Critical Thinking Project.
Discuss the application of the legal principles to the facts given;
If additional factual information would be relevant in deciding the outcome in each case, discuss what those facts are, and how they might affect the outcome.
Come to a reasoned conclusion.
When in doubt, expand rather than contract discussion.
This exercise should take at least one full page, double spaced to adequately complete.
In general: This is not a research project. It is an exercise in identifying and applying legal principles, and in isolating facts relevant to making legal determinations. Whether any case has been decided on similar facts, whether your conclusions would accord with such decisions, is not important. This project should be entirely in your own words, without reference to or quotation of other sources.
[Of course if you do in fact use the words or ideas of sources other than the text, you must adequately attribute them.]
I. Jake is at the Boston Biceps Bodybuilding Club riding an exercise bike. Jake wants to change the channel on the television that is mounted high on a nearby wall. He cannot find the remote control device, so Jake drags the exercise bike over to the television and stands on the seat of the exercise bike in order to reach the television, but the seat post breaks. Jake cannot control his temper and throws the bike across the room against the wall, breaking it apart, with the handlebars landing on the running track. Half an hour later, another patron, Frieda, trips over the handlebars as he is running on the track and is injured.
Frieda wants to file a lawsuit for her injuries.
1. The legal claims which Frieda would have against the manufacturer;
2. The legal claims which Frieda would have against the health club;
3. The likely outcome of the lawsuits [and why you believe this will be the outcome].
Be sure to fully articulate all applicable legal principles, identifying the facts provided—or needed—to apply the law to the facts so as to justify your conclusion.
II. Billy owns a bike shop in a coastal California town. His shop sells and repairs bikes. One of his employees was repairing a bike with one of those pesky intermittent problems that would never occur when the repair technician was around. The customer said that the gears periodically would not shift properly. The employee took the bike out for a test ride hoping to replicate the problem. The problem did not appear. Because it was approaching noon, the employee decided to ride the bike home to have lunch. On the way back to the shop, the employee hit a small child and injured her.
Discuss the liability of the employee and Billy’s bike shop for the injuries to the child. Be sure to fully articulate all applicable legal principles, identifying the facts provided—or needed—to apply the law to the facts so as to justify your conclusion.
III. The State of Oregon passed a statute that prohibited importation of live baitfish from other states to be sold as fishing bait in Oregon. The state defended the statute on the ground that the law protected Oregon’s fisheries from parasites and the like, which might be included in out-of-state shipments of baitfish.
Assume that you are the judge charged with determining the validity of the Oregon statute. Would you uphold the Oregon law, and if so, on what legal basis? Or would you strike down the law, and if so, on what legal basis? Discuss all legal issues in depth. Consider what additional facts might be necessary to decide the case. Justify your position, providing a legal rationale for your decision.