Introduction to Law
Issue 1: Whether Glen’s reckless driving constitute negligence
A prima facie case of negligence involves a harm (physical, economic, or emotional distress) that is a direct result (causation) of a defendant’s careless conduct. Negligence involves a three-pronged analysis of defendants conduct: 1) breach of a duty of care that runs afoul of a reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances 2) plaintiff injury that is direct result of this breach; and 3) whether injury to plaintiff was foreseeable consequence of this breach. For purposes of Negligence it does not matter if defendant had intent to injure plaintiff. Here, Glen driving his car within inches of Miguel and his pregnant wife certainly constitutes a breach of a duty of care, and the potential stress to pregnancy was forseeable and direct result of this breach.
Issue 2: Consistent with tort of trespass to land, Glen confronting Jackie at her home was unlawful entry without a permissible legal excuse.
Issue 3: Consisted with common law tort of assault, Miguel’s threat is likely to be actionable because his treat likely created a reasonable apprehension that he would cause physical harm to Glen, and the elements of general or specific intent are likely met in consideration of Miguel’s words as well as his physical act of waving hangs in air.
Issue 4 Whether newspaper story about Miguel was defamation, specifically libel. Miguels communication to reporter, that was subsequently publicized, likely establish prima facie case of libelous conduct because his statement to reporter went beyond mere opinion and likely met requirement of intent to defame Glen’s character.
Issue 5 Whether glen’s reckless driving was an intentional infliction of emotional distress(IIED). It is possible that a jury would find Glen’s driving to be IIED, provided a jury found his behavior reckless and had predictable effect of creating emotional distress.
B.
Issue 1: Res Ipsa Loquitur
Arguably, the accident could not happen but for negligence of Mockingbird Lanes. Critical to this analysis are the following facts: 1) Mockingbird had exclusive control over thing causing Dakat’s injury; 2) the accident is of the kind that would have occurred but for the failure to clear the sidedwalk; and 3) Dukat was not contributory negligent because she could not have avoided falll.
Issue 2: Dakat’s actions constitute contributory negligence
Arguably, the fact that Dakat proceded to get drunk and walk unassisted on ice-covered sidewalk means she assumed risk of falling
Issue 3: Negligence Per Se
It could also be argued that Mockingbird Lanes was negligent per se for not closing the sidewalks or ensuring that patrons had clear access to and from building.
Issue 4: Defense under the common law theory of Volenti non fit injuria (“no injury done to willing person”)
As an affirmative defense, Mockingbird could argue that Dakat shouldn’t be able to recover because she willing put herself at risk by entering Mockinbird Lanes when she knew that sidewalks were ice-covered and the sidewalk was not in a reasonably safe condition.
Issue 5: Mockingbird’s failure to comply with discovery
In response to Mockingbird’s failure to comply with Interrogatories, Dakat’s attorneys should file motion to compel compliance and explore possible legal sanctions (ie summary judgment on motion related to discovery requests).
C.
Issue 1: Miranda Warnings
The most salient issue is whether Donald was read his Miranda rights (right to remain silent) prior to him issuing the incriminating statements
Issue 2: Probable Cause
Donald’s lawyers could potentially get evidence seized pursuant to search warrant thrown out on technicality if his lawyers are able to demonstrate information in search warrant did not establish probable cause
Issue 3: Search Warrant
Another potential issue is involves reasonableness of search. Under the Fourth Amendment, all lawful searches must be reasonable and specific. And so, Donald’s lawyers could potentially argue that search warrant was overly broad and did not specify items seized.
Issue 4: Confidential informant
Donald’s lawyers could also potentially invalidate the grounds for search warrant under the theory that information about “confidential informant” was not spelled out. This could potentially invalidate search warrant since information did not come from officer.
Issue 5: Exigent Circumstances
Even if search warrant is invalid, search evidence could potentially be upheld to the extent that officers were worried that Donald would potentially destroy incriminating evidence or would flee once he knew of pending arrest.
D.
Issue 1: Tortious Interference
Potentially, to the extent that the bad references prevent future employment, they constitute tortious inference to the extent that they intefere with Professor Tickles ability to find employment.
Issue 2: Defamation
Issue 3: Invasion of Privacy
Issue 4: Nuisance
Issue 5 Negligence
The neighbor who took Professor Tickle to hospital is also likely to be liability for negligence for her action of answering phone while speeding to hospital.
