Posted: May 13th, 2015

LAW

LAW

Part 1
1.Try to find the following case on the web: Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W. 2d 657 (Iowa Sup. Ct. 1971).
If you have trouble finding it, you can take a look at it at: https://www.cooter-ulen.com/cases.htm

2. Try to find a short synopsis on the web of the ?Coase Theorem? as it relates to law.
If you have trouble finding it, you can take a look at it at: https://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Coase_World.html

3. Take a look at https://www.maryalice.com/cases/mcdonald.html
(This site discusses the ?other side? of the recent McDonald?s litigation.)

Part 2
You are the general manager of the Vacation Inn. The Inn has an Olympic-size swimming pool on its back lot. The Inn is also two blocks away from a soup kitchen for the homeless. A year ago, unknown individuals soiled the water in the pool, and, thus, your guests? children playing in the pool became seriously ill. As a result, the Inn installed a ten-foot wire-mesh fence around the pool. Two weeks ago, however, your staff found the body of a homeless man in the pool. An investigation determined that the individual climbed the fence in an inebriated state and lost consciousness upon entering the water. The decedent?s relatives are now suing the Inn. Your district manager asks you to ?put an end to such problems,? and warns you that another incident like this could ?cost you your job.? While you are certainly sympathetic to the plight of the homeless, you also want to keep your job. You feel that installing barbed-wire at the top of the fence would be inhumane and would also scare your guests. In stead, you opt to turn to a small company that manufactures electric fences for cattle. The solution they recommend is to run a ?hot wire? at the top of the fence. The wire would deliver a mild, normally non-lethal, electric shock to a would be trespasser. A week later you install the wire. Two days later, another inebriated homeless man, who has a pacemaker, climbs the fence. He dies instantly as a result of the mild electric shock. His family sues the Inn.

1. Ignoring any municipal codes and statutes that may exist, based on the information you have reviewed in Katko v. Briney, the Coase theorem with respect to negligence, and your own common sense, what are the policy arguments for and against tort liability in this case?

2. What do you think the best solution would be and why?

Part 3. Aguest walking through the hotel lobby accidentally spills his drink. He immediately notifies a front desk employee of this accident. The front desk employee is very busy checking in guests. He says, “I will get some to take care of it.” Shortly, thereafter, a young boy is running through the lobby. He falls and breaks his arm. Subsequently, it is determined he fell near the substance and upon investigation of his shoes he finds a liquidly substance on the soles.
1.Discuss this scenario in terms of negligence

a. Was there a duty? If so, what is that duty and where does it stem?

b. Was this duty breached? What is the standard of care in this situation? Did the hotel meet this standard of care?

c. If the duty was breached, was it the proximate cause of John’s injuries or is something else responsible?

d. Was there an injury?

Part 4
Hypothetic Discission
On a late Friday night, a drunken patron strolls into the Outlook Bar at Vacation Inn. The bartender fails to check his identification and serves him a beer. Then another. The patron is upset when the bartender gives him a bill for $8.00 for the two beers and starts to argue. The patron next to him chimes in and calls the other patron an idiot. Suddenly a pushing match occurs. The bartender and a kitchen employee step between the two but not before the drunk patron breaks the other patrons glasses. The kitchen employee, who has no training whatsoever in security grabs the drunk employee and twists his arm behind his back, promptly breaking it, but only learning that fact much later. They take the drunk patron into the backroom and photograph him. There the bartender takes $200 from his wallet to pay for the drink and the other patron’s glasses. They then escort him to the back door where they shout, “You deadbeat, don’t come around here again.” As the patron staggers away, he trips over the garbage cans, falls and breaks his nose. He then picks up a rock that he throws at the bar, but instead hits another guest’s car and breaks its window. As he drives off, he clips another guest’s car in the parking

Torts Assignment

1. Try to find the following case on the web: Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W. 2d 657 (Iowa Sup. Ct. 1971).
If you have trouble finding it, you can take a look at it at: http://www.cooter-ulen.com/cases.htm

2. Try to find a short synopsis on the web of the “Coase Theorem” as it relates to law.
If you have trouble finding it, you can take a look at it at: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Coase_World.html

3. Take a look at http://www.maryalice.com/cases/mcdonald.html
(This site discusses the “other side” of the recent McDonald’s litigation.)

Having reviewed these materials, consider the following:

You are the general manager of the Vacation Inn. The Inn has an Olympic-size swimming pool on its back lot. The Inn is also two blocks away from a soup kitchen for the homeless. A year ago, unknown individuals soiled the water in the pool, and, thus, your guests’ children playing in the pool became seriously ill. As a result, the Inn installed a ten-foot wire-mesh fence around the pool. Two weeks ago, however, your staff found the body of a homeless man in the pool. An investigation determined that the individual climbed the fence in an inebriated state and lost consciousness upon entering the water. The decedent’s relatives are now suing the Inn. Your district manager asks you to “put an end to such problems,” and warns you that another incident like this could “cost you your job.” While you are certainly sympathetic to the plight of the homeless, you also want to keep your job. You feel that installing barbed-wire at the top of the fence would be inhumane and would also scare your guests. In stead, you opt to turn to  a small company that manufactures electric fences for cattle. The solution they recommend is to run a “hot wire” at the top of the fence. The wire would deliver a mild, normally non-lethal, electric shock to a would be trespasser. A week later you install the wire. Two days later, another inebriated homeless man, who has a pacemaker, climbs the fence. He dies instantly as a result of the mild electric shock. His family sues the Inn.

1. Ignoring any municipal codes and statutes that may exist, based on the information you have reviewed in Katko v. Briney, the Coase theorem with respect to negligence, and your own common sense, what are the policy arguments for and against tort liability in this case?

2. What do you think the best solution would be and why?