CASES (exam 2)

Question 1

Blake vs. Giustibelli

Answer 1

ISSUE:
Giustibelli (lawyer) represented Blake in the dissolution of a marriage
after breakdown black and ex-husband took to the internet and posted defamatory reviews
lawyer brought suit pleading Libel

statements: they were up-charged - not matching agreed upon contract, etc.

divorcees admitted they lied about the charge
court voted in favor of attorney
they appealed

RULE:
Defamation

ANALYSIS:
divorcees argued statements were opinions protected by First Amendment

statements were false and based on a legit contract

CONCLUSION:
court affirmed

Question 2

Bogenberger vs. Pi Kappa Alpha Corporation, Inc

Answer 2

ISSUE:
Bog attended a pledge event for the fraternity
frat officers planned an event for hazing and required attendees to consume vodka
Bogs blood alcohol level was more than 5%
when he lost consciousness the frat officers failed to seek medical attention
Bog dies, father filed complaint
court dismissed

RULE:
negligence
violation of states hazing statute

ANALYSIS:
appellate court reversed
appealed to supreme court
cannot say injury from hazing is bizarre
hazing injuries are reasonable foreseeable

CONCLUSION;;
affirmed reversal
complaint may be proceeded against frat

Question 3

Taylor vs. Baseball club of Seattle, LP

Answer 3

ISSUE:
taylor wen to a game with husband and two minor sons
players were practicing and taylor had seats four rows from front
she saw players throwing ball back and forth stood up and looked away
she was stuck in the face sued for negligence
team filed motion for summary judgment

RULE:
negligence

ANALYSIS:
team argued she was a long time fan and knew the risks
motion was asserted, taylor appealed

primary assumption of risk

CONCLUSION:
court affirmed she chose to go and sit in those seats

Question 4

reRost vs Mitsubishi caterpillar forklift America, Inc.

Answer 4

ISSUE:
reRost worked at manufacturing facility, while operating lift climbed out of seat and attempted to engage a lever
he inadvertly stepped on a gear shift, injuring himself
filed against forklift maker

RULE:
product liability

ANALYSIS:
someone intentionally disabled safety y installing jump wire
7 out of 10 had jump wire
action under strict liability

CONCLUSION:
product was delivered safe and tampered with after

Question 5

macpherson vs. Buick motor co

Answer 5

ISSUE:
mac bought a car from a retail dealer
got injured when defective wheel collapsed

RULE: negligence

ANALYSIS:
manufacturer bought wheel from another manufacturer and injury could have been avoided through reasonable inspections

CONCLUSION:
manufacturer owned duty of care

Question 6

coco cola vs. The koke of america