1 / 7

Agenda for 12th Class

Agenda for 12th Class. Handouts Slides Common Law III Name plates Midterm accommodations (10/22) Email undergraduate@law.usc.edu if you need 1.5x time, unless you have made other arrangements with DSP for space Summary of Last Class Common Law Thomas v Winchester.

dchaplin
Download Presentation

Agenda for 12th Class

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Agenda for 12th Class • Handouts • Slides • Common Law III • Name plates • Midterm accommodations (10/22) • Email undergraduate@law.usc.edu if you need 1.5x time, unless you have made other arrangements with DSP for space • Summary of Last Class • Common Law • Thomas v Winchester

  2. Assignment for Next Class • Common Law III • Qs1&5 (WG4) • Qs2&6 (WG3) • Qs3&7 (WG2) • Qs4&8 (WG1)

  3. Common Law Cases • Langridge v Levy • Father purchased gun. • Seller stated & warranted that gun was safe • Seller knew gun was not safe • Son was injured and sued • Court: Son can recover damages from seller • Injured person cannot sue for breach of contract unless s/he was a party to the contract • “Privity of contract” rule • Exception for fraud where person making misrepresentation knew another might be harmed • Winterbottom v Wright • Wright supplied mail coaches to Postmaster • Contract required them to be “safe” • Atkinson contracted with Postmaster to supply drivers • Winterbottom was employed by Atkinson • Winterbottom was injured, allegedly because the coach was not safe • Court: Winterbottom cannot recover from Wright • Because of privity of contract rule

  4. Questions • 6. If Wright had sold a defective coach to Langridge, and Langridge’s wife had been injured while riding in the coach, would Wright be liable to Langridge’s wife? • 7. If the Postmaster had told Wright that the mail-coach would be used by coachmen, and Wright had said that the mail-coach could be safely used by coachmen, would Wright be liable to any coachman injured by a defective coach? • 8. If Wright had put explosives under the mail-coach seat, which had gone off while Winterbottom had been sitting on the mail-coach seat, would Wright be liable to Winterbottom?

  5. Thomas v Winchester • Gilbert worked for Winchester and manufactured drugs • Mislabeled dandelion as belladonna (poison) • Aspinwall purchased mislabeled dandelion from Winchester • Mr. Foord purchased mislabeled dandelion from Aspinwall • Mr. Thomas purchased mislabeled dandelion for wife from Mr. Foord • Mrs. Thomas got very ill. • Mr. and Mrs. Thomas sued Winchester • Court: Winchester liable • Death or great bodily harm was the natural and almost inevitable consequence of selling belladonna by false label • Different from Winterbottom because imminent danger to human life

  6. Questions • 1. What is the holding of this case? • 2. Was this a case where precedents clearly established a legal rule applicable to this case? • 3. What is the relationship between this case and Winterbottom v. Wright? Does it overrule Winterbottom? Does it create an exception to Winterbottom? Is Winterbottom binding precedent? Is Winterbottom irrelevant?

  7. Questions • 4. Suppose Boeing makes an airplane which contains a defective part. After 5 years of safe flying, it breaks apart in midair, and all passengers die. Under Thomas v Winchester, can the airline which purchased the airplane sue Boeing for damages it incurred? Such damages might include damage to property the airline had on the airplane, including destruction of food and life jackets which were on board. If your answers to this question and the next question are different, do you think it makes sense that the manufacturer is liable in one case but not the other? • 5. Under Thomas v Winchester, can the relatives of the dead passengers on the plane mentioned in Question 4 sue for wrongful death? Wrongful death actions can ordinarily be brought by relatives for a death caused by negligence, if the deceased could have brought a tort action for injuries other than death in similar circumstances. If your answers to this question and the previous question are different, do you think it makes sense that the manufacturer is liable in one case but not the other?

More Related