the product. RR What is the “Open and Obvious” Defense? A manufacturer may defend a case by using the “open and obvious” defense, arguing that there is no duty to warn consumers of dangers associated with the product which are apparent or in other words, “open and obvious.” Whether the trampoline was unreasonably dangerous at the time that it left the manufacturing plant, and whether the Defendant manufacturer had a duty to warn the Plaintiff of the risks involved in using the trampoline. CASE: 16 iSSue Before THe courT THe facTS In May 1997, the Plaintiff, Kathleen Sollami, then 15 years old, injured herself while jumping on a large, recreational trampoline located in her neighbor, Lawrence Eaton’s yard. Defendant, Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., doing business as Jumpking, manufactured the trampoline. Because Kathleen Sollami was a minor, her father, Phillip Sollami, sued Jumpking, among others, on Kathleen’s behalf for money damages resulting from her injuries. Kathleen, a friend of Lawrence Eaton’s daughter, went to the Eatons’ house on the day in question to see her friend. The girls called two boys and another girl to come over and jump on the trampoline. After a while, all five teenagers were jumping at the same time on the Eatons’ trampoline, which was located in the side yard. The trampoline was described as a “Backyard Round 14’ Diameter Trampoline.” Neither Lawrence Eaton nor his wife was home at the time. dren ,000 chil Over 90 h t n to e are take ar for every ye s. hospital ne injurie trampoli The group decided to do “rocket jumps,” a game where one jumper is propelled higher than the other jumpers. Completing a rocket jump requires three or four persons to jump simultaneously on the perimeter of the trampoline mat while one person jumps to the center and is thereby propelled higher than the other jumpers. After watching one of her friends successfully complete a “rocket jump,” Kathleen took a turn at being the “rocket.” As Kathleen landed on the trampoline mat, she felt her knee pop. Lawrence Eaton purchased the trampoline in 1992 and assembled it according to written instructions provided by Jumpking. Pursuant to those instructions, Eaton affixed decals to the trampoline mat and frame warning that the trampoline should be used only by properly trained participants with direct supervision of a qualified gymnastics instructor. The decal warnings did not include any limit as to the You Be the Judge! 123 CASE: 16 number of persons allowed to jump at the same time. Eaton also attached an instruction placard to the frame with a wire tie. During the spring prior to Kathleen’s injury, Eaton found the placard on the ground and did not reattach it. The Plaintiff alleged that the trampoline contained one or more defects which made it not reasonably safe for its intended use. Further, the Plaintiff claimed that Jumpking was negligent because the manufacturer: The most com mon trampoline in juries are caused by co lliding with another pers on, doing stunts, falling off of the trampolin e, and falling on the trampoline springs or fr ame. 1) Permitted the trampoline, which was a training device, to be used as a backyard toy. 2) Failed to warn persons, including Kathleen, that only one person was permitted on the trampoline at a time. 3) Failed to verify that when the trampoline was sold, its instructions as to its use were attached to the trampoline and could not be removed. 4) Failed to adequately warn persons, including Kathleen, that the trampoline could be used only with the direct supervision of a qualified gymnastics instructor. Jumpking argued that the danger of jumping on a trampoline was “open and obvious” to a 15-year-old girl, and she should have appreciated the danger of rocket jumping on a recreational trampoline. Thus, Jumpking had no duty to warn her regardless of any additional knowledge on the part of Jumpking. Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. Sollamiv.Eaton,201Ill.2d1,772N.E.2d215(Ill2002). SupremeCourtofIllinois June6,2002.OpinionwrittenbytheHonorableJusticeRitaB.Garman. 124 You Be the Judge! Many homeowners insurance policies contain what is called a “Trampoline Exclusion” clause. Pursuant to this clause, the insurance company will cover liability for injuries that occurred to others while on your property, but they will not cover trampoline related injuries. CASE: 16 NAME Date Review the Case After reading Sollami v. Eaton , answer the following: 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. Is the Plaintiff seeking money for her injuries? 4. What is the name of the manufacturing company that produced the trampoline? 5. What was the model of trampoline? 6. When was the trampoline purchased by the homeowner? 7. Who assembled the trampoline? 8. What year did the injury occur? 9. How old was Sollami when she was injured? You Be the Judge! 125 CASE: 16 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) 10. What was the injury that Sollami suffered? 11. What is a “rocket jump,” and how is the game played? 12. Did Jumpking provide any warnings on the trampoline regarding the use of the product? If so, explain the warnings and their location. 13. Were instructions available to Eaton on the use of the trampoline? Were the instructions available to Kathleen on the date of the incident? 14. Were Eaton’s parents home when the accident occurred? 15. BONUS: In your opinion, what could Jumpking have done to avoid the accident? 126 You Be the Judge! Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: CASE: 16 NAME 1. Did Jumpking produce the product that the Plaintiff was injured on? 2. Did Kathleen’s injury occur as a result of using the trampoline? Explain. 3. Did the Defendant, Jumpking, warn the Plaintiff of the dangerousness of using the product? 4. Was the danger of using the trampoline to perform “rocket jumps” open and obvious to the average consumer so that Sollami, a 15-year-old girl, should have foreseen that she could get hurt? Explain. You Be the Judge! 127 CASE: 16 128 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Plaintiff Decision for the Defendant Kathleen M. Sollami Lawrence Eaton and Jumpking You Be the Judge! CASE: 17 Trademark Law Case 17: Battle of the Bags Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc. Trademark Infringement oBJecTiVe To understand the basics of trademark infringement and the concept of injunctions. ToPicS coVered RR Trademark RR Trademark Infringement RR Injunction You Be the Judge! 129 Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc. Trademark Infringement CASE: 17 Background • Louis Vuitton Malletier (Louis Vuitton) is an old, well-established French design company. It is the maker of a famous, very expensive handbag with its trademark “toile” monogram covering the bag. The handbag in question had a multicolored “toile” mark and was part of its signature design series. • Dooney & Bourke, a relatively new company, created a new teen-based handbag called the “It Bag” which also had a multicolored trademark “DB” monogram. The Dooney & Bourke bags were sold at a much lower price. • Louis Vuitton asked the court for an injunction to restrain Dooney & Bourke from producing its handbag and claimed trademark infringement. Louis Vuitton argued that Dooney & Bourke was trying to capitalize on its well-known brand and its multimillion-dollar advertising campaign to confuse potential consumers with similar less expensive products. Before you Begin RR What is a trademark? A trademark is a unique word, phrase, or symbol that distinguishes a company. The essential function of a trademark is to exclusively identify the commercial source or origin of products—in other words, the manufacturer—like the Nike “swoosh” symbol. RR What is trademark infringement? Trademark infringement occurs when a party uses another’s trademark without the authorization of the owner. If the respective marks or products are not identical, the courts will assess the similarity based upon the “likelihood of confusion” by consumers as to the origination (owner) of the products or services. 130 You Be the Judge! RR What is an injunction? An injunction is a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing a certain act or acts. iSSue Before THe courT CASE: 17 Whether Dooney & Bourke’s use of the “It Bag” is likely to cause consumer confusion with the Louis Vuitton multi-colored toile handbag so that customers will purchase the much lower priced Dooney & Bourke handbag instead of the very expensive Louis Vuitton handbag. THe facTS Louis Vuitton, a French design firm, began selling trunks and accessories in the United States in 1893. In 1896, the company created the “toile monogram,” featuring entwined LV initials with three motifs: a curved diamond with a four-point star inset, its negative, and a circle with a four-leafed flower inset. Vuitton registered these trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Having been used exclusively and continuously since 1896, these trademarks are now solely owned by Louis Vuitton. In October 2002, Louis Vuitton launched a series of handbags featuring “new signature toile designs” created by fashion designer Marc Jacobs and Japanese artist Takashi Murakami. The new bags (Murakami handbags) updated the fashion house’s famous toile marks. The fresh design—coined the Louis Vuitton monogram multicolor pattern (multicolor mark)—was a modified version of the “toile marks” printed in 33 bright colors (Murakami colors) on a white or black background. tiff in a The Plain as the rk case h hat tradema t g f provin burden o ant‛s use of nd the Defe ed the as creat a mark h f confusion. do likelihoo In 2003-2004, Louis Vuitton spent over $4 million in advertising and promoting the multicolor mark and associated handbags. In addition, the new design garnered significant media attention. CBS’s The Early Show and publications ranging from USA Today and The New York Times to People, Women’s Wear Daily, Marie Claire, and Vogue all featured the Murakami handbags. Many celebrities, including Jennifer Lopez, Reese Witherspoon, and Madonna, were photographed with the bags in tow. As of late 2006, Louis Vitton had sold nearly 186,600 products and accessories with the multicolor mark design in the United States priced at $150 to more than $4,000 each, amounting to over $186 million in sales. You Be the Judge! 131 CASE: 17 Defendant Dooney & Bourke, an American handbag designer and manufacturer, was founded in 1975. Since 2001, as part of Dooney & Bourke’s “Signature” and “Mini Signature” lines, the company sold bags featuring the DB monogram of interlocking initials, a registered trademark, in a repeated pattern. The “It Bag” products sold from $50 to $400. As of late 2006, more than 1.76 million products had sold with sales figures over $100 million. In the Fall of 2002, Peter Dooney, president and chief designer of Dooney & Bourke, began collaborating with Teen Vogue magazine on a joint promotional project. The magazine selected a group of teenage girls to travel with Dooney to Italy in March 2003 to help develop Dooney & Bourke handbags appealing to teenagers. The group, dubbed the “It Team,” was photographed looking into Vuitton’s store window display featuring handbags with the multicolor marks on a white background. Another photograph taken during the trip showed the group in a factory viewing a swatch of fabric with LouisVuitton’s multicolor mark on a black background. A year later, in late July 2003, Dooney & Bourke introduced the “It Bag” collection featuring the DB monogram in an array of bright colors set against a white background. The intertwined initials, with the “D” and the “B” displayed in contrasting colors, were printed forward and backward in repeating diagonal rows. The handbags also sported a multicolor zipper, with fabric similar to that used by Vuitton, and a small pink enamel heart bearing the legend “Dooney & Bourke” on a tag hanging from the handle. In October 2003, Dooney & Bourke began selling the handbags with a black background. The “It Bag” collection now included a variety of colored backgrounds (periwinkle, bubble gum, and grape) in addition to black and white. Louis Vuitton asked the court to stop Dooney & Bourke’s sale of its new bags arguing that the bags were so similar that they were likely to cause “consumer confusion” with potential purchasers of its handbags. Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. Malletierv.Dooney&Bourke,Inc.,525F.Supp.2d558(S.D.N.Y.2007). UnitedStatesDistrictCourt,SouthernDistrictofNewYork December13,2007.OpinionwrittenbytheHonorableJusticeShiraA.Scheindlin. 132 You Be the Judge! The United S tates Patent and T rademark Office (USPT O) is the Federal ag ency for granting U.S. patents and registering trademarks. Intellectual property refers to the creations of the mind: inventions, symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce. There are three types of intellectual property: trademarks, patents, and copyrights. NAME Date Review the Case After reading Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., answer the following: 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. Is the Plaintiff seeking money damages in this case? If not, what is Louis Vuitton asking the court to do? CASE: 17 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 4. What year did Louis Vuitton begin doing business in the United States? 5. What is the “toile” mark? 6. What year did Louis Vuitton create an updated version of the “toile” mark? How was it modified and by whom? 7. How much did Louis Vuitton spend to advertise the new multicolor design? 8. How much did Louis Vuitton earn from the sale of the new multicolor handbags and accessories? 9. In 2002, the president of Dooney & Bourke collaborated with Teen Vogue, a fashion magazine for teenagers. What was the purpose of the collaboration? You Be the Judge! 133 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) CASE: 17 10. Teen Vogue selected a group of teenage girls to travel with Dooney to Italy. a. What was the name of the team? b. What was the month and year they traveled? c. Where was the “It Team” photographed? 11. What was the name of the new Dooney & Bourke handbag? 12. When was the “It Bag” collection introduced? 13. Describe the features of the Dooney & Bourke “It Bag.” 14. What was the price range of the Dooney & Bourke “It Bag” and its products? 15. How much did Dooney & Bourke earn from the sale of its “It Bag” and related products? 134 You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: CASE: 17 1. Is the Louis Vuitton multicolored toile bag unique and inherently distinctive to its company? Explain. 2. Is there a likelihood that the general public would be confused between the Louis Vuitton multicolored bags and the Dooney & Bourke “It-Bag” so as to confuse which companies own each bag? Explain. 3. Are the two trademarks sufficiently distinct from each other so that consumers understand the difference and can distinguish between the two trademarks and therefore the two companies? Explain. You Be the Judge! 135 NAME Date You Be the Judge CASE: 17 Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: 136 Decision for the Plaintiff Decision for the Defendant Louis Vuitton Malletier Dooney & Bourke, Inc. You Be the Judge! Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters Trademark Infringement and Trade Dress Protections oBJecTiVe To understand the basics of trademark infringement in the area of “trade dress” between two high profile competitors in business. CASE: 18 Trademark Law Case 18: Catalog Fight ToPicS coVered RR Intentional Tort RR Trademark RR Trademark RR Trade Infringement Dress You Be the Judge! 137 Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters Trademark Infringement and Trade Dress Protections Background • The following case focuses on two very well-known clothiers: Abercrombie & Fitch and American Eagle. Abercrombie & Fitch is an old established company stemming back over 100 years, and American Eagle is a relatively new company that began doing business in 1994. • Abercrombie & Fitch claimed that American Eagle intentionally infringed on its trademark by copying, among other things, its designs of certain articles of clothing, in-store advertising displays, and its catalog. We will be focusing on the catalog portion of this case—which will be known as trade dress. CASE: 18 • Abercrombie & Fitch believed that American Eagle was trying to take advantage of its longstanding name and advertising dollars to confuse consumers into purchasing American Eagle products over Abercrombie & Fitch products. Before you Begin RR What is an intentional tort? An intentional tort describes a civil action resulting from an intentional and wrongful act on the part of the Defendant against another, such as intentionally stealing another person’s or company’s trademark. RR What is a trademark? A trademark is a unique word, phrase, or symbol that distinguishes a company. The essential function of a trademark is to exclusively identify the commercial source or origin of products—in other words, the manufacturer—like the Nike “swoosh” symbol. RR What is trademark infringement? Trademark infringement occurs when a party uses another’s trademark without the authorization of the owner. If the respective marks or products are not identical, the courts will assess the similarity based upon the “likelihood of confusion” by consumers as to the origination (owner) of the products or services. 138 You Be the Judge! RR What is trade dress? Trade dress refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging that may be registered and protected from being used by competitors in the manner of a trademark. These characteristics involve the total image of a product and may include features such as size, shape, color combinations, textures, graphics, or even a particular sales technique. iSSue Before THe courT Whether the two catalogs by major clothing companies are sufficiently distinct from each other so that a reasonably prudent consumer can differentiate between the two companies depicted in each catalog? THe facTS Abercrombie & Fitch was founded in 1892 and is a retailer of casual clothing and accessories appealing to college-age consumers. In 1988, The Limited, Inc. acquired Abercrombie & Fitch and rejuvenated the brand, selling billions of dollars in merchandise and spending over $26 million on marketing, including advertisements in national and fashion magazines. Abercrombie & Fitch products are sold nationwide through 157 retail stores and a mail order catalog under the registered trademarks and service marks ABERCROMBIE & FITCH, A & F CO, A & F, and variations thereof. American Eagle Outfitters sells essentially the same variety of clothing and products in its 300 stores nationwide under the trademarks and service marks AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS and AE, generating approximately $300 million in annual sales. American Eagle has been a retailer since at least 1994, although many of its products describe the company’s vintage as 1977. for Revenue mbie & Abercro s 2009 wa Fitch in 0 0 00,0 . $3,540,0 CASE: 18 This case pits an old hand against the new kid on the block: Abercrombie & Fitch sued American Eagle claiming that American Eagle infringed on what Abercrombie & Fitch describes as its unregistered “trade dress.” Abercrombie & Fitch accused American Eagle of selling similar products and marketing them in a similar way, which confused the consumer as to which products belonged to each company. Specifically, Abercrombie & Fitch asserted that American Eagle copied its premiere issue of The Quarterly, an Abercrombie & Fitch catalog that advertises Abercrombie & Fitch products in a way to depict a certain lifestyle. First, Abercrombie & Fitch alleged that American Eagle’s catalog featured the same products, colors, designs, fabrics, and names (i.e., “vintage” sweatshirts and “field jerseys”) as The Quarterly. Second, Abercrombie & Fitch claimed that the paper, page layouts, lifestyle editorial content, manner of displaying merchandise, and typeface in American Eagle’s catalog were identical or confusingly You Be the Judge! 139 similar to The Quarterly. To support its contention, Abercrombie & Fitch introduced evidence of an American Eagle directive to its marketing executives that stated: “Attention store managers - we need you to tell us what Abercrombie & Fitch is marketing!!!” American Eagle managers were instructed to inspect the windows, lead table, and signs in Abercrombie & Fitch stores every week and report on Abercrombie & Fitch’s presentation. Revenue for American Eagle Outfitt ers in 2009 was $2,990,0 00,000. When comparing The Quarterly with American Eagle’s catalogs of the same year, the following facts were revealed: CASE: 18 1) FORMAT: Like Abercrombie & Fitch, American Eagle used the clothesline (or cutout) format to display its goods—the garments appeared on the page as if hanging from a clothesline, not on a model. 2) DISPLAY: American Eagle used colorbars and design bars underneath almost all its garments, while Abercrombie & Fitch did so only occasionally. 3) PHOTOGRAPHS: Throughout The Quarterly, Abercrombie & Fitch made extensive use of grainy photographs depicting apparently in-shape college-aged models in often romantic poses. American Eagle’s photographs were clear and presented a “wholesome image,” with models of various ages in nonsuggestive, often family-oriented situations. 4) ARTICLE CONTENT: American Eagle concentrated on family subjects with slogans such as “After all the gifts are opened and the decorations packed away, there is really one thing that lasts through the holidays—the spirit of giving.” Abercrombie & Fitch articles included titles like “I’ll have a brew Christmas,” “7 ways to survive a holiday gathering with your relatives,” “Drinking 101” which included recipes and a device for playing drinking games. 5) TRADEMARK: Abercrombie & Fitch displayed its trademarks throughout The Quarterly on nearly every page. The American Eagle catalog also prominently displayed their marks. While both companies liberally using their trademarks throughout their catalogs was a similarity, the court found that it was also a difference, because each used its own trademark and trademarks as an indication of a product’s origin. 140 You Be the Judge! Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontains excerptsanddirectextractions fromthesourcesnotedbelow thathavebeencombined withtheauthor’sownexpert legalinput.Thecasehasbeen condensedandformattedfromits originalcontentforpurposesof thisworkbook. Abercrombie&FitchStores,Inc. v.AmericanEagleOutfitters,Inc., 280F.3d619(6thCir.2002). UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals, SixthCircuit February15,2002.Opinion writtenbytheHonorableJustice DannyJulianBoggs. NAME Date Review the Case After reading Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters, answer the following: 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. CASE: 18 3. What was one of Abercrombie & Fitch’s main claims against American Eagle? 4. When did Abercrombie & Fitch start its business? 5. When did American Eagle start its business? 6. What specific actions by American Eagle does Abercrombie & Fitch argue violate its trademark rights? 7. What did American Eagle instruct its employees to do regarding the Abercrombie & Fitch brand? You Be the Judge! 141 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) 8. W hat is the “clothesline method” of displaying clothes in a catalog? Did American Eagle and/or Abercrombie & Fitch use this method? CASE: 18 9. Each company used the photographs to portray a certain image of its products. Explain the content of the photographs for Abercrombie & Fitch and American Eagle and the message each portrayed to consumers. Are the messages different? 10. List the “editorial comments” in the two magazines. Compare the way lifestyle is portrayed in the two magazines. 11. Does the Abercrombie & Fitch logo appear in its catalog? Does American Eagle use its logo in its catalog? Does the court regard the printing of the logos by American Eagle as a similarity between the two catalogs or a difference? 142 You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: CASE: 18 1. Can the Abercrombie & Fitch catalog and its design within the catalog be considered “trade dress” as defined herein? Explain. 2. Is the catalog sufficiently distinct from the Abercrombie & Fitch catalog in its design? 3. Is the American Eagle catalog so similar to Abercrombie & Fitch’s, The Quarterly, that the catalogs will cause confusion among members of the general public as to which products belong to which company? In other words, are the catalogs confusingly similar? Explain. You Be the Judge! 143 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Defendant Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. American Eagle Outfitters CASE: 18 Decision for the Plaintiff 144 You Be the Judge! Trademark Law Case 19: The Alligator Bites Back! Lacoste Alligator, S.A. v. Bluestein’s Men’s Wear, Inc. Trademark Infringement and Trademark Licenses To understand the basics of trademark infringement and the concept of exclusive licensee of a trademark. ToPicS coVered RR Intentional Tort RR Trademark RR Trademark RR Exclusive Infringement CASE: 19 oBJecTiVe Licensee of a Trademark You Be the Judge! 145 Lacoste Alligator, S.A. v. Bluestein’s Men’s Wear, Inc. Trademark Infringement and Trademark Licenses Background • The Plaintiffs, Lacoste Alligator, S.A. and General Mills, Inc. are the trademark owner and its exclusive licensee, respectively. Together, they marketed clothing bearing the registered trademarks, Lacoste and the Izod Alligator, which were well-known due to considerable advertising and promotion. These trademarks and logos were copied without authorization and sold to several stores and individuals, including the Defendant, Elvin Floyd, doing business at Anderson Jockey Lot Flea Market. Floyd then sewed the trademarks/logos on garments and sold the garments at the public flea market. • The Defendant purchased 10,000 Alligator logos from a non-authorized vendor and sewed them onto clothing for resale, without the knowledge or consent of Lacoste or General Mills. • The Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against Elvin Floyd and the other Defendants asking the court to stop the Defendants from any further selling of the Lacoste and Izod Alligator label. Before you Begin CASE: 19 RR What 146 is an intentional tort? An intentional tort describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional and wrongful act on the part of the defendant against another, such as intentionally stealing another person’s or company’s trademark. RR What is a trademark? A trademark is a unique word, phrase, or symbol that distinguishes a company. The essential function of a trademark is to exclusively identify the commercial source or origin of products—in other words the manufacturer—like the Nike “swoosh” symbol or, in this case the Lacoste Izod Alligator. You Be the Judge! RR What is trademark infringement? Trademark infringement occurs when a party uses another’s trademark without the authorization of the owner. If the respective trademarks or products are not identical, the courts will assess the similarity based upon the “likelihood of confusion” by consumers as to the origination (owner) of the products or services. RR What is an exclusive licensee of a trademark? An exclusive licensee of a trademark is a person or company who has the sole authorization from an owner of a trademark to reproduce and sell the trademark item. iSSue Before THe courT Whether a likelihood of confusion could exist in the minds of the general public between the actual Izod alligator logo and the counterfeit logos sewn on non-Izod apparel. THe facTS The Plaintiffs’ trademarks have been advertised and promoted throughout the United States beginning as early as 1950. The Plaintiffs have expended considerable effort and money in the advertising and promotion of their apparel bearing these trademarks, which has resulted in their widespread popularity and public acceptance. The Plaintiffs’ sales in the United States since 1964 exceeded one billion dollars, with approximately half of this amount generated in the two years preceding this case. This case is an attempt by Lacoste to stop several Defendants in South Carolina from manufacturing, selling, and distributing apparel bearing counterfeits or imitations of the Plaintiffs’ trademarks. o is an rfeit log A counte ne that o , usually n io t a it tent im ith the in is made w tly passing it ulen logo. of fraud e genuine h t s a f f o are eit logos Counterf on products ced often pla tent to take in with the perior of the su d e g te advanta a the imit value of . product Elvin Floyd, one of the Defendants, admitted that he purchased 10,000 Izod Alligator logos with the belief that they were originals of the Plaintiffs’ trademarks. Floyd admitted that he personally sewed these logos on garments which he had purchased to resell, none being purchased from the Plaintiffs and none originally bearing the Lacoste or Izod Alligator trademarks. Floyd also admitted that he sold garments bearing the Izod Alligator logo at booths he operated at the Anderson Jockey Lot Flea Market in Anderson, South Carolina. CASE: 19 The Plaintiff, Lacoste Alligator, S.A., is the record owner of several trademarks for Lacoste and the famous Izod Alligator emblem. An additional Plaintiff, General Mills, Inc., is the exclusive United States licensee of the above trademarks, as well as the record owner of several United States Trademark Registrations for the Izod Alligator trademark for various types of apparel. At trial, Mr. Floyd testified as follows: Q. Where did you buy the alligator logos? A. I bought them at an Anderson Flea Market. You Be the Judge! 147 Q. From whom? A. From someone that came by with alligators for sale. He told me they were genuine Izod Alligators. Q. That’s the Anderson Jockey Lot Flea Market? A. Yes. He approached me at the Flea Market and said, “I’ve got the alligators for sale. Would you like to buy them?” And I said, “I’m interested, are they real alligators?” He said, “Yes, they’re genuine alligators. They came from a factory that makes Izod Alligator merchandise; the alligators are real.” And I said, “Well, if you’ll guarantee that.” He said, “You got my word for it.” I said, “What do you want for them?” And he said, “Well, I’ve got 10,000; if you’ll take them all, I’ll give them to you for 50 cents.” So I gave him $5,000; he gave me his real alligators. Counterfeit apparel and accessories ac counted for over 50 pe rcent of the counterf eit goods seized by U.S . Customs and Border C ontrol. Q. How were these alligator logos packaged when you bought them? A. Jeepers. In cellophane. Q. In a bag? A. Yes. CASE: 19 Q. How did you put the logos on the garments? A. I sewed the logos on the garments. Q. How many people did you have working to sew them on? A. As far as I know, I’ve done it. Q. You personally? A. Yes. Q. By hand or with a machine? A. Machine. The Plaintiffs claimed that the willful and deliberate attempts of the Defendant to identify with the Plaintiffs’ trademark and goodwill and the likelihood of public confusion clearly constituted unfair competition. 148 You Be the Judge! Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontains excerptsanddirectextractions fromthesourcesnotedbelow thathavebeencombined withtheauthor’sownexpert legalinput.Thecasehasbeen condensedandformattedfromits originalcontentforpurposesof thisworkbook. LacosteAlligator,S.A.v.Bluestein’s Men’sWear,Inc.,569F.Supp.491 (D.C.S.C.1983). UnitedStatesDistrictCourt,D. SouthCarolina,ColumbiaDivision July28,1983.Opinionwrittenby theHonorableJusticeClydeH. Hamilton. NAME Date Review the Case After reading Lacoste Alligator, S.A. v. Bluestein’s Men’s Wear, Inc. answer the following: 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify one of the Defendants in the case. 3. Are Lacoste and General Mills seeking money for their damages? What else did the Plaintiffs want the court to do? 4. When did Lacoste Alligator start selling its product in the United States? CASE: 19 5. How much money has Lacoste and General Mills earned from the sale of items bearing the alligator logo? 6. Where did Elvin Floyd buy the alligators? 7. Who did Floyd buy the alligators from? 8. How many alligator logos did he buy, and how much did it cost him? You Be the Judge! 149 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) 9. What did he do with all the logos? CASE: 19 10. Did Elvin Floyd have permission to sew the alligator logos onto clothing and resell the clothing as authentic Lacoste products? 150 You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: 1. Did Lacoste Alligator, S.A. and General Mills, Inc., as owners of the trademarks Izod and the Izod Alligator, have the exclusive right to manufacture and sell products with those emblems? Explain. 2. Did Elvin Floyd have permission from Lacoste Alligator, S.A. and General Mills, Inc., to purchase and reproduce products bearing the trademarks of Izod and the Izod Alligator? CASE: 19 3. Was there a likelihood that the general public would be confused by products sold with the Lacoste Alligator logos and products sold with the Floyd Alligator logos? Explain. 4. Did Elvin Floyd willfully and intentionally attempt to identify his products as genuine Lacoste products? Explain. You Be the Judge! 151 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Defendant Lacoste Alligator, S.A. Elvin Floyd CASE: 19 Decision for the Plaintiff 152 You Be the Judge! Family and Probate Law Case 20: To Will or Not to Will American Heart Association v. County of Greenville Is a Will “Probate Property”? oBJecTiVe To understand what “probate property” is for purposes of distribution under a decedent’s Last Will and Testament. ToPicS coVered RR Last Will & Testament RR Probate RR Executor RR Probate Document CASE: 20 RR Public Property/Estate You Be the Judge! 153 American Heart Association v. County of Greenville Is a Will “Probate Property”? Background • Shoeless Joe Jackson, one of the greatest baseball players in the early 1900s, was involved in the infamous “Black Sox” scandal when he, along with seven other players, was accused of “throwing” the 1919 World Series as they allegedly accepted money to intentionally lose the series. • Shoeless Joe died in 1951 from a heart attack, and in his Last Will and Testament, he left all of his property to his wife, Katie, who upon her death, in turn, left all of her possessions to two charities: the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society. • The charities are suing the County of Greenville to release Jackson’s Will arguing that the Will was the personal property of Katie Jackson when she died, and as the beneficiaries of that Will, the charities should take possession for resale to the highest bidder. • The County of Greenville argues that once Shoeless Joe’s Will was filed in the probate court, it became a public document that was not the personal property of his beneficiary. Before you Begin RR What is a Last Will & Testament? A last will and testament is a legal declaration by which a person names one or more persons to manage his or her estate, called an executor, and provides for the transfer of his or her property at death to his beneficiaries. CASE: 20 RR What 154 is Probate? Probate is the process of proving the validity of a will and thereafter administering the estate of the decedent (dead person) according to the terms of the will. The first step is to file the purported will with the appropriate court located in the city/town or county where the deceased person lived. Accompanying the will, the attorney will file a petition to have the court approve the will and appoint the executor named in the will. If the court determines the will is valid, the court then “admits” the will to probate and follows its instructions. You Be the Judge! RR What is an Executor? An executor is the person named by the decedent who is in charge of gathering the decedent’s personal and real property (probate property), paying off any debts of the estate, and distributing the remaining money to beneficiaries of the will. RR What is Probate Property/Estate? Probate property or probate estate includes, with certain exceptions, a person’s personal and real property, i.e., house or land at the time of his or her death. RR What is a Public Document? A public document includes all papers or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, which are prepared, owned, used, or in the possession of a public body. iSSue Before THe courT Whether a person’s will is the personal property of the estate and is owned by the beneficiaries of the estate. THe facTS Baseball legend Shoeless Joe Jackson’s signature is among the most valuable in the world—so rare that the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association sued the County of Greenville and State of South Carolina for possession of his Last Will and Testament. At the time of this lawsuit in 1997, the charities, beneficiaries of Jackson’s estate, hoped to auction it for more than $100,000. Although Jackson admitted to the team attorney to taking $5,000 of a $20,000 bribe, the facts surrounding the confession were considered controversial. Allegedly, to get Jackson to admit his role in the scandal, the team lawyer poured large amounts of whiskey down Jackson’s throat. The other seven players implicated in the scandal confirmed that Jackson was never at any of the meetings. One player, Williams, said that they only mentioned Jackson’s name to give their plot more credibility. Jackson himself recanted his confession and swore innocence until the day of his death. The movies “Field of Dreams” and “Eight Men Out” helped elevate him to an American Legend. ial substant e b n a c e Ther olved in costs inv te. g an esta probatin y, a v fees r Although ney r o t and at o4 executor t 2 ge from ts fees ran e s s a of the . percent e t a b to pro subject CASE: 20 Jackson was one of the greatest baseball players in the early 1900s with a .356 batting average. He was a controversial subject, however, because Jackson was expelled from baseball with seven Chicago White Sox teammates for allegedly accepting gamblers’ bribes and throwing the 1919 World Series. The scheme became known as the “Black Sox” scandal. Jackson could not be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame because of his expulsion. Jackson died in 1951 in Greenville. Upon his death his Last Will and Testament was filed in the Greenville County Probate Court. His wife, Katie, upon her death in 1959, left the Jackson probate estate to two charities, the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society, because Joe had died of heart failure and she suffered from cancer. The value of the Will became a sensation when, in 1991, You Be the Judge! 155 an attorney for one of the charities noticed a newspaper article about Jackson’s signature selling for $23,100 at a Sotheby’s auction—the second-highest amount ever paid for a signature not attached to a document. Only six Jackson signatures were known to exist, as Shoeless Joe was illiterate and usually refused to sign baseballs for his fans. The charities argued that Shoeless Joe Jackson’s Will was his wife’s personal property since individuals may, during their lifetime, own, possess, use, enjoy, and dispose of their Will anyway they see fit and, upon death, the Will becomes part of one’s estate passing directly to the beneficiaries. The County argued that the Will was a public document and was the property of the State of South Carolina. The County stated that the records retention policy of the State of South Carolina provided for the permanent retention of original documents from decedents’ estates. Non-probate property can be distrib uted automatically to the deceased ind ividual‛s beneficiaries. Since the lawsuit was filed, several people were interested in paying more than $100,000 for the Will! CASE: 20 401(k) plans, pensions, life insurance, and property in trust are examples of non-probate property. 156 Sources Thecasebriefingabovecontainsexcerptsanddirectextractionsfromthesourcesnoted belowthathavebeencombinedwiththeauthor’sownexpertlegalinput.Thecasehas beencondensedandformattedfromitsoriginalcontentforpurposesofthisworkbook. AmericanHeartAssociationv.CountyofGreenville,331S.C.498,489S.E.2d921(S.C.1997). SupremeCourtofSouthCarolina September2,1997.OpinionwrittenbytheHonorableJusticeErnestA.Finney,Jr. Shoeless Joe’s Will, Valuable Name On It Not For Sale, Court Says September3,1997.PublishedbytheCharlotteObserver. You Be the Judge! NAME Date Review the Case After reading American Heart Association v. County of Greenville, answer the following: 1. Identify the Plaintiff(s) in the case. 2. Identify the Defendant(s) in the case. 3. Who was Shoeless Joe Jackson, and why is he famous? 4. Why did scholars believe Shoeless Joe may have been innocent? 5. Could Shoeless Joe be voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame? CASE: 20 6. How many Shoeless Joe Jackson signatures were known to exist? You Be the Judge! 157 NAME Date Review the Case (continued) 7. What is the reason for the low number of signatures? 8. How did the worth of the Will become a sensation, and what was the estimated worth of the signed Will? 9. Explain the Plaintiffs’ arguments that Jackson’s Will was incorrectly retained by the State of South Carolina and should have been returned to the estate? CASE: 20 10. Explain the County’s arguments that Jackson’s Will was correctly in the possession of the State of South Carolina and was not part of the estate. 158 You Be the Judge! NAME Date Make the Argument In order for the judge or jury to render a decision, the following are some of the questions that must be considered: 1. Was Jackson’s Last Will and Testament filed in probate court after his death? Explain. 2. Did Shoeless Joe Jackson’s wife have possession of the Will at the time of her death in 1959? CASE: 20 3. Is the Will a public document? Explain. You Be the Judge! 159 NAME Date You Be the Judge Having reviewed the case and considered the questions involved, decide the case for either the Plaintiff or the Defendant: Decision for the Defendant American Heart Association County of Greenville CASE: 20 Decision for the Plaintiff 160 You Be the Judge!