Billy and Sarah began arguing in their kitchen.   Sarah called him a male-chauvinist pig and a nasty drunk. Billy, holding a half-empty bottle of Patron, replied, “You’re a no-good-rotten-bitch!” and swung the bottle at her face, narrowly missing her.  Sarah took a step back, inching her way toward the Fissler knife block Billy’s mother bought them for Christmas last year.  Billy stumbled toward Sarah and swung the bottle at her again, splashing streaks of golden-brown liquid on the marble-tiled floor. “Come on,” Billy laughed, “have a drink with me, slut.”  Sarah grabbed one of the finely crafted German blades and held it front of her new breasts.   The brassy light from the kitchen lights reflected the pure silver of the blade into Billy’s Tequila-tinted eyes.  Billy turned his head to side, looking somewhat like sickened vampire in front of a holy cross.  With effort, he tossed his head back in her direction: “What are you going to do—stab me? Huh? With my mommy’s nice knives? That will be a five-hundred dollar wound.” 

            “Don’t come any closer,” Sarah protested, gripping the handle of the knife.  Not listening, Billy continued his wobbly march toward Sarah.  As he lifted the bottle over his head, Sarah drove the knife right into Billy’s chest.   The bottle of Patron fell to the floor, shattering into several pieces.  Billy collapsed onto the open-door of the dishwasher, breaking it with his weight. The cacophonous sound of silverware and dishes from the lower-part of the Maytag washer followed as Billy hit the floor.  His eyes dropped to the sight of the dark handle sticking out of his chest.  He arched both his eyebrows and, with an unsteady hand, yanked the knife from his flesh. 

            Billy whimpered when the pain from his actions registered with his inebriated brain.  Sarah raised both her hands to her face, pulling down her bow-shaped lips with her finger tips. She felt the coldness from the band of the ring on her third left finger.  Warm tears poured from her eyes, streaking her tan, powdered cheeks. Billy focused his gaze on the bloody blade.  Had he been a more philosophical man, he might have appreciated the cruel, ironic twist of fate that led to his end: to die from a gift bought by his mother in celebration of his engagement to a woman he felt he could not live without.  The love of his mother united with the betrayal of his lover into one blunt instrument.  But Billy’s last thoughts never made it to those depths of reason reserved for reflective men.  Forever the lackadaisical playboy and Monday-night football fan, he could pull only immediate words that were full of emotion and scented with booze.  He dropped the knife; blood trickled out his mouth when he spoke: “Oh, baby… I think you broke… my heart.”  Billy’s eyes rolled into his head.  His arms suddenly relaxed and flopped to the floor.

             You are a legal intern working for the DA's office in Florida.  The prosecutor you intern for asks you to review all the posts on Sarah's Facebook page.   Why would you check Sarah's Facebook page?  What type of evidence would you find there if you were trying to convict Sarah of second degree murder?  Discuss what you specifically hope to find on Sarah's page.   Next, write a brief memo disclosing your findings and post it on your blog.  Did Sarah violate any social ethics with her postings (social, personal, or conservation ethics?  Your findings can be good or bad for Sarah.  Use some creativity here.  In this memo, you should name your primary, secondary, and tertiary readers.  This blog is worth twenty points.  You have until June 1st to complete this assignment.

Hookem and Crookem Law Firm, L.L.C.

____________________________________________________

­­­

Date: May 11, 2012

To:  Ambulance Chaser Task Force (J. Pilarski, A. Cyrus, D. Davis)

From: Michael J. Hookem, Senior Partner

Subject:  Palsgraf v. Trans Florida Railroad

Our client, Annie Palsgraf, underwent plastic surgery last week.  Unfortunately, the package of fireworks, carelessly dropped by a TFR-employed porter, exploded, causing rockets to shoot from the fallen cardboard box.  One such rocket hit Mrs. Palsgraf right between the eyes, knocking her several feet from the commuter rail.   Her face, nearly blown off from the rocket's impact, became the least of her worries.  Other travelers, alarmed by the explosion, started pushing and shoving, ignoring our client as she stumbled to the ground.  As more rockets continued firing from the package, commuters began running for shelter, trampling Mrs. Palsgraf in the process.

Our client wishes to sue TFR for twenty million dollars.  I believe if we use proximate cause, we will win this case. Remember, as lawyers, we must have an argument that passes the laughter test.  This particular fact pattern suggests unforeseeable events.  For that reason, we should employ Cardozo's formula for negligence.  In case you've forgotten this is the formula for negligence:

·        
-em and Crook-em Law FirmExistence of Duty

·         Breach of Duty

·         Causation and Proximate Cause

·         Injury

To determine if there was an existence of duty, we must see if the severity of harm (SH) added to the likely hood of harm (LH) is more than the cost of precaution (CP).  Next, to determine whether a breach of duty existed, we have to determine what a reasonably prudent person would have done in the defendant's shoes.  Now we need to prove causation and proximate cause.  The standard we use is more likely than not.  So in this case, we would say, "More likely than not, but for the TFR porter dropping the package, the rocket would not have flown into Mrs. Palsgraf's face."  Second to last, we must prove proximate cause.  If we are using Cardozo, we must look from the defendant's perspective and use the foresight approach.  Then we must characterize the risk before determining the zone of danger.  The risk of a rocket firing from a fallen box and hitting someone in the face is moderate during a regular work day at the station.  Finally, we determine the zone of danger.  We want the incident to be foreseeable and the zone of danger to be remote enough to include the plaintiff.  Lastly, we need to say that it is clear Mrs. Palsgraf sustained injuries from the flying rocket.

I have confidence that there is more than a 50% chance we can win this case.  If you have any questions, please email me at hookem@scam.com

Blog Question:

Suppose you are council for TFR.  You are working with three other attorneys.  Discuss how you would organize a rebuttal to Hookem's claims.  Look to Chapter 3 and talk about your defense using strategic planning (subject, purpose, readers, and context).  Finally, discuss what, as a group, your project outcome would be.

*For extra credit:  Above, I have given you the entire formula for negligence.  This is just how J.P. Morgan or any plaintiff's lawyer would argue before a jury.  See if you can apply the negligence formula to brief fact pattern I've laid out for you.  Let me know if you need extra help.  Good luck!

Summer A Blog Post I

Blog Posting I (Summer A)

This first blog posting deals with an ethical question.  Remember, there is no right or wrong answer.  Suppose a colleague of yours left her computer on.   You try your best to mind your own business, but the temptation overwhelms your senses of decency (not that you really had any to begin with).  So, as you peer over the desk, you see an unsent email on her screen.   With famished eyes, you read the text, perusing every juicy morsel of text.  It appears that, Jane, your colleague and competitor, has left the following message for your accidental perusal:

Dear Rich:

After last night together, I decided that I want to run away with you. I know it's crazy, but crazy and love go together fire and passion.  I don't care about my husband or kids.  All I care about is you.  I miss the strong squeeze of your arms around my waist and your heavy breathing against my cheek at night ;-)  It's hard to go an hour without your firm, gentle touch.

I know you worry that my husband will find out.  Well, you shouldn't.  He doesn't know anything about us.  Actually, he really believes I still love him.  I can hide from him, but I can't hide from you.  Hold me, take me, and love me.

Jane X0X0

Now you stand at the computer with the power to wreck the lives of two people employed within the company. Rich is the senior technical writer and Jane is a products specialist.  Both are employees of Mastech, a microchip company.  You never liked Jane, and she is your direct competitor for the big promotion.

 No one is in the office at the moment.  You have four scenarios to choose from.  Pick one of them and write your first response on your own personal blog page.

(I)You decide to cc Jane's email to everyone in the company.  Do you think doing this would be a justifiable action?  What might happen to the people involved should everyone know Jane's feelings about Rich?  Could you gain anything by doing something to hurt these two?  What might you lose if you sent the email?

(2)Read over chapter 11 of your text and discuss how Jane is incorrectly using email?  Also, what legal trouble could Jane face by sending this email through work?

(3)You decide to do nothing.  Despite your hatred for Jane, you don't want to risk any backlash from the parties involved.  Is this is a wise decision?  Would your personal outcome be better or worse if you decide to walk away?

(4)Suddenly, Jane appears in the cubicle, startling you.  She demands to know what you are doing in her work area.  How would handle this situation?  Would you mention that you read her email to Rich?  Would you threaten her with that evidence?  Or would you feign ignorance?