BUS 404 Stern Court Cases

Gallagher sued for the vibrations from pile driving from waterfront property development causing cracks in her home's walls. Appeals court did not impose strict liability on Pierhomes, nor was it negligence because he acted in a reasonable manner.

Briney was held liable for battery by the Superme Court of Iowa for injuries caused to Katco, who was a trespasser that set off a spring gun set as a trap in an abandoned house on Briney's property.

Hoyt sued a the bar for injuries when he was assaulted in the bar's parking lot. The district court granted summary judgement in favor of a bar because it was not foreseeable, however, court of appeals reversed and Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed that the district court erred in concluding that Gutterz Bowl could not have breached its duty of reasonable care and Hoyt'z harm was within scope of liability for Gutterz Bowl

Ferri killed eight people, wounded six, and then killed himself in an office building in San Francisco. Survivors and victims sued Navegar, which made 2 of 3 weapons Ferri used, for negligence. Court of Appeal concluded that the shooting victims had a course of actions for negligence distribution of assault weapons.

However, California Supreme Court reversed decision, ruling that California law barred lawsuits against gun companies for their alleged negligent marketing and distributions of fire arms.

Craig White, a self employed handy man, died of carbon monoxide poisoning by installing an exhaust kit in a closed environment. Originally, trial court ruled that the company was not liable, however, was reversed in appeals court as it wasn't reasonable knowledge to install in an open environment.

Johnson sold the Hodges a Mercedes, stating that it "was pretty much a perfect car.

" However, the air conditioning kept breaking and failing, and parts needed to eventually be replaced. This was a dispute over the implied warranty of merchantability on a used car, but after Johnson refused to pay for the repairs, Hodgeses filed an action in small claims court and was awarded damages. Johnson appealed, and lost.

Mother had a flame lighter that one of her kids lit the house on fire, killing one of the daughters from smoke inhalation.

Calles sued Scripto for negligence, with trial court ruling that they did not owe or breach any duty. Supreme Court held there was sufficient evidence to determine whether the dangers of the lighter outweight benefits to public (risk-utility test) on basis of strict liability.

Class action lawsuit on behalf of Harley-Davidson motorcycle owners seeking compensatory and punitive damages because the motorcycle's value has diminished due to defective engines. Curcuit court dismissed action for failutre to state claim, however, plaintiffs appealed for common law fraud and violation of Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA, prohibits misleading/deceptive representation of goods to public)

Sipe bought a motor home, but started to have engine problems. District court granted Workhose summary judgement on Sipe's breach of warranty claim because Sipe failed to create issue of material fact as to whether Workhourse caused him any harm by failing to repair the engine with reasonable time.

Chase Bank increased Barrer's APR from 8% to 24%, which tehy failed to disclose. Court of Appeals reversed a judgement of district court, holding that the Chase Bank violated the Truth in Lending Act, where creditors could not show that the credit agreement made a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the APRs it was permitted to use.

Lucas Rosa, who was requesting loan from a bank, applied for a loan dressed as a woman. The loan officer denied him service because he didn't match his ID and was sent home to change. The district court dismissed Rosa's claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), however, Rosa appealed and could sue for sex discrimination under the ECOA.

OSI, a debt collection agency, sent Williams a letter saying that $807 was due, but was subject to change because of interest changes. Williams sued for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which says that it must state the amount. District court granted summary judgement in favor of OSI, however, Williams was granted an appeal, but lost because it is a common sense matter that "exact payout balance" might differ from "total due" and they can contact agency for "exact payout balance."

A man was rehired as a janitor after a jail sentence.

He sexually harassed and threatened his co-employee and then eventually killed her on her driveway. Honeywall was found liable for negligent retention, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision.

Wait sough worker's compensation benefits after third party assaulted her while she was preparing lunch in her home, where she had an employer-approved office. The court granted summary judgement because injuries did not arise out of course of plaintiff's employment, however, Wait appealed and she was given a case, but ruled that the plaintiff's injuries did not arise out of her employment.

Speirs noticed Miller's work performance to deteriorate, so Speirs installed a security camera in the office area that he eventually removed because he did not observe any misconduct. However, after fnding a needle in the parking lot, he installed it in the bathroom and claimed it did not work and had no battery, but never removed the camera. Koeppel discovered the camera and sued for invasion of privacy and sexual harassment, but was dismissed for summary judgement. Court of appeals affirmed sexual harrassment summary judgement, but reversed invasion-of-privacy ruling

Lloyd, a white security guard at Drake U, pepper sprayed and beat an African-American football player who he thought was assaulting a female student. The guard was fired, but he sued and filed for wrongful termination because he thought he was upholding criminal acts of the state. Even though it was a wrongful firing, he was able to be fired because he was an at-will employee and can be terminated whenever for no reason.

The usual voyage was from Texas to Iran through the Suez Canel, but was closed and must be delivered around the Cape of Good Hope, which costed $43,000/3000 miles more. Contract did not specify route and sued to recover damages. However, because the contract was not a legal impossibility because the unexpected occurrence did not render performance commercially impracticable.

Congress passed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act that restored U.S. copyright protection to foreign parties. Golan sued arguing that restoration of copyright violated First Amendment Rights. U.

S. District Court held that it does not violated Copyright Clause or First Amendment. U.S. Court of Appeals agreed that URAA does not exceed Congress' authority under Copyright Clause, but it vacated the district court's First Amendment ruling and remanded for further proceedings.

The SCOTUS held that there sufficient First Amendment protections built into current copyright law in form of expression dichotomy and fair use doctrine.

Butters sued her employer, claiming that Vance discriminated against her on basis of gender because it wold violate Islamic law for women to be in a command position. The district court held that Vance was entitle to immunity from Butters' suit under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act because the client, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, was responsible for the discrimination, so the employer is not liable.