Chapter 1.1, Problem I.4E

John Campbell, an employee of Manhattan Construction Company, claims to have injured his back as a result of a fall while repairing the roof at one of the Eastview apartment buildings. He filed a lawsuit against Doug Reynolds, the owner of Eastview Apartments, asking for damages of $1,500,000. John claims that the roof had rotten sections and that his fall could have been prevented if Mr. Reynolds had told Manhattan Construction about the problem. Mr. Reynolds notified his insurance company, Allied Insurance, of the lawsuit. Allied must defend Mr. Reynolds and decide what action to take regarding the lawsuit.Some depositions and a series of discussions took place between both sides. As a result, John Campbell offered to accept a settlement of $750,000. Thus, one option is for Allied to pay John $750,000 to settle the claim. Allied is also considering making John a counteroffer of $400,000 in the hope that he will accept a lesser amount to avoid the time and cost of going to trial.…

Jolie, an employee of Tenholder, Inc., was drinking during her lunch break on Tuesday. When she got back to work, her boss, Brian, noticed that she had been drinking and sent her home for the remainder of the day, without pay. Brian instructed Jolie to leave her car at work and take a Taxi home and he would pick her up in the morning on his way back into work. Jolie disobeyed and drove home. On her way home, Jolie caused an accident. Is Tenholder, Inc. liable for the damages resulting from the car accident? Is there an agency relationship exists between Jolie and Tenholder, Inc?

Mark Hunger was the safety director at Grand Central Sanitation. On September 7, Hunger “became aware” that hazardous materials consisting of blasting caps were being deposited into garbage containers at Shu-Deb, Inc. Grand Central collected garbage from these containers and dumped it at a dump site. Hunger knew that Grand Central was not licensed to dispose of hazardous materials and believed that it would violate State and/or Federal law if the company transported or disposed of hazardous materials. Hunger also became concerned about the safety of company employees from the danger of transporting blasting caps. On September 9, Hunger informed Grand Central’s owner and vice president, Gary Perin, of the information he received about the blasting caps. On September 12, Hunger, accompanied by Pennsylvania state police and agents of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, went to search the contents of Shu-Deb’s containers. However, the garbage had already been collected,…

A chemical processing company stored toxic waste on its premises. A severe storm caused damaged to the containers storing the waste, which resulted in the spill contaminating nearby pond, which belongs to Sam. The chemical processing company was careful when storing the waste and no allegation of negligence is made. However, Sam claims that the chemical processing company is liable for the pond contamination, even though there is no negligence. Is Sam correct? Explain

The police weren't there during the shooting. The pastor was killed. Later, a man was killed in his bathroom with a baby crying. How does this relate to search and seizure, probable cause, and admissible?

Anna is having lunch at the restaurant across the street. An important fax comes in to the office , so her employee sheli needs to run to the restaurant to deliver the fax to her. She makes the delivery to Anna(her boss) and then leave immediately to go back to the office. The restaurant did not give sheli specific permission to enter and she did not order any food or drink while she were there. What was she? – an invitee, licensee, trespasser or something else? Would the answer change if, before she left, she snuck some food off the Anna’s plate while she wasn’t looking?

Kate owned a small grocery store. One day John went to the store and purchased a can of chip dip that was, unknown to Kate or John, adulterated. John became seriously ill after eating the dip and sued Kate for damages on the grounds that she breached an implied warranty of merchantability. Is Kate liable? Why?

On March 17, Peckham bought a new car from Larsen Chevrolet for $16,400. During the first one and one-half months after the purchase, Peckham discovered that the car’s hood was dented, its gas tank contained no baffles, its emergency brake was inoperable, the car did not have a jack or a spare tire, and neither the clock nor the speedometer worked. Larsen claimed that Peckham knew of the defects at the time of the purchase. Peckham, on the other hand, claimed that he did not know the extent of the defects and that despite his repeated efforts the defects were not repaired until June 11. Then, on July 15, the car’s dashboard caught fire, leaving the car’s interior damaged and the car itself inoperable. Peckham then returned to Larsen Chevrolet and told Larsen that he had to repair the car at his own expense or that he, Peckham, would either rescind the contract or demand a new automobile. Peckham also claimed that at the end of their conversation he notified Larsen Chevrolet that he was…

John Torniero was employed by Micheals Jewelers, Inc. (Micheals).  During the course of his employment, Torniero stole pieces of jewelry, including several diamond rings, a sapphire ring, a gold pendant, and several loose diamonds.  Over a period of several months, Torniero sold individual pieces of the stolen jewelry to G&W Watch and Jewelry Corporation (G&W).  G&W had no knowledge of how Torniero obtained the jewels.  Torniero was arrested when Micheals discovered the thefts.  After Torniero admitted that he had sold the stolen jewelry to G&W, Micheals attempted to recover it from G&W.  G&W claimed title to the jewelry as a good faith purchaser for value. Micheals challenged G&W’s claim to title in court.  Who wins?  Explain your reasoning.