Law 3800 Final Exam

CH.29) Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

- Guarantees both men and women up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year for childbirth, adoption, or a serious health condition of their own or in their immediate family. (immediate family = spouse, child, or parent.) - FMLA applies to companies with at least 50 workers, and to employees who have been with the employer full time for at least a year. - As a result, about 60% of workers are covered by this law.

Privilege

- In certain cases, speakers are given protection from being sued for defamation when it is important for them to speak freely.

Product Liability - Negligence

- In negligence cases concerning goods, plaintiffs typically raise one or more of these claims: 1. Negligent design buyer claims product injured them because the manufacturer designed it poorly. 2. Negligent manufacture buyer claims the design was adequate but failure to inspect or some other careless conduct caused a dangerous product to leave the plant. 3. Failure to warn manufacturer is liable for failing to warn the purchaser or users about the dangers of normal use and also foreseeable misuse.

Ultrahazardous Liability

- Include using harmful chemicals, operating explosives, keeping wild animals, bringing dangerous substances onto property, etc. - A defendant engaging in an ultrahazardous activity is amount always liable for harm that results.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

- Regulates wages and limits child labor nationally. It provides that hourly workers must be paid a minimum wage of $7.25/hour, plus time and a half for any hours over 40 in one week. - These wage provisions do not apply to salaried workers, such as managerial, administrative, and professional staff. - Michigan minimum wage as of January, 1, 2017 is $8.90/hour. - FLSA (child labor) a) prohibits "oppressive child labor", which means that children under 14 may work only in agriculture entertainment, family business, babysitting, newspaper delivery. - 14 and 15 year-olds are permitted to work limited hours after school in nonhazardous jobs (retail). - 16 and 17 year-olds may work unlimited hours in nonhazardous jobs.

Priorities Among Creditors and 3 Main Rules

Priorities Among Creditors - What happens when two creditors have a security interest in the same collateral? The party who has priority in the collateral gets it. 3 Main Rules 1) A party with a perfected security interest takes priority over a party with an unperfected interest. 2) If neither secured party has perfected, the first interest to attach gets priority. 3) Between perfected security interests, the first to file or perfect wins.

What type of employees are generally not in a union?

Government workers, agricultural laborers, and independent contractors.

Wrongful Discharge and Public Policy

Wrongful Discharge - An employer is prohibited from firing a worker if the termination violates protected public policy. Public Policy - prohibits an employer from firing a worker for a reason that violates basic social rights, duties, or responsibilities, such as: a) refusing to violate the law. (committing perjury for employer) b) exercising a legal right. (applying for workers compensation) c) performing a legal duty. (like jury duty)

If repossessed collateral is sold or otherwise disposed of by the creditor, then the time, place, manner, and method of disposal must be: a) Commercially reasonable. b) Scheduled with the debtor so that the debtor is able to attend. c) Court ordered. d) Perfected.

a) Commercially reasonable.

The elements in a defamation case are: a) Defamatory statement; falsity; communication to at least one other person besides plaintiff; and injury. b) A contract; knowledge of the contract; improper inducement to at least one other person besides plaintiff; injury. c) False or misleading fact statements; statements in commercial advertising; likelihood of harm to at least one other person besides plaintiff. d) Duty; breach of duty to at least one other person besides plaintiff; proximate causation; and damages.

a) Defamatory statement; falsity; communication to at least one other person besides plaintiff; and injury.

First Bank loaned $400,000 to Thomas, taking a security interest in his yacht. Thomas defaulted on the loan and First Bank repossessed the yacht. First Bank sold the yacht at a public sale. The sale yielded $50,000 more than the debt. First Bank: a) Must pay Thomas the $50,000. b) Is entitled to keep the $50,000. c) Must share the $50,000 equally with Thomas. d) Must pay the surplus to the Secretary of State.

a) Must pay Thomas the $50,000.

Wayne worked in an office. He had no criminal record. Had never had a complaint made against him about his work or his conduct, and had been a faithful employee for nearly 20 years. One day, Wayne followed his supervisor to his home and fatally shot him. The estate of the supervisor sued the company, claiming it should have been aware of Wayne's growing frustration with work. The company's best defense will be that: a) There was no way to reasonably foresee that the incident would happen. b) The incident occurred away from the office. c) The killing was the result of a personal conflict between Wayne and the supervisor. d) Even if the company has been aware of Wayne's difficulty with his supervisor, Wayne did not have any criminal history.

a) There was no way to reasonably foresee that the incident would happen.

An employee that was fired for his/her refusal to violate the law could sue the employer and likely win in court based upon a claim of wrongful discharge. a) True. b) False.

a) True.

In the absence of a specific law to the contrary, employers have the right to fire workers for off-duty conduct that violated the law. a) True. b) False.

a) True.

Valley Mart told its employees that they would be fired if they actively supported a unionizing effort. Valley Mart has committed an unfair labor practice. a) True. b) False.

a) True.

The Family and Medical Leave Act applies to: a) All companies, public or private, regardless of size. b) Companies with 50 or more employees. c) Companies with 100 or more employees. d) Any company engaged in interstate commerce.

b) Companies with 50 or more employees.

Ahmi was a witness in a lawsuit. When asked why he fired Rana, Ahmi replied, "Rana was fired for willful misconduct." Indeed, Rana had not engaged in any misconduct. Rana will be able to successfully sue Ahmi for defamation based on what Ahmi said in court. a) True. b) False.

b) False.

In a strict liability case, the courts still consider if the defendant acted in a reasonable and prudent manner. a) True. b) False.

b) False.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) requires employers to establish pension plans for employees. a) True. b) False.

b) False.

Shortly after Brian started to work at Trevit, Inc., a co-worker, Ann, began asking him out. Brian said no. Nevertheless, Ann persisted. One day, Ann playfully but intentionally touched Brian "below the belt." Which statement is correct? a) Ann defamed Brian. b) Ann committed the tort of trespass. c) Ann committed the tort of interference with a prospective advantage. d) Ann committed the tort of battery.

d) Ann committed the tort of battery.

In a negligence case, the plaintiff must generally establish: a) Duty, strict liability, causation, and injury. b) Mens rea, breach, foreseeable harm, and injury. c) Duty, actus reus, foreseeable harm, and causation. d) Duty of due care, breach, causation, foreseeable harm, and damages.

d) Duty of due care, breach, causation, foreseeable harm, and damages.

Attachment of Security Interest

(Attachment is a vital step in a secured transaction) - Means that the secured party has taken all three steps to create an enforceable security interest. - Agreement must be either written on paper and signed by the debtor, or electronically recorded and authenticated by the debtor. - Control and Possession (security interest need not to be in writing IF the parties have oral agreement and the secured party has control or possession of the collateral. - Value (for the security interest to attach, the secured party must give value. The parties must also agree that some value will be given in the future.)

National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)

(Most important of all labor laws) - Unless the law governs, the NLRA protects all covered employees: a) who engage in collective activity. b) in connections with work activity. c) who are not supervisors. - NLRA ensures the right of workers to form unions and encourages management and unions to bargain collectively and productively. (supervisors are not employees under the NLRA and do not have the right to form unions.) - NLRA Section 7 (guarantees employees the right to organize and join unions, bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and engage in other concerted activities.)

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)

(To ensure safe working conditions) - Sets specific health and safety standards (protective clothing, gloves, safety re: blood handling, etc.) - Obligates employers to keep workplace "free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm" to employees. - Requires records of all workplace injuries and accidents. Allows OSHA to inspect workplaces and assess fines for, and to correct, unsafe conditions.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

- Extreme and outrageous conduct that causes serious emotional harm. - Today, most courts allow a plaintiff to recover from a defendant who intentionally causes emotional injury.

Proximate Cause

- For the defendant to be liable, the type of harm must have been reasonably foreseeable.

Absolute Privilege

- Given to those speaking in courtrooms and legislative sessions. - May never be sued for defamation.

Lanham Act

- Prohibits false statements in commercial advertising or promotion.

Miranda Rights

- "You have a right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?" - The defendant may waive these rights knowingly and voluntarily. - Defendant can request to consult with an attorney at any point during the process. - Police cannot legally force a suspect to provide evidence against himself.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

- "the thing that speaks for itself" - When a court is willing to infer that the defendant caused the harm. - The facts imply that the defendant's negligence caused the accident. - Burden of proof shifts from plaintiff to defendant, who must show evidence that the defendant did NOT cause the harm.

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

- A contract between a union and management. - Under the statute, mandatory subjects include wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. - Courts have interpreted the statute to include: benefits, order of layoffs and recalls, production quotas, work rules, retirement benefits, and onsite food service and prices. - The union and the employer are not obligated to come to an agreement, but they are required to bargain in good faith.

Convenient of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (in Contract Law)

- A general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. - Courts will imply this in at all employment.

Intentional Torts vs. Business Torts

- A tort is a violation of duty imposed by the civil law. (filed by the wronged party) a) a particular action may be both a tort and a crime. - Intentional Torts (harm caused by a deliberate action.) a) does not necessarily mean that the defendant intended to harm the plaintiff. b) if the defendant does something deliberately (ex. throw a snowball) and ends up injuring someone, s/he is likely liable even if no harm was meant. c) the harm was not deliberate, but the fact of throwing the snowball was deliberate. d) Defamation. - Business Torts (intentional torts that occur almost exclusively in a business setting are called business torts.) a) tortious interference with business relations (involves the defendant harming an existing contract or a prospective relationship that has a definite expectation of success.) b) tortious interference with a contract (an intentional tort in which the defendant improperly induced a third party to breach a contract with the plaintiff.) - exists only if the plaintiff can establish the following four elements: 1. There was a contract between the plaintiff and a third party; 2. The defendant knew of the contract; 3. The defendant improperly induced the third party to breach the contract or made performance of the contract impossible; 4. There was injury to the plaintiff.

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

- Administers and interprets the statute and adjudicates labor cases.

Compensatory Damages

- Amounts of money awarded to a plaintiff that the court believes will restore him/her to his/her position prior to the defendants conduct. - Plaintiffs can receive compensation for current and future medical expenses, lost wages, and pan and suffering.

Tortious Interference With a Prospective Advantage

- An awkward name for a tort that is simply a variation on interference with a contract, the difference is that, for this tort, there need be no contract, the plaintiff is claiming outside interference with an expected economic relationship.

Employment at Will

- An employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning.

Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI)

- An interest taken by the person who sells the collateral or advances money so the debtor can buy it.

Punitive Damages

- Are more controversial and potentially more powerful. - They are intended to punish the defendant for conduct that is extreme and outrageous. - These damages are intended to be a deterrent for the defendant and others. - 3 Guidelines for awarding Punitive Damages 1) The reprehensibility of the defendants contract. 2) The ratio between the harm suffered and the award. 3) The difference between the punitive award and any civil penalties used in similar cases.

Battery and Assault

- Assault and battery are related but not identical. - Battery is an intentional touching of another person in a way that is harmful or offensive to the person who is touched. - Assault occurs when a defendant does some act that makes a plaintiff reasonably fear an imminent battery. - Based on apprehension - does not matter if a battery ever occurs.

CH.24) Article 9 of the UCC

- Covers secured transactions in personal property. - Fixtures (goods that have become attached to real estate) - Security Interest (an interest in personal property or fixtures that secures the performance of some obligation) - Secured Party (the person or company that holds the security interest. Ex. the dealer who sells you a car is the secured party.) - Collateral (the property subject to a security interest. Ex. When a dealer sells you a new car and keeps a security interest, the car is the collateral.) - Security Agreement (contract in which the debtor gives a security interest to the secured party) - Default (occurs when the debtor fails to pay money that is due) - Perfection (a series of steps the secured party must take to protect its rights in the collateral against people other than the debtor)

Whistleblowing

- Employees who disclose illegal behavior of their employers may be protected under various laws. - Examples: a) False Claims Act protect those who report employers who defraud the government, such as inaccurate reporting. b) Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 protects employees who publicly traded companies who provide evidence of fraud to investigators. c) Dodd-Frank Act protects anyone who provides information to the government about violations of securities or commodities laws is entitled to a payout of from 10% to 30% of whatever award the government receives, provided that the award tops $1 million. - Michigan Law: The Whistleblowers' Protection Act a) An act to provide protection to employees who report a violation or suspect a violation of state, local, or federal law; to provide protection to employees who participate in hearings, investigations, legislative inquiries, or court actions; and to prescribe remedies and penalties.

Workers Compensation

- Ensures that employees receive payment for injuries incurred in the course and scope of employment.

Which Debts Cannot Be Discharged?

- Income taxes for the three years prior to filing and property taxes for the prior year. - Money obtained fraudulently. - Any loan of more than $650 that a consumer uses to purchase luxury goods within 90 days before the order for relief is granted. - Cash advances on a credit card totaling more than $925, that an individual debtor takes out within 70 days before the order for relief. - Debts omitted from the Schedule of Assets and Liabilities that the debtor filed with the petition, if the creditor did not know about the bankruptcy and therefore did not file a proof of claim. - Money owed for alimony or child support. - Debts stemming from intentional and malicious injury. - Fines and penalties owed to the government. - Liability for injuries caused by DUI incident. - Liability for breach of duty to a bank. - Student loans (can be discharged only if repayment would cause undue hardship.)

Fraud

- Injuring another person by deliberate deception. - Fraud is a tort, but it often occurs during the negotiation or performance of a contract.

Trespass

- Intentionally entering land that belongs to someone else or remaining on the land after being asked to leave.

Defamation

- Law of defamation concerns false statements that harm someone's reputation. - Can be written or spoken (written = libel, oral = slander). - Defamation includes 4 elements: 1) Defamatory Statement (that is false, communicated to someone other than the plaintiff, that somehow injured the plaintiff) (Ex. sexual behavior, crime, contagious disease, professional abilities. 2) Falsity (statement must be false). 3) Communicated (statement must be communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff) 4) Injury (plaintiff must show some injury)

Strict Liability for Defective Products

- Like negligence, strict liability is a burden created by law rather than by the parties BUT - in negligence, injured buyer must show that the sellers conduct was unreasonable. - in strict liability, the injured person need not prove that the defendants conduct was unreasonable. Must only show the product was defective and the defect caused harm.

Statutes of Limitations and Statutes of Repose

- Limitations (Requires lawsuit be brought within a period specified by statute beginning when the defect is discovered or should have been discovered.) - Repose (Places an absolute limit on when a lawsuit may be filed, regardless of when the defect is discovered.)

CH.8) Tort

- Means "wrong" in law. - A violation of duty imposed by the civil law. - Differs from crimes in that crimes are prosecuted by the government. - Differs from a contract dispute in that in a tort, there is usually no prior agreement between parties, the law itself creates the duty breached by the defendant in a tort case. - Filed by the wronged party; a particular action may be both a tort and a crime.

CH.9) Negligence

- Might call negligence the "unintentional" tort because it concerns harm that arises by accident. - 5 Elements: 1) Duty of Due Care (the defendant had a legal responsibility to the plaintiff). 2) Breach (The defendant breached her duty of care or failed to meet her legal obligations). 3) Factual Cause (The defendant's conduct actually caused the injury). 4) Proximate Cause (It was foreseeable that conduct like the defendant's might cause this type of harm). 5) Damages (The plaintiff has actually been hurt or has actually suffered a measurable loss).

Discharge

- Once bankruptcy estate is distributed to creditors, they cannot make a claim against the debtor for money before the filing. - Pre-Petition debts are discharged.

Perfection of Security Interest

- Once the security interest has attached to the collateral, the secured party is protected against the debtor, but may not be protected against anyone else. - To perfect its interest, a secured party must perfect its interest in one of several ways: a) perfection by filing. (most common way) b) perfection by possession. c) perfection of consumer goods. d) perfection of movable collateral and fixtures.

Automatic Stay

- Prohibits creditors from independently collecting debts that the debtor incurred before the petition was filed. - Once the petition is filed, the debtor's assets must be distributed according to the priorities set by law, not according to who can strong-arm the debtor most forcibly. - The ability to stay creditors' claims and obtain breathing room can be a powerful incentive for a struggling business to file for bankruptcy. - Creditors may not sue a bankrupt to obtain payment, nor may they take other steps, outside of court, to pressure the debtor for payment.

Strict Liability

- Some activities are so naturally dangerous that the law places an especially high burden on anyone who engages in them. - Two main areas that incur strict liability: 1. ultrahazardous activity. 2. defective products.

Buyers in Ordinary Course of Business (BIOC)

- Someone who buys goods in good faith from a seller who routinely deals in such goods. - A BIOC takes the good free of a security interest created by its seller even though the security interest is perfected.

Conversion

- Taking or using someones personal property without consent.

CH.36) Bankruptcy Code

- The Federal Bankruptcy Code is divided into 8 chapters (all chapters except one have odd numbers) - Chapters 1, 3, and 5 are administrative rules that generally apply to all types of bankruptcy proceedings. (these chapters define terms and establish the rules of the bankruptcy court.) - Chapters 7, 9, 11, 12, and 13 are substantive rules for different types of bankruptcies. a) all of these substantive chapters have one of two objectives- rehabilitation or liquidation. b) rehabilitation (hold creditors at bay while the debtor develops a payment plan.), liquidation (mandates that the bankrupt's assets be distributed to the creditors, but the debtor has no obligation to share future earnings.) Chapter 7 - Liquidation - The bankrupt's assets are sold to pay creditors. If the debtor owns a business, it terminates. The creditors have no right to the debtor's future earnings.

Terms a security agreement must include at a minimum

- The debtor has authenticated a security agreement describing the collateral or the secured party has obtained possession or control.

Factual Cause

- The defendant's conduct (breach of duty) actually caused the injury. - Courts look at two separate causation issues: 1) was the defendant's behavior the factual cause of harm? 2) was it also the proximate cause?

False Imprisonment

- The intentional restraint of another person without reasonable cause or consent. - Most states have laws that govern how long and under what circumstances a customer or employee can be held for suspicion of shoplifting or theft, provided there is a reasonable basis for the suspicion and the detention is done reasonably.

What at minimum must a financing statement include?

- The name of the debtor, name of secured party, and an indication of the collateral. - Debtor's signature is not required.

Tort Law vs. Criminal Law vs. Contract Law

- Tort Law a) based on an obligation imposed by the law with no agreement needed between parties. b) the civil law imposes duties of conduct on all persons. c) possible result (money damages for plaintiff) - Criminal Law a) behavior classified as dangerous to society. b) prosecuted by the government. c) often proceeds whether the victim wants to prosecute or not. d) any money award goes to the government. e) possible result (punishment, for defendant, including prison and/or fine) - Contract Law a) based on breach of an agreement between the two parties. b) victim pursues in court and receives compensation or restitution. c) possible result (money damages for plaintiff)

Order in Which Bankruptcy claims Are Paid

1) Secured claims (Creditors whose loans are secured by specific collateral.) 2) Priority Claims (which has seven sub-categories where each category is paid in order and the first group receiving full payment before the next group receives anything) - Alimony and Child Support - Administrative Expenses - Gap Expenses - Payments to Employees - Employee Benefit Plans - Consumer Deposits - Taxes - DUI injuries 3) Unsecured Claims - If any funds are left, all three of these unsecured categories have an equal claim and must be paid together (1. Secured claims that exceed the value of the available collateral, 2. Priority claims that exceed the priority limits, 3. All other unsecured claims.)

Brunner Test

1) The debtor cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a minimal standard of living for himself and his dependents if forced to repay the loans. 2) Additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans. 3) The debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans.

Bankruptcy Estate, Exempt Property, Voidable Preferences

Bankruptcy Estate - The new legal entity created when a bankruptcy petition is filed. The debtor's existing assets pass into the estate. (except: Exempt property, and New new property that debtor acquires after petition is filed.) Exempt Property - To save individual (not business) debtors from destitution, the Code permits them to keep some property. - Under Federal Code: $23,675 of home value, but Code also defers to state law if different. - Debtors can take advantage of state exemptions only if they have lived in their state for two years. Voidable Preferences - Goal of bankruptcy: To divide debtor's assets fairly among creditors. - Unfair preferential treatment to some creditors is called "Preferences". - Trustee can void some transfers made by debtors in the 90 days before filing petition if other conditions are met. - Trustee can void some transfers made by debtors in the year before filing petition to family members. - Trustee cannot void pre-petition payments made in ordinary course of business or routine payments (utilities).

CH.7) Civil cases vs. Criminal Cases (burden of proof for each, who files charges in court for each, different rights for each)

Civil Cases - Civil law involves the rights and liabilities that exist between private parties. - Burden of Proof (plaintiff must prove her case only by a preponderance of the evidence. Criminal Cases - Criminal law prohibits and punishes conduct that threatens public safety and welfare. - Burden of Proof (government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt) - Rights (criminal defendant has a right to a trial by jury for any charge that could result in sentence of six months or longer. Defendant may choose not to have a jury trial.

Default and Termination and Requirements of Secured Parties After Termination of Debtor Obligations

Default and Termination - DEFAULT (generally, a debtor defaults when s/he fails to make payments due or enters bankruptcy proceedings.) - Taking possession of the collateral. - When a debtor defaults, secured party may take possession of the collateral. (files suit to get court order OR takes collateral if no breach of the peace) - Disposition of the collateral a) once the secured party has obtained possession of the collateral, it has two choices... (the secured party may (1) dispose of the collateral or (2) retain the collateral as full satisfaction of the debt.) - Acceptance of the collateral a) acceptance refers to a secured party's retention of the collateral as full or partial satisfaction of the debt. b) partial satisfaction means that the debtor will still owe some deficiency to the secured party. c) Right or Redemption: Up to time secured party disposes of collateral, debtor debtor has right to pay full value of debt and redeem it. - Proceeding of judgement a) sometimes the secured party will prefer to ignore its rights in the collateral and simply sue the debtor. (A secured party may sue the debtor for the full debt) - TERMINATION (If a debtor does not default and pays the full debt, the secured party must complete a termination statement, which is, a document indicating that a secured party no longer claims a security interest in the collateral.)

Duty of Due Care and test of "foreseeability"

Duty of Due Care - Defendant had a legal responsibility to the plaintiff. Test of "foreseeability" - Tends to limit liability to the consequences of an act that could reasonably be foreseen rather than every single consequence that follows.

Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents

FACTS - At the University of Arizona, the Epsilon Epsilon chapter of Delta Tau Delta fraternity gave a welcoming party for new members. - The frat's officers knew that the majority of its members were under the legal drinking age, but they permitted everyone to consume alcohol. - John Rayner, who was under 21, left the party. He drove negligently and caused a collision with an auto driven by Ruben Hernandez. At the time of the accident, Rayner's blood alcohol level was .15, exceeding the legal limit. The crash left Hernandez blind and paralyzed. - Hernandez sued Rayner, who settled the case based on the amount of his insurance coverage. - The victim also sued the frat, its officers and national organization, all frat members who contributed money to buy alcohol, the university, and others. - The trial court granted summary judgement for all defendants and the court of appeals affirmed. - Hernandez appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. ISSUE - Did the frat and the other defendants have a duty of due care to Hernandez? EXCERPTS - Before 1983, this court arguably recognized the common-law rule of non-liability for tavern owners and, presumably, for social hosts. - Traditional authority held that when an able-bodied man caused harm because of his intoxication, the act from which liability arose was the consuming not the furnishing of alcohol. - However, the common law also provides that one who supplies a thing for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them. - We perceive little difference in principle between liability for giving a car to an intoxicated youth and liability for giving drinks to a youth with a car. - Accordingly, modern authority has increasingly recognized that one who furnishes liquor to a minor breaches a common-law duty owed to innocent third parties who may be injured. - Arizona courts, therefore, will entertain an action for damages against one who negligently furnishes alcohol to those under the legal drinking age when that act is a cause of injury to a third person. HOLDING - Judgement for defendants reversed and case remanded for trial. MAIN POINTS - Defendants had duty to prevent providing alcohol to underage.

Jackson v. Holiday Furniture

FACTS - Cora and Frank Jackson purchased a recliner chair on credit from Dan Holiday Furniture. - They made payments for seven months until November, when they filed for bankruptcy protection. - Although the store knew about the bankruptcy filing, a collector called the Jacksons' house ten times between November 15 and December 1 and left a card in their door threatening repossession of the chair. - On Dec. 1, Frank went to Dan Holiday to pay the $230.00 owed for November and December. He told the store about the bankruptcy filing, but allegedly added that he and his wife wanted to continue making payments directly to Dan Holiday. - In early January, Holiday employees learned that Frank had died the months before. - Nonetheless, collectors telephoned Cora Jackson 26 times between January 14 and February 19. - The store owner's sister left the following message on Cora's answering machine: "Hello. This is Judy over at Holiday furniture. And this is the last time i am going to call you. If you do not call me I will be at your house. And I expect you to call me today. If there is a problem I need to speak to you about it. You need to call me. We need to get this thing going. You are a January and February payment behind. And if you think you are going to get away with it, you've got another thing coming." - When Cora returned home on Feb. 18, she found seven bright yellow slips of paper in her door jamb stating that a Holiday truck had stopped by to repossess her furniture. - The threat to send a truck was merely a ruse designed to frighten Cora into paying. - In fact, the store did not want the furniture back. What they wanted was to talk directly to her about making payments. - The store also sent Cora a letter threatening repossession and legal action. - Cora's bankruptcy attorney then contacted the store and then all collection activity ceased. ISSUE - Did Dan Holiday violate the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code? What is the penalty for a violation? EXCERPTS - The automatic stay prohibits the commencement or continuation of any action against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the bankruptcy case and forbids any act by a pre-petition creditor to obtain possession of property of the bankruptcy estate. - An individual injured by a creditor's violation of the automatic stay shall recover actual damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, and in appropriate circumstances, may recover punitive damages. - In this case, there is no question that Holiday repeatedly violated the automatic stay. - The Court finds that the Jacksons suffered Financial damages in the amount of $230.00, which represents the coerced payments that Holiday received from Frank Jackson on Dec. 1. - The Court finds that punitive damages are warranted in this case based on Holiday's egregious, intentional violations of the automatic stay. - Holiday's conduct was remarkably bad in that, after it had actual knowledge of the Jacksons' bankruptcy, and after coercing payments from the Jacksons covering the months of Nov. and Dec., it made no less than 26 phone calls to the Jacksons' household in Jan. and Feb. - Holiday's continued collection efforts were in flagrant violation of the protections Congress afforded to debtors under the automatic stay. - In this matter the Court is somewhat hampered in assessing punitive damages by the lack of evidence concerning the ability of Holiday to pay. - An owner testified that Holiday was a family-owned business that has been in existence for 52 years, and the Court assumes that it is a relatively small business. - Under the circumstances of this case, the Court believes that an appropriate penalty would be $100 for each illegal contact with the Jacksons after Dec. 1, when it is crystal clear that Holiday had actual knowledge of the Jacksons bankruptcy filing, for a total of $2,800. - The Court believes that this penalty will be sufficient to sting the pocketbook of Holiday and impress upon Holiday and its owners and employees the importance of debtor protections under the Bankruptcy Code, as well as to deter further transgressions. - The Court also will award the Jacksons their attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $1,142.42, an amount the Court considers eminently fair and reasonable under the circumstances of this case. OVERVIEW - Holiday violated the automatic stay - Jacksons awarded $100 for each illegal contact for a total of $2,800, and $1,142.42 for attorney costs and fees.

Corona Fruits & Veggies, Inc. v. Frozsun Foods

FACTS - Corona leased farmland to a strawberry farmer named Armando Munoz Juarez. - He signed the lease "Armando Munoz." - Corona advanced him money for payroll and farm production expense. - Corona filed a financing statement, claiming a security interest in the strawberry crop, and listed the debtor's name as "Armando Munoz." - Six months later, Armando Munoz Juarez contracted with Frozsun Foods, Inc. to sell processed strawberries. - Frozsun advanced the farmer money, and filed a financing statement listing the debtor's name as "Armando Juarez." - The next year, the farmer owed Corona $230,000 and owed Frozsun $19,600. - When the farmer was unable to make payments on Corona's loan, the company repossessed the farmland and harvested the strawberry crop. - Both Corona and Frozsun claimed the proceeds of the crop. - The trial court awarded the money to Frozsun, finding that Corona had filed its financing statement under the wrong last name, and therefore had failed to perfect its security interest in the crop. - Corona appealed. ISSUE - Did Corona correctly file its financing statement? HOLDING - No EXCERPTS - There was substantial evidence that the farmer's true last name was Juarez, and that Corona knew this to be the farmer's true last name. - According to the court, if a search of the office's records using the standard search logic would have disclosed the statement, then the name provided does not make the statement misleading. - Here, Frozsun conducted a search using Juarez and did not discover Corona's financing statement. - There was no evidence that the statement would have been discovered under Juarez using the standard search logic for the office. - Thus, the trial court correctly held that the Amando Munoz name in Corona's financing statement was seriously misleading. - It is the secured party's (Corona's) responsibility to make sure the financing statement is properly filed. - Corona knew the farmer's legal name and could have protected itself by using both names on their financing statements.

CASES) Miranda v. Arizona

FACTS - Ernesto Miranda was a mentally ill, indigent citizen of Mexico. - Phoenix police arrested him at his home and brought him to a police station, where a rape victim identified him as her assailant. - Two police officers took him to an interrogation room but did not tell him that he had a right to have a lawyer present during questioning. - Two hours later, the officers emerged with a written confession signed by Miranda. - At the top of the statement was a typed paragraph stating that the confession was made voluntarily. - At Miranda's trial, the judge admitted this written confession into evidence over the objection of defense counsel. - The officers testified that Miranda had also make an oral confession during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty of kidnapping and rape. - He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years' imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed the conviction. - In reaching its decision, the court relied heavily on the fact that Miranda did not specifically request a lawyer. - The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari. ISSUE - Was Miranda's confession admissible at trial? Should his conviction be upheld? EXCERPTS - Our holding briefly stated it is this: The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. - Prior to questioning, the person must be warned of his Miranda Rights. - Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. - The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned. - Miranda was not in any way apprised of his right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during the interrogation. - Nor was his right to be compelled to incriminate himself effectively protected in any other manner. - Without these warnings the statements were inadmissible. - The mere fact that he signed a statement which contained a typed-in clause stating that he had "full knowledge" of his "legal rights" does not approach the knowing and intelligent waiver required to relinquish constitutional rights. OVERVIEW - Miranda was a Mexican citizen and did not know his rights. He got arrested and was not told his rights before being questioned and self-incriminating himself. He even signed papers which stated that he knew his rights and what not at the top. Court ruled that they cannot use his statements because he wasn't told he could have an attorney or his rights towards self incrimination.

Peterson v. Exide Technologies

FACTS - Exide issued repeated warnings to Robert Peterson for driving forklifts too fast and violating other safety rules. - After he was injured in a forklift crash, Exide granted him FMLA leave for 10 days while he recovered. - Peterson's manager fired him during the leave period for "flagrant violation of safety rules." - Peterson sued, claiming that he was terminated in retaliation for exercising his right to take FMLA leave. - The lower court granted summary judgement to Exide, and Peterson appealed. ISSUE - Was Peterson fired in retaliation for claiming FMLA leave? EXCERPTS - According to Defendant's Plant Manager: Based on my own review of the photographs and the damage they depicted, Plaintiff was driving too fast at the time of the crash and was not operating his forklift in a safe manner. - Such conduct on Plaintiff's part was a flagrant violation of the company health and safety policy and posed a threat to the safety of Plaintiff and other Exide employees. - The Plant Manager also based his decision to fire the Plaintiff on the "history of careless and unsafe conduct" reflected in Plaintiff's personnel file. - Defendant has adequately demonstrated a nonretaliatory reason for Plaintiff's termination. - Thus, the burden shifts back to Plaintiff to show pretext. - Plaintiff argues Defendant's asserted justification is pretextual because the forklift accident was a "minor accident." - Whether the accident was minor is questionable. But even if it was, we see nothing prevents Defendant from firing employees for minor safety violations. - Particularly where, as here, the employee has a record of unsafe work performance, even a minor infraction could be the last straw. - Plaintiff has produced no evidence to undermine Defendant's nonretaliatory explanation for the termination. - Aside from the fact Plaintiff was on FMLA leave when he was fired, no evidence suggests a casual connection between Plaintiff's firing and his exercise of FMLA rights. RULING - Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgement.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

FACTS - In 1960, the New York Times ran a full-page ad paid for by civil rights activists. - The ad described an "unprecedented wave of terror" by the police of Montgomery, Alabama, against civil rights protesters. - It stated that the police had assaulted nonviolent protesters with shotguns and tear gas and had padlocked a dining hall to starve them into submission. - The ad also accused the Montgomery police of bombing the home of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and unjustly arresting him seven times. - Most of the ad's statements were true, but a few were not. - L.B. Sullivan was Montgomery's police commissioner. - Although the ad did not mention him by name, Sullivan argued that the accusations hurt his reputation because he was head of the police. - He sued The New York Times under Alabama's law on libel per se. - An Alabama court agreed with Sullivan, awarding him damages of $500,000. - The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed. - The New York Times appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the ad was protected by the First Amendment and the evidence did not support such an award. ISSUE - Does the First Amendment protect those who criticize public officials? EXCERPTS - We consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debated on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly, sharp attacks on government and public officials. - The present ad, as an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection. - The question is whether it forfeits that protection by the falsify of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent. - It is inconsistent with the First Amendment. - We consider that the facts do not support a finding of actual malice as to the Times. - The Times published the ad without checking its accuracy. - We think the evidence against the Times supports at most a finding of negligence in failing to discover the misstatements, and is constitutionally insufficient to show the recklessness that is required for a finding of actual malice. - The judgement of the Supreme Court of Alabama is reversed and the case is remanded. RULE FROM THE CASE - A public official can win a defamation case only by proving the defendant's actual malice, that is that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth. MAIN POINTS - A public official can win a defamation case only by providing the defendant's actual malice. That is that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth.

Kelly v. Michigan Finance Authority

FACTS - Lisa Kelly had a B.S. in Elementary Education and a master's in Special Education. - She worked at an elementary school in Florida. Her husband, Adam, had a B.A. in Fine Arts with a concentration in Digital Cinema. - He worked remotely from their home for a tv station in Michigan, so that he could provide care for one of their sons. - Noah, who was 18 months old, had been born with spina bifida, in which the backbone and spinal canal do not close before birth. He also had hydrocephalus, a build-up of fluid inside the skill that leads to brain swelling. - Noah had already undergone two surgeries and faced large on-going medical expenses. Under their health insurance plan, the family had to pay 20% of the cost of their medical care. - The Kelly's annual income totaled approximately $70,000. - Their combined educational loans exceeded $160,000. - When the Kellys filed for bankruptcy, they asked the court to discharge these student loans. ISSUE - Would repayment of their student loans cause the Kellys undue hardship? EXCERPTS - Unless a debtor is able to meet all three prongs of the following Brunner Test, a debtor's student loan debt is not dischargeable. - If one of the elements of the test is not proven, the inquiry ends and the student loan cannot be discharged. - A finding of undue hardship is an incredibly high hurdle to overcome. - Debtors must prove more than just a garden variety of hardship. - Although the Kellys are not required to live in poverty, they have failed to adjust their lifestyle sufficiently to demonstrate undue hardship. - By the Kellys' own estimates, they would need to reduce their expenses by only $374.88 per month to pay their student loans in full. The Kellys' discretionary spending is subject to reduction by at least $400 per month. - Here, the Kellys have recently traveled to Michigan over the holidays, to Miami twice in Feb., and to Clearwater in Mar. to visit family. Reducing these types of trips would help minimize their gas expenses and other travel-related costs. Given that Mr. Kelly works at home and that much of the Kellys' gas costs are associated with these trips, the Court finds gas costs of $200 per month is reasonable, as opposed to the $400 per month estimated by the Kellys. - The Kellys currently maintain two newer cars. If the Debtors truly need two cars, perhaps they can lease a less expensive model or buy an older car to further reduce payments. The Court specifically finds the Kellys could significantly reduce their car expense by at least $300 per month while still maintaining a minimal standard of living. - The Court also finds that the Kellys' $800 monthly food expenses is high. The average monthly cost of a thrifty meal plan for a family of four is $550.65. - After deducting these sums, the Kellys have net disposable income enough to make their monthly student loan payment. - Consequently, the Kellys have failed the first prong of the Brunner Test. - The kellys have failed to show their current financial problems would persist for the majority of repayment period. RULING - The Kellys' student loans are not dischargeable

Process of Bankruptcy

Filing a petition - Any individual, partnership, corporation, or other business organizations that lives, conducts business, or owns property in the United States can file under the code. ("Debtor" is used by Code, "Bankrupt" is traditional term, CH.13 is only for individuals.) - Voluntary Petition (filed by a debtor)-- Any debtor (business or individual) has the right to file for bankruptcy. a) individuals must meet two requirements before filing: (1) within 180 days before filing, an individual debtor must undergo credit counseling with an approved agency. (2) individual debtors may only file under chapter 7 if they earn less than the medium income in their state or they cannot afford to pay back at least $7,475 over five years. b) must include the following documents: Petition, List of creditors, Schedule of assets and liabilities, Claim of exemptions, Schedule of income and expenditures, and Statement of financial affairs. - Involuntary Petition-- Creditors may force a debtor into bankruptcy by filing an involuntary petition. a) creditors' goal is to preserve as much of the debtor's assets as possible and to ensure that all creditors receive a fair share. b) an involuntary petition must meet all of the following requirements: (1) The debtor must owe at least $15,325 in unsecured claims to the creditors who file; (2) If the debtor has at least 12 creditors, 3 or more must sign the petition. (if they have less than 12 creditors, any of them can sign the petition.); (3) The creditors must allege either that a custodian for the debtor's property has been appointed in the prior 120 days or that the debtor has generally not been paying debts that are due. Trustee - The Trustee is responsible for gathering the bankrupt's assets and dividing them among creditors. - U.S. Trustee oversees administration of bankruptcy in a region and appoints trustees. Creditors - After the court issues an order for relief, the U.S. Trustee calls a meeting of all the creditors. - After the meeting, unsecured creditors must submit a proof of claim (form stating the name of an unsecured creditor and the amount of the claim against the debtor.) - Secured creditors do not file proofs of claims unless the claim exceeds the value of their collateral.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad

FACTS - Plaintiff Helen Palsgraf was waiting one a railroad platform. - As a train began to leave the station, a man carrying a package ran to catch it. - He jumped aboard but looked unsteady, so a guard on the car reached out to help him as another guard, on the platform, pushed from behind. - The man dropped the package, which struck the tracks and exploded-- since it was packaged with fireworks. - The explosion shock knocked over some heavy scales at the far end of the platform, and one of them struck Palsgraf. ISSUE - Was the railroad liable for Palsgraf's injuries? EXCERPTS - The conduct of the Railroad's guard was not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff, standing far away. - Relatively to her, it was not negligence at all. - Nothing in the situation gave notice that the falling package had in it the potency of peril to persons thus removed. - Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right. - Negligence is the absence of care, according to the circumstances. - If no hazard was apparent to the eye of ordinary vigilance, an act innocent and harmless... did not take to itself the quality of a tort because it happened to be a wrong with reference to someone else. - In every instance, before negligence can be predicated of a given act, back of the act must be sought and found a duty to the individual complaining. - What the plaintiff must show is "a wrong" to herself and not merely a wrong to someone else. - Here... there was nothing in the situation to suggest to the most cautious mind that the parcel wrapped in newspaper would spread wreckage through the station. - The law of causation, remote or proximate, is this foreign to the case before us. - If there is no tort to be redressed, there is no occasion to consider what damage might be recovered if there were a finding of a tort. DECISION - Palsgraf's negligence case fails. (proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do) REASON - There was no way that the guard could have known that the package wrapped in newspaper was dangerous, and that pushing the passenger would thereby cause an explosion. MAIN POINTS - Without any perception that one's actions could harm someone, there could be no duty towards that person, and therefore no negligence for which to impose liability. - The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed Palsgraf's complaint, deciding that the relationship of the guard's action to Palsgraf's injury was too indirect to make the guard, or the employer railroad, liable. - IMPORTANT: The Palsgraf case established foreseeability as the test for proximate.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Alden Leeds

FACTS - The Alden Leeds company packages, stores, and ships swimming pool chemicals. The firm does most of its work at its facility in Kearns, New Jersey. - At any given time, about 21 different hazardous chemicals are present. - The day before Easter, a fire of unknown origin broke out in building one of the company's site, releasing chlorine gas and other potentially dangerous by-products into the air. - There we no guards or other personnel on duty. The fire cause $9 million in damage to company property. - Because of the potentially dangerous gas, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) closed the New Jersey Turnpike along with half a dozen other major highways, halted all commuter rail and train service in the area, and urged residents to stay indoors with windows closed. An unspecified number of residents went to local hospitals with respiratory problems. - Based on New Jersey's Air Pollution Control Act (APCA), the DEP imposed a civil fine on Alden for releasing the toxic chemicals. - The appellate court reversed, finding that there was no evidence the company had caused the fire or the harm, and the case reached the state's high court. ISSUE - Did the company cause the harm? EXCERPTS - An actor who chooses to store dangerous chemicals should be responsible for the release of those chemicals into the air. - That Alden lawfully and properly stored chemicals does not alter that conclusion. - The risks attendant to the storage of dangerous substances counsel in favor of precautions to prevent their release. - Alden took no such precautions. - On the day of the fire, there was no one stationed at the plant to alert the authorities as soon as a fire or other unforeseen calamity erupted. - There was no response to the alarm that sounded. - Regardless of what started the fire, it was the knowing storage of chemicals by Alden that caused the release of air contaminants once the fire reached the chemicals. - It reversed the appellate court's holding that the storing of hazardous chemicals by Alden does not satisfy that nexus. DEP does not have to prove that the chemical operator started the fire. DECISION - State won because Alden had strict liability because of the potentially hazardous chemicals. MAIN POINTS - Ultrahazardous activities need little to no proof to be held liable.

Jane Doe and Nancy Roe v. Lynn Mills

FACTS - Thomas, an anti abortion/choice protester climbed into dumpster behind Women's Advisory Center, an abortion clinic. - He found documents indicating that the plaintiffs were soon to have abortions there. - Thomas gave the information to Lynn Mills. - The next day, Mills and sister Mitoraj created signs, using the women's names, indicating that they were about to undergo abortions and urging them not to "kill their babies." - Doe and Roe (not real names) sued, claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress (and breach of privacy). - Trial Court dismissed lawsuit, ruling that the defendant's conduct was not extreme and outrageous. Plaintiffs appealed. ISSUE - Have the plaintiffs made a valid claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress? RULING - In this case, plaintiff's complaint alleges a private mother. - The alleged disclosure concerns the plaintiffs' decisions to have an abortion. We have no hesitancy in concluding that such an allegation involves a matter that a reasonable person would consider private. - Indeed, abortion concerns matters of sexual relations and medical treatment, both of which are regarded as private matters. - Furthermore, even though the abortion issue may be regarded as a matter of public interest, the plaintiffs' identities in this case were not matters of legitimate public concern, nor a matter of public record, but, instead, were purely private matters. - We conclude, therefore, that plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to meet the minimum prima facie showing necessary to establish that the information disclosed must concern a private mother - Accordingly, we reversed the trial court's decision granting the defendants' motion for summary disposition of plaintiffs' claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction. MAIN POINTS - Summary judgement for the defendants is reversed, and the case is remanded for trial.

State Farm v. Campbell

FACTS - While attempting to pass several cars on a two-lane road, Campbell drove into oncoming traffic. - An innocent driver swerved to avoid Campbell and died in a collision with a third driver. - The family of the deceased driver and the surviving third driver both sued Campbell. - As Campbell's insurer, State Farm represented him in the lawsuit. It turned down an offer to settle the case for $50,000, the limit of Campbell's policy. - The company had nothing to gain by settling because even if Campbell lost, State Farm's liability was capped at $50,000. - A jury returned a judgement against Campbell for $185,000. - Campbell was responsible for the $135,000 that exceeded his policy limit. He argued with State Farm, claiming that it should have settled the case. - Eventually, State Farm paid the entire $185,000, but Campbell still sued the company, alleging fraud and intentional infliction of emotional stress. - His lawyers presented evidence that State Farm had deliberately acted in its own best interests rather than his. The jury was convinced, and in the end, Campbell won an award of $1 million in compensatory damages, and $145 million in punitive damages. State Farm appealed. ISSUE - What is the limit on punitive damages? EXCERPTS - We address whether an award of $145 million in punitive damages, where full compensatory damages are $1 million, is excessive and in violation of the Due Process Clause. - A defendant should be punished for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff, not for being an unsavory. - We decline to impose a bright-line ratio which a punitive damages award cannot exceed. Our jurisprudence and the principles it has now established demonstrate, however, that, in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process. - Nonetheless, because there are no rigid benchmarks that a punitive damages award may not surpass, ratios greater than those we have previously upheld may comport with due process where a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages. The precise award in any case must be based upon the facts and circumstances of the defendant's conduct and the harm to the plaintiff. - In context of this case, we have no doubt that there is a presumption against an award that has a 145-to-1 ratio. - The compensatory award in this case was substantial; the Campbells were awarded $1 million for a year and a half of emotional distress. This was complete compensation. - The Campbells suffered only minor economic injuries - The judgement of the Utah Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this option. MAIN POINTS - In sum, courts must ensure that the measure of punishment is both reasonable and proportionate to the amount of harm to the plaintiff and the general damages recovered. - Campbells were awarded $1 million for a year and a half of emotional distress - The judgement of the Utah Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Felony vs. Misdemeanor

Felony - A serious crime, for which a defendant can be sentenced to one year or more in prison. - Ex. murder, robbery, rape. drug dealing, wire fraud, embezzlement. Misdemeanor - A less serious crime, often punishable by less than a year in a county jail. - Ex. public drunkenness, driving without a license, shoplifting.

Maxine was laid off from her job as an electrical engineer with a large company with over 1,000 employees which had provided health insurance benefits for Maxine and her family. She now: a) Must try to find insurance on her own or try to find another job with health insurance benefits. b) Is protected under COBRA, which allows her continued health insurance coverage for 18 months as long as she pays the cost. c) Is protected under COBRA, which requires her employer to continue her health insurance coverage for six months under whatever copayment arrangements she had while she was employed. d) Has some protection under the NLRA, which requires her employer to pay for continued health insurance for three months following her termination if she did not leave the company voluntarily.

b) Is protected under COBRA, which allows her continued health insurance coverage for 18 months as long as she pays the cost.

Which of the following represents those to whom a landowner has the lowest liability? a) Trespassing children. b) Trespassing adults. c) Licenses. d) Invitees.

b) Trespassing adults.

The Supreme Court has held that in awarding punitive damages, a court must consider three "guideposts." Which of the following is NOT one of these guideposts? a) The reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct. b) Whether or not compensatory damages will also be awarded. c) The ratio between the harm suffered and the award. d) The difference between the punitive award and any civil penalties used in similar cases.

b) Whether or not compensatory damages will also be awarded.

Which of the following statements about torts is correct? a) A tortious act is always a criminal act. b) A criminal act is always a tortious act. c) A tortious act may also be a criminal act. d) A tortious act is the same as a contract dispute.

c) A tortious act may also be a criminal act.

If a court applies res ipsa loquitur to a case before it,: a) The plaintiff then needs to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence. b) The plaintiff then must prove the case by clear and convincing evidence. c) The defendant then has the burden of proving s/he is not liable. d) The defendant then is strictly liable.

c) The defendant then has the burden of proving s/he is not liable.

Great State Bank loans money to Sue, securing the loan with property owned by Sue. Great State Bank is advised by its attorney to file a financing statement. Great State Bank doesn't understand why it should spend the extra money for this filing, since Sue has told them that she has no other creditors. Why should Great State Bank file a financing statement? a) There are criminal penalties for failing to file. b) The financing statement allows Great State Bank to repossess the collateral on default without a court order. c) The financing statement will protect Great State's Bank priority rights with other creditors by giving notice to other creditors that it claims a security interest in the collateral. d) Filing the financing statement is necessary to complete the attachment required in order to create a security interest.

c) The financing statement will protect Great State's priority rights with other creditors by giving notice to other creditors that it claims a security interest in the collateral.

Megan was employed by a large company. Her supervisor told her to falsify government reports. She refused and was fired. She sued for wrongful discharge. Her employer claimed that, since Megan was an at-will employee, she had no legal right to claim the company was liable for damages. Is the employer right? a) Yes. An at-will employee does not have a legal right to claim wrongful discharge of employment. b) Yes. As an employee, Megan owes a duty of loyalty to her employer. If the company was found to have acted illegally by falsifying the reports, it (not Megan) would be liable. c) No. Even though Megan was an at-will employee, such employees may not be fired without just cause. d) No. Though at-will employees do not have extensive rights relative to job security, they may not be legally fired for refusing to perform an illegal act.

d) No. Though at-will employees do not have extensive rights relative to job security, they may not be legally fired for refusing to perform an illegal act.