Author: admin

Review the
following facts. Make a list of the legally significant facts. Then prepare an
issue statement and a conclusion for this problem.
Your client,
Hospitality Resorts International, Inc., which does business in your state, is
defending an action against James Panhandle, a 70-year-old doctor from Akron,
Ohio, who slipped and fell at a London hotel bearing the name Hospitality
Resorts of London on January 28, 2014. Panhandle, a semi-retired general
practice physician, smashed his head on some wet marble flooring next to the
pool. A sign saying “slippery when wet” was set up next to the pool, but
Panhandle didn’t see the sign. He sustained severe and permanent injuries and
was unable to practice medicine for two years. Panhandle often stayed at the
Hospitality Resorts. The resorts were known for cleanliness and hospitality.
The staff was friendly and always helpful. The advertising for the resorts
claimed that it was the “cleanest in the world. We stay on top of our hotels.”
Most advertisements stated that the hotels were independently owned and
operated. Some ads, such as the one that appeared in the Doctor’s Weekly, which
Panhandle read, did not state that independent owners owned the London hotel.
That ad boasted about the resort, “We care about you. We take care of you. We
take care of your home—our resort.” Hospitality Resorts was a trade name. The
company that licensed the name Hospitality Resorts to other hotels was called
Hospitality Resorts International, Inc. (HRII), your client. Hospitality
Resorts licensed its trade name to Fred and Ethel Carrigan of London, England,
for use in a hotel there. The Carrigans called the hotel Hospitality Resorts of
London. As part of the license agreement, Hospitality Resorts provided training
to the staff. The Carrigans hired and fired the staff. HRII had no authority to
hire and fire staff.
Panhandle
did not know anything about the training or the connection between the London
hotel and HRII. HRII provided operations manuals and suggested procedures and
menus. Personnel from HRII regularly traveled to London to advise the hotel
employees about their jobs. HRII had no ownership interest in the London hotel.
HRII was not authorized to act on behalf of the hotel nor was the hotel
authorized to act on behalf of HRII. The license agreement between HRII and
Hospitality Resort of London only provided for HRII to provide its name
Hospitality Resort to the London hotel as well as some manuals and technical
assistance. It did not authorize the London hotel to act as its agent and HRII
was not an agent of the London hotel. HRII did include the Hospitality Resort
of London in its list of Hospitality Resorts. That list appeared in many ads as
well as in a brochure. Plaintiff filed suit against the Hospitality Resort in
London and Hospitality Resorts, and Hospitality Resorts International, Inc.,
alleging that HRII is in an agency relationship or apparent or ostensible
agency relationship with the London Hospitality Resort. Thus, plaintiff claims
that HRII and the London hotel are both responsible for his injuries. This suit
was filed in the United States District Court for your area. All the rules of
that court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures apply.
Does our
client have a good defense to the plaintiff’s claim that it was in an agency
relationship with the London hotel? Assume that the highest court in your state
has held that a hotel owner can be liable based upon the theory of apparent
agency. Under that theory, if a business allows another to hold itself out as
its representative or the individual or entity holds itself as acting on behalf
of the business, the business may be liable for the acts of the individual or
entity. Also assume that a decision of the federal appellate court in your area
follows your high court’s decision.

Write three
different discussions about your high school career. One discussion should
present the experience in a negative manner. The second should attempt to
persuade the reader that the experience was positive. Finally, write about your
experience in a neutral manner, without any emotion. Compare the three
discussions.

Draft a
facts statement for our client, Ronnie Randall. Janice Kahn, the plaintiff,
brought an action against Randall for intentional infliction of emotional
distress. You should prepare your facts statement based on this excerpt from a
deposition transcript, witness statements, and a police report. The facts
statement will be included in a memo that discusses the issue of intentional
infliction of emotional distress. For the purpose of this memo, intentional
infliction of emotional distress is defined as follows:
An act by a
person that is extreme and outrageous conduct, done with intent to cause
another to suffer severe emotional distress, and which results in distress and
emotional injury to another. The emotional injury must manifest itself with a
physical problem.

Write an
IRAC paragraph using the following information. You need not include all the
information. The issue is whether the plaintiff can show that his attorney’s
failure to attend hearings was excusable neglect. A number of the text blocks
below contain statements of rules. Other text blocks include legally
significant facts. In some paragraphs, conclusions have been drawn for you.
Combine the rules where necessary and form an IRAC paragraph for the issue.
Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b) provides for relief from judgment if plaintiffs can show that a
mistake was made or that there was excusable neglect on the part of their
attorney. Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy, granted in only exceptional
cases. Harold Washington Party v. Cook City. Illinois Democratic Party, 984
F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1993). In this case, the plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Adly,
missed four court-set status hearings. He failed to appear. He failed to answer
motions. Court status hearings are routinely held every three months. Adly
claims he did not have any notice of the hearings. Adly knew status proceedings
normally were held. He attended depositions in this matter. Court records show
that he was sent notices of the hearings to the address Adly says is correct.
“Excusable neglect may warrant relief under Rule 60(b).” Zuelzke Tool &
Eng’g v. Anderson Die Casting, 925 F.2d 226 (7th Cir. 1991). In this case, the
defendant relied on a third party who told them to refrain from further action
because efforts were being made to have the defendant removed as defendant. Id.
at 228. Anderson did not answer any complaints or file any pleadings. Id. The
lack of response led the court to enter a default judgment against the company.
Id. at 229. The district court refused the motion to vacate, saying that the
defendant had voluntarily chosen not to control its fate in the litigation. Id.

Review the
following paragraph. Note the issue, the rule, the application of law to facts,
and the conclusion.
An important
factor in determining whether a funeral home is a nuisance is the suitability
of its location. “Funeral homes are generally located on the edge of purely
residential but not predominantly residential areas.” Bauman v. Piser
Undertakers Co., 34 Ill. App. 2d 145, 148, 180 N.E.2d 705, 708 (App. Ct. 1962).
A carefully run funeral home may be located on a property zoned for business at
the edge of a residential neighborhood. Id. The funeral home in this case is
located in a predominantly rural area. It is outside the boundary lines of the
Up and Coming Acres subdivision. It is a lawful business located on a parcel
zoned for business. The funeral home is in a suitable location.

Write an
IRAC paragraph based on the following facts, issue, and cases.
Facts Ms.
Jones was waiting to get off the commuter train in the train’s vestibule. The
commuter train pulled into the station and Ms. Jones descended the stairs to
disembark from the train. The conductor exited the train first to watch the
passengers exit the train and then signal to close the doors and for the train
to start rolling. Ms. Jones was carrying her briefcase, which had a long strap.
As Ms. Jones exited the train the briefcase strap was behind her. The train
doors shut with Ms. Jones on the platform but with the briefcase strap still
inside the door. The train dragged Ms. Jones about 10 feet and she suffered a
broken shoulder. The issue you have to consider is whether the conductor’s
negligence by signaling for the train to start was the proximate cause of Ms.
Jones’s broken shoulder. The issue that you should focus your case synthesis on
is whether the conductor’s failure to see that Ms. Jones’s briefcase strap was
inside the door as he signaled for the train to start moving is the proximate
cause of her broken shoulder. Read the two cases: Smithers v. Atlantic City
Railroad, 12 Nowhere 2d 5 (2014). Mr. John Smith was injured on the Atlantic
City Railroad when the train lurched with great violence as it rounded a curve
on the track. The train was overcrowded. Smith was injured without fault on his
part. The motorman drove the overcrowded car too fast around the curve, so as
to cause it to give a severe lurch. Where a passenger train is overcrowded and
the employees operating the train know of such condition, it is their duty to
exercise additional care commensurate with the dangers. The motorman knew of
the overcrowded conditions and failed to exercise additional care when rounding
the curve. Mr. Smith was injured when the train lurched as it rounded the curve
because he fell onto another passenger. The motorman’s failure to exercise the
requisite care was the proximate cause of Mr. Smith’s injuries. Blue v.
Boardwalk Railroad, 15 Nowhere 2d 9 (2000). Mr. Robert Blue was blinded by a
sudden gust of steam and fell underneath the train he was in the process of
boarding at the station; Mr. Blue’s arm was severed by the train as it started
to leave the station. Regular inspection of couplings is a required duty of
conductors. Failure to inspect the couplings for leaks is a negligent act on
the part of the defendant. Railroad’s allowing steam to escape was the
proximate cause of Mr. Blue’s injury, since a man of ordinary prudence could
have foreseen that escaping steam would result from leaks in the uninspected
couplings. The consequence of the escaping steam, due to the railroad’s failure
to inspect the couplings, resulted in a foreseeable injury to a passenger or
person waiting on the platform.

Write an
IRAC paragraph based on the following facts, issue, and statutes.
Facts
Ms. Jones
was waiting to get off the commuter train in the train’s vestibule. The
commuter train pulled into the station and Ms. Jones descended the stairs to
disembark from the train. The conductor exited the train first to watch the
passengers exit the train and then signal to close the doors and for the train
to start rolling. Ms. Jones was carrying her briefcase which had a long strap.
As Ms. Jones exited the train the briefcase strap was behind her. The train
doors shut with Ms. Jones on the platform but with the briefcase strap still
inside the door. The train dragged Ms. Jones about 10 feet and she suffered a
broken shoulder. The issue you have to consider is whether the conductor’s
negligence by signaling for the train to start was the proximate cause of Ms.
Jones’s broken shoulder. The issue that you should focus on is whether the
conductor’s failure to see that Ms. Jones’s briefcase strap, was inside the
door as he signaled for the train to start moving, is the proximate cause of
her broken shoulder. Statutes: Chapter 131 Nowhere Revised Code §12 (2014). An
operator of a common carrier must perform regular inspections of all components
of the common carrier. Failure to do so constitutes negligence. The failure to
perform inspections and the resulting negligence will be considered the
proximate cause of all injuries occurring aboard a common carrier. Chapter 131
Nowhere Revised Code §14 (2014). It is the duty of an operator of a common
carrier to exercise additional care when dangers are foreseeable.

Read the
following fact pattern and cases carefully. Draft a paragraph in which you
synthesize the holdings of the cases. The issue that you will address is
provided as well. Remember that proper synthesis requires you to relate the
authority to a common legal theme. The problem’s issue will guide you in
synthesizing the authority.
Facts On
November 29, 2014, Michael Jones purchased a used truck from Grimy’s Auto and
Truck Service. At the time of the purchase, Grimy’s stated that the engine was
completely overhauled and consisted of rebuilt and reconditioned parts, that
all parts were guaranteed, and that invoices for all new parts would be
provided. On December 13, 2015, after using the truck for over one year, Jones
discovered that several engine parts were not rebuilt or reconditioned and that
other engine parts were defective. These defects caused the truck to break
down, resulting in lost wages and lost profits for Jones. Jones made repairs to
the truck on December 13, 2015, December 16, 2015, and December 31, 2015. Jones
did not attempt to return the truck and did not notify Grimy’s that the truck
was defective. The truck is currently disabled in Columbus, Ohio. Jones wants
to sue Grimy’s for damages for breach of contract. Issue Whether Jones
continued to use the truck for more than a reasonable time after noticing the
defects and failed to properly reject the truck and to notify Grimy’s as to the
defects.
Case A A
buyer of goods must alert the seller as soon as he discovers that the goods are
not as agreed on. A buyer must rescind a sales contract as soon as he discovers
the breach or after he has had a reasonable time for examination. The buyer
waives the right to rescind a contract for the sale of goods by continuing to
use allegedly defective goods for more than a reasonable time.
Case B To
meet the requirements of an effective rejection, the buyer must reject the
goods within a reasonable time and reasonably notify the seller.

Read Seymour
v. Armstrong, 64 P. 612 (Kan. 1901), reprinted in Chapter 6 (Case Briefing and
Analysis) and Osburn v. Addington, 138 P. 603 (Kan. 1914). The two cases
involve similar issues.
a. What are
the similar issues?
b. What is
the subject matter of each case?
c. Draft a
statement of the law combining the holdings or rules from both cases.

Prepare a
list of each of the relevant authorities. Note that not all authorities will be
relevant. Include only those that help you to determine the law involved in
your case. For your list, include the name of the authority. If the authority
is a case, list the holding or summary statement of the significance of the authority.
Note the complete citation. It is also helpful to list whether the authority is
a primary binding, primary persuasive, or secondary authority.