John Clark purchased a paintball gun at a pawn shop and then participated in a community sport of shooting paintball guns at cars. While John and his friend were riding around their small town with their paintball guns, they spotted Chris and shot his car. Chris Rico then aimed his Brass Eagle paintball gun at the car John was riding in, but instead hit John in the eye. John required surgery on his eye that even- ing and filed suit against Brass Eagle under a theory of strict tort liability. Brass Eagle responded by stat- ing that its gun was not defective and that the young men had ignored warnings about the need to wear eye protection when using the guns. John said he purchased his gun used and was not given all the packaging and instructions. Brass Eagle says that its gun was not defective and that it functioned as it was supposed to. John says the guns are inherently dan- gerous. Who should be responsible for the injury? Are paintball guns defective if they can harm indivi- duals? How should the courts allocate the risk and loss on products such as these?

John Clark purchased a paintball gun at a pawn shop and then participated in a community sport of shooting paintball guns at cars. While John and his friend were riding around their small town with their paintball guns, they spotted Chris and shot his car. Chris Rico then aimed his Brass Eagle paintball gun at the car John was riding in, but instead hit John in the eye. John required surgery on his eye that even- ing and filed suit against Brass Eagle under a theory of strict tort liability. Brass Eagle responded by stat- ing that its gun was not defective and that the young men had ignored warnings about the need to wear eye protection when using the guns. John said he purchased his gun used and was not given all the packaging and instructions. Brass Eagle says that its gun was not defective and that it functioned as it was supposed to. John says the guns are inherently dan- gerous. Who should be responsible for the injury? Are paintball guns defective if they can harm indivi- duals? How should the courts allocate the risk and loss on products such as these?

Similar questions

Immar Medrano was employed as a journeyman electrician by Marshall Electrical Contracting, Inc. (MEC), in Marshall, Missouri. Medrano attended an electrician apprenticeship night class at a community college in Sedalia, Missouri. MEC paid Medrano’s tuition and book fees. Attendance at the course required Medrano to drive 70 miles round-trip. One night, when Medrano was driving home from the class, a drunk driver crossed the center line of U.S. Highway 65 and collided head-on with Medrano’s automobile. Medrano died in the accident. His wife and two children filed a workers’ compensation claim for death benefits against MEC. Are Medrano’s actions at the time of the automobile accident within the course and scope of his employment, thus entitling him to workers’ compensation benefits? Explain your answer.
At approximately 4:00 A.M. on July 14, 2000, a woman wearing a mask and pointing a firearm demanded that 7-Eleven employees at a store in Berkeley County, West Virginia, give her the store’s money. Antonio Feliciano was working that morning as a sales clerk. While other employees emptied the cash register and the woman was focused on them, Feliciano grabbed and disarmed her. He continued to restrain the would-be robber until local law enforcement authorities arrived on the scene and apprehended her. No one was physically injured in the incident. Nevertheless, shortly thereafter, 7-Eleven terminated Feliciano’s at-will employment. 7-Eleven explained to Feliciano that he was being fired because he violated a company policy that prohibits employees from subduing a robber or otherwise interfering with a store robbery. Feliciano subsequently filed a lawsuit against 7-Eleven alleging that he had been wrongfully discharged in contravention of the West Virginia public policy favoring an…
Brendan Bosse and Michael Griffin were part of a group of four teenagers eating a meal at a Chili’s restaurant in Dedham, Massachusetts. Chili’s is owned by Brinker Restaurant Corporation (collectively “Chili’s”). The cost of the meal was $56. The teenagers decided not to pay. They went out of the building, got in their car, and drove away, heading northward up Route 1. A patron of the restaurant saw the teenagers leave without payment. He followed them in his white sport-utility vehicle (SUV). The teenagers saw him following them. A high-speed chase ensued through Dedham side streets. The patron used his cell phone to call the Chili’s manager. The manager called 911 and reported the incident and the location of the car chase. The teenagers’ car collided with a cement wall, and Bosse and Griffin were seriously injured. The Chili’s patron drove past the crash scene and was never identified. Bosse and Griffin sued Chili’s for compensatory damages for their injuries. The plaintiffs argued…
Brutus is prosecuted for having sexually assaulted a young girl of 12 years before theIntermediate Court. At the trial, the girl is 13 years old and she gives evidence without beingsworn. After two more witnesses have been heard the Magistrates realise that the young girlwas not sworn before giving evidence. The young girl is recalled and is sworn and she repeatsthe evidence she had given before and is cross examined by the defence.Brutus is convicted and sentenced to undergo five years imprisonment. He appeals against theconviction and on appeal it is submitted that Brutus did not get a fair trial because the evidenceof the girl which appears on the court record was not given on oath.The prosecution seeks your views on how to reply to the arguments of the defence.
Agents and employees of Deco Arts Corporation and Echo Imitations Inc. are convicted of conspiring to violate a federal law that is punishable by a term of imprisonment and a fine. Can the corporations be held liable for these crimes? If so, how can they be punished?
under the NCC, what are the different acts or omissions of the obligor or debtor which will result in the breach of the obligation for which he can be held liable for damages?
Paula Plaintiff owns Paula’s Boutique, one of the most popular stores in town. William Wicked owns the store next to Paula’s Boutique. William has been jealous of Paula’s success. William, in an effort to increase his own business, begins to tell his customers that Paula is dishonest and unethical. William even puts a sign in his front window warning potential customers not to shop at Paula’s Boutique because of her deceitful and unethical practices. Paula is upset when she finds out what William has been doing. Paula has always been honest and ethical with her customers and now her business is suffering because of William’s dishonesty. Paula decides that something must be done about this situation. What advice would you give Paula? Discuss the possible tort claim Paula might have against William. Be sure to include the elements of the tort and relate those elements to the scenario. If Paula decides to pursue a claim against William, should she consider a lawsuit, mediation, or…
Joseph Burger was the owner of a junkyard in Brooklyn, New York. His business consisted, in part, of dismantling automobiles and selling their parts. The state of New York enacted a statute that requires automobile junkyards to keep certain records. The statute authorizes warrantless searches of vehicle dismantlers and automobile junkyards without prior notice. One day, five plain-clothes officers of the Auto Crimes Division of the New York City Police Department entered Burger’s junkyard to conduct a surprise inspection. Burger did not have either a license to conduct the business or records of the automobiles and vehicle parts on his premises, as required by state law. After conducting an inspection of the premises, the officers determined that Burger was in possession of stolen vehicles and parts. He was arrested and charged with criminal possession of stolen property. Burger moved to suppress the evidence. Did Burger act ethically in trying to suppress the evidence? Does the…
An intruder entered through a window and raped McCutchen in her apartment. MCutchen sued the landlord, Ten Associates, for failure to provide adequate security and failure to warn her of the risk of intrusion through the window. Ten Associates claimed that they had no way of anticipating an intruder. Evidence was introduced that revealed the landlord knew or should have known of a prior rape and numerous intrusions through apartment windows. Does it appear that Ten Associates was negligent in providing for the security of tenants?
Case4 One afternoon, the plaintiff (P) and her husband were out driving for picnic together with their three children. They pull-over in a lay-by, a designated pave area beside a main road where cars can stop temporarily, for a picnic and the plaintiff took one of the children across the road to pick flowers. The defendant, Mr. Berry (D), was driving recklessly and crashed into the couple’s van, where the plaintiff’s husband and the other children were preparing. The plaintiff’s husband was seriously hurt by the crash and died at the scene a few hours later while most of the children suffered injuries. The plaintiff witnessed the entire event and its aftermath, developed long-term “morbid depression”, consequently. Please state the four basic elements of negligence. Plaintiff sued Mr. Berry for the cost and damages as a result from nervous shock that she suffered due to the negligence of the Defendant. Please state your reasons
Leon A. Tashof operated a store known as the New York Jewelry Company. The store was located in an area that served low-income consumers, many of whom had low-paying jobs and had no bank or charge accounts. About 85 percent of the store’s sales were made on credit. The store advertised eyeglasses “from $7.50 complete,” including “lenses, frames and case.” Tashof advertised this sale extensively on radio and in newspapers. Evidence showed that of the 1,400 pairs of eyeglasses sold by the store, fewer than 10 were sold for $7.50; the rest were more expensive glasses. The Federal Trade Commission sued Tashof for engaging in bait-and-switch marketing, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. a) Explain what a bait and switch is. b) Was Tashof’s conduct in this case ethical? c) Who wins, and why?
Under what circumstances should a principal (employer) be responsible for the torts committed by an agent (employee)? If an agent injures a third party during the course of employment, to what extent should the employer be held liable? Under what circumstances should the agent be held personally liable? Provide an example to illustrate your opinion. What ethical considerations underlie the doctrine of respondeat superior?