Faris Young

Advance Bar Studies

Exam 2

Question 1

Larry v. Jim’s Oil Company

Issue - The first potential defendant in which Larry has a claim against in his employer, Jim’s
Oil Company, for negligence.
Rule - Negligence has five elements which include: (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (3) factual
causation, (4) proximate causation, and (5) damages.
Analysis -
Conclusion - The first element is duty.
Rule - The reasonable person standard is the standard that governs duty of care.
Analysis - Here, since Jim’s Oil Company is Larry’s employee, Jim’s owes Larry a duty
of care of a reasonable employer. When Larry received a phone call from Jim’s he was acting in
his capacity of an employee and Jim’s was acting in the capacity of his employer.
Conclusion - Therefore, Jim’s owed a duty of care to Larry.
Conclusion - The second element is breach of duty.
Rule - Breach of duty occurs when the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and
does something that a reasonable person would not do.
Analysis - Here, since Jim’s owed Larry a duty of care of a reasonable employer and
Larry was acting in his capacity as an employee truck driver, Jim’s breached their duty of care to
their employees when while on the job he was injured. Larry’s occupation was delivering
gasoline from refineries to retailors, and in this case he was told to pick up a load of gasoline at a
refinery for delivery. The only way he was able to do this was because Jim’s Oil Company
added a pump to their tanker-trailor so that the gasoline could be pumped into above ground
storage facilities at the retail location.
Conclusion - Therefore, Jim’s breach their duty of care owed to Larry.
Conclusion - The third element is factual cause.
Rule - The test for factual cause is the but for test. This test states that but for the
defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff would not have been injured. To apply this test, you must
place yourself in a parallel universe where the defendant’s negligence did not occur and ask – is
the plaintiff still injured? If the answer is yes, then defendant’s negligence is not the factual
cause of plaintiff’s injury.
Analysis - Here, had Jim’s not sent Larry to do a job of picking up a load of gasoline,
Larry would not have been injured.
Conclusion - Therefore, Jim’s was the factual cause of Larry’s injury.
Conclusion - The fourth element is proximate cause.
Rule - The test for proximate cause is foreseeability. This tests states that if Larry’s
injury was not foreseeable, then Jim’s negligence was not the proximate cause of his injury.
Analysis - Here, Jim’s job was the truck driver. The injury stemmed from the filling up
of the gas into a storage tank, which was his exact job. An injury while doing your job is
foreseeable.
Conclusion - Therefore, Jim’s negligence was the proximate cause of Larry’s injury.
 Conclusion - The fifth element is damages.
Analysis - Here, when the storage tank on the employer’s doctored up tanker-trailer
erupted into flames after a spark from the switch mounted on the tanker-trailer ignited the gas,
Larry was severely burned.
Conclusion - Therefore, Larry has extensive damages.
Conclusion - Because all five elements of negligence are present, Jim’s is liable to Larry.
Conclusion - Jim’s has two potential defenses they can argue. These include that Larry
and/or Clyde’s Service Station were contributorily negligent.
Rule - MISSING
Analysis - First, Jim’s could argue that Larry was contributorily negligence because after
placing the hose into the storage tank and starting the pump, Larry called his wife on his cell
phone for two to three minutes before discovering that the tank had started to overflow. Had
Larry not acted outside the scope of his employment and stayed present, the tank might never
have overflowed. Second, Jim’s could argue that Clyde’s Service Station was contributorily
negligent. When Larry asked the Clyde’s employee for charts for the tanks to show the amount
of gas which had been pumped form the tanks since they were last filled, barely any effort was
made to get those charts to Larry. Also, since the tanks were not equipped with any method to
determine the level of gas, Larry had to use a flashlight and determine how filled they were.
Conclusion - Therefore, Jim’s could hold someone else out to be liable as well.

Larry v. Perfect Trailers

Conclusion - The second potential defendant in which Larry may have a claim against is
Perfect Trailers for a manufacturing defect case.
Rule – MISSING
Analysis - Perfect Trailers manufactured the tanker-trailer which ended up sparking from
the switch mounted on the tanker-trailer. Perfect Trailers’ defense is that Jim’s is liable for the
damages since after purchasing the tanker-trailer from Perfect Trailers, they had piping, values,
and hoses installed and also added a pump. These additions could be argued to have been the
cause of the sparking switch board with more evidence.
Conclusion - MISSING

Larry v. Clyde’s Service Station

Conclusion - The third potential defendant in which Larry may have a claim against is
Clyde’s Service Station for a design defect case.
Rule - In a design defect case, the plaintiff must put on evidence of an alternative design
that would not alter the product but make it safer.
Analysis - Here, the design defect would be of Clyde’s storage tanks. The tanks did not
have any type of measuring device which showed the level of gasoline contained in each tank. If
Larry can show that other tanks used in the industry have these measuring devices, that would be
good evidence of a design defect. If it had not been for not having the measuring device, Larry
would have been able to tell with more certainty how much more gas was needed to fill the
tanks.
Conclusion - MISSING
Question 2: Real Property

Did the buyer acquire title to any portion of the land?

Conclusion - The buyer acquired title to the cabin and garden potion of the land, but not
the entire three-acre tract. The sister acquired the land through adverse possession.
Rule - Adverse possession is when a person uses land that is not owned by them in a way
that makes it seem like they own the land for enough time that the government grants them
proper title to that land.
Analysis - Here, since the man entered the tract, build a cabin, and planted a vegetable
garden, moved into the cabin and remained in continuous and exclusive possession of the cabin
after his death, he began the adverse possession clock. When his sister took possession of the
cabin and garden immediately after the man’s death, the adverse possession clock continued
thereby granting them rightful ownership of that portion of the land, but not the entire three-acre
tract.
Conclusion - Therefore, the buyer did not acquire title to the three-acre tract but only to
half-acre portion that the cabin and garden occupied.

If not, can the buyer recover damages form the sister?

Conclusion - Yes, because the buyer was delivered a general warranty deed stating that it
covered the entire three-acre tract to the buyer, the buyer can recover damages from the sister
since he was provided an unmarketable title.
Rule - A marketable title is one that is free from litigation.
Analysis - Here, since the sister did not own the entire tract, the title she transferred to
the buyer was not marketable. A general warranty deed is the best kind of deed for a buyer
because it offers the most protection. The buyer is exactly protected from a situation like this
because the six title covenants include easements and unmarketable title.
Conclusion - Therefore, the buyer can recover damages form the sister who sold him the
three-acre tract.

If so, can the buyer compel the sewer company to remove the sewer line under the garden?

Conclusion - If the buyer actually did acquire title to the entire three-acre tract or the
potion about the sewer-line easement then he would still not be able to compel the sewer
company to remove the sewer line under the garden because the easement was properly recorded
with the local registrar of deeds.
Rule – MISSING
Analysis - He would however be able to recover from the man’s sister since she granted
him a general warranty deed which protects him from easements. The buyer should have run a
title search before buying the property and he would have been able to see that an easement was
granted to the private sewer company 17 years ago.
Conclusion - Therefore, the buyer cannot compel the sewer company to remove the
sewer line under the garden.

Question 3: Torts
Paul v. Funworld – False Imprisonment

Conclusion - Funworld falsely imprisoned Paul.

Rule - False imprisonment has four elements. These include (1) defendant intended to confine
another, (2) without consent, (3) for any time, and (4) plaintiff was aware of confinement or
suffered harm.
Analysis -
Conclusion - First, Funworld must have intended to confine Paul.
Rule - Confinement includes many different situations including a limited area.
Analysis - Here, without any explanation, the employer refused to restart the Ferris wheel
therefore making Paul and other passengers stuck on the ride without any way of getting down.
They were stuck in a limited area.
Conclusion - Therefore, Funworld intended to confine Paul.
Conclusion - Second, Funworld must not have had consent.
Rule – MISSING
Analysis - Here, Paul had begged to be taken off the Ferris wheel and most definitely did
not consent to staying on the ride.
Conclusion - Therefore, Funworld did not have consent.
Conclusion - Third, the confinement can be for any amount of time.
Rule – MISSING
Analysis - Here, it took 30 minutes for a manager to show up and order the employee to
restart the Ferris wheel and allow the passengers to exit.
Conclusion - Therefore, this was a valid amount of time to be confined.
Conclusion - Fourth, Paul must have been aware of the confinement or suffered harm.
Rule - MISSING
Analysis - If Funworld argues that since Paul is young he may not had been fully aware
of the confinement, it can be shown that Paul suffered actual harm and was treated for injuries
after being hit when the two boys fell.
Conclusion – MISSING
Conclusion - Since all four elements of false imprisonment are present, a jury could properly
find that Funworld falsely imprisoned Paul.

Boys v. Funworld – Negligence

Conclusion - The employee is negligent because he failed to take action to stop the boys from
rocking the car.
Rule - Negligence has five elements which include: (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (3) factual
causation, (4) proximate causation, and (5) damages.
Analysis -
Conclusion - The first element is duty.
Rule - The reasonable person standard is the standard that governs duty of care.
Analysis - Here, the employee’s duty was that of a reasonable Ferris wheel operator
employee.
Conclusion - Those who are riding on this Ferris wheel are owed the duty of care by the
employee of Funworld.
 Conclusion - The second element is breach of duty.
Rule - Breach of duty occurs when the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff and
does something that a reasonable person would not do.
Analysis - Here, the employee heard the two boys screaming and saw them rocking the
Ferris wheel car but took no action to stop them.
Conclusion - He did not act as a reasonable Ferris wheel operator would and therefore,
breach his duty of care.
Conclusion - The third element is factual cause.
Rule - The test for factual cause is the but for test. This test states that but for the
defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff would not have been injured. To apply this test, you must
place yourself in a parallel universe where the defendant’s negligence did not occur and ask – is
the plaintiff still injured? If the answer is yes, then defendant’s negligence is not the factual
cause of plaintiff’s injury.
Analysis - Here, had the Employee not been negligence in failing to take action to stop
the boys from rocking the car, the plaintiff would not still be injured.
Conclusion - Therefore, the Employee was the factual cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
Conclusion - The fourth element is proximate cause.
Rule - The test for proximate cause is foreseeability. This tests states that if the boy’s
injury was not foreseeable, then Funworld’s negligence was not the proximate cause of his
injury.
Analysis - Here, it is foreseeable that two little boys with very little knowledge of
consequences would be injured if they continuously shook the Ferris wheel car. Even though
they are young they could exert enough force to shake the safety bar on their car hard enough so
that it unlatches.
Conclusion - Even though national accident records show that during the last 40 years,
there has been only one other incident in which injures have occurred as a result of passengers
rocking a Ferris wheel car, it is still foreseeable.
Conclusion - The fifth element is damages.
Rule – MISSING
Analysis - Here, the two boys were taken to the hospital by an ambulance and were
seriously injured in their fall.
Conclusion - MISSING
Conclusion - Because all five elements of negligence are present, the employee is liable.

Mom v. Funworld – Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Conclusion - Mom is not entitled to damages for emotional distress which caused a
resulting miscarriage under a theory of N.I.E.D.
Rule - This claim is present when someone does not suffer physical harm but suffers
emotional damage. There are three times when this claim is present. First, when you are in a
zone of danger, and could have been physically injured but are just missed. Second, when you
are closely related to someone and see the incident in which injures them. Third, when a medical
professionally poorly handles a medical situation including mishandling of remains or wrongful
diagnosis of a terminal illness.
Analysis - Mom could argue in this case that she was so fearly that he son had died that
she is entitled to damages but a jury would not properly find that that is the case. The issue is
that she did not actually see the accident, nor was a close family member badly injured from this
accident.
Conclusion - She only believed her son was the little boy that had been killed which is
not enough.