Law Reading Comprehension

Order 100% Plagiarism free paper

Reading Comprehension- PART I   (2.5-3 pages)  goal should be to accurately state the

relevant points of law as concisely as possible. Only draw on readings listed above and please use internal citations and provide a separate references section)

1)      What is “strict liability”? How does it differ from liability for negligence? What arguments did

the plaintiff in Hammontree make in an effort to convince the court to apply strict liability? Why did the

court reject those arguments? Why couldn’t the defendant in Hammontree have been held liable for the

plaintiff’s damages under the doctrine of negligence?

2)       In Adams, what were Judge Cardozo’s reasons for finding that the trolley company was not

 negligent? What did he mean by the statement, “Facility of protection may impose a duty to protect”?

3)       Explain the Hand formula in 100 words or fewer. Apply the formula to the case of Adams v.

Bullock.

Analysis of Concepts and Discussion- PART II   (each question requires 1 page response, please try to be concise and eloquent, draw on readings listed above and cite appropriately, I require internal citations and a separate reference section)

1)      Drawing on the principles discussed in Theories of Tort Law, discuss whether you think it would have been appropriate for the court to extend the rule of strict liability to the facts of Hammontree.  (1 page)

2)       Assume a car manufacturer identifies a new safety feature that, if adopted, would prevent $50

million in damages per year, including several deaths. The feature would cost $30 per car, or $60 million

for all 2 million cars the manufacturer produces in a single year. The cost could be passed on to

consumers in the form of higher prices, but because competition is tight the manufacturer is reluctant to raise prices (and it obviously does not want to absorb the $60 million cost on its own). So it decides not to install the new feature. If someone is injured in an accident that could have been avoided had the new feature been installed, would the manufacturer be considered negligent under the formula outlined by Judge Hand in U.S. v. Carroll Towing? Do you think the Hand formula captures all of the considerations that are relevant to assessing whether the manufacturer exercised reasonable care?  (1 page)