Study Guides (400,000)
US (230,000)
Rutgers (3,000)
14:10 (100)
All (3)

01:790:340 Study Guide - California Penal Code, Appellate Jurisdiction, Insanity Defense


Department
Political Science
Course Code
01:790:340
Professor
All

This preview shows page 1. to view the full 5 pages of the document.
LAW AND SOCIETY
Prof. Wollenberg
Final Exam Study Guide
You are responsible for the following theories and cases for the final exam:
Oliver Wendell Holmes’ tort theory (528)
Foresee-ability: prevent defendant from doing harm that is foreseeable
Jules Coleman’s tort theory
Corrective justice: compensate victim
If you injure someone you should pay their damages
Richard Posner’s tort theory
Wealth maximization for society as a whole
Economic efficiency measure: legal actions should leave no one better off
at another person’s expense
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp. (604)
Derdiarian got to work and parked his car and was weary about its location
as well as the location of the equipment he would be working on. He was
told to leave it where it was, as he was working Dickens had a seizure and
drove off the road into the construction area, Derdiarian was horribly
injured. Question is was the negligence because of Dickens or Felix failing
to secure the worksite.
COURT SAYS—Felix is responsible for Derdirians injuries due to the
instructions to park on the roadside of gas line because he should have
foreseen that something bad would happen.
Lynch v. Fisher (560)
Truck parked on the side of the road, Mr and Mrs Gunter hit the back of
the truck and are injured. Lynch pulls over and rescued them from the car
but while getting a floor mat a gun is discovered and Gunter shoots Lynch
with the gun.
COURT SAYS—Fishers negligence in leaving the truck without warning
lights was the “proximate” cause of Lynch getting shot
Palsgraf v. LIRR (563)
Man ran to board a plan and dropped a package on the tracks, it contained
fireworks, when the package fell the fireworks went off causing scales to
fall and the plaintiff was injured she sued.
COURT SAYS—too indirect for Palsgraf to sue railroad for conductors
negligence when pulling the man on the train; no damages
Indirect relationship between conductor and Mrs. Paslgraf
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Summers v. Tice (607)
Tice was a hunting instructor and he took 2men out hunting with him he
explained not to shoot unless they were in line to avoid and incident. Tice
flushed a bird when he was ahead of the men and they fired and struck
him in the face.
McFall v. Shimp (590)
McFall needed a bone marrow transplant and it turned out his first cousin
Shimp was a match but Shimp decided he did not want to do it. McFall
filed a suit against Shimp. Flaherty denied the injunction on 2 grounds.
There is no legal duty to save another, and to force Shimp to do so would
usher in new rules with no limitation. The forcible intrusion into the body
is impermissible.
Yania v. Bigan (609)
“no duty to rescue”—Bigans had a cut on his property and Yania came by
they were standing by the cut and Bigans told Yania to jump in which he
did and landed in the water at the bottom of the cut, he drowned in the
water. Yanias wife brought forth a suit.
JUDGE RULES—jumping was Yania’s fault, so Yanias wife was unable to
collect anything.
Constitutional method of interpretation in Smith v. US
And Holy Trinity v. US
The constitutional method of interpretation in Smith & Holy Trinity is
Statutory. In Smith it is all about what the "use of a firearm" actually
means. Like was Smith's selling of the gun for drugs actually using the gun
or not because it was never fired...or at least no at that instance. The bit
after the holy trinity case is Justice Scalia discussing how he fears that this
mode of interpretation lends itself to being interpreted in any which way
that judges and attorneys want that statutes to be. I'm not 100% sure we
had to read that part in the book but its helpful to understand.
South Florida Free Beaches v. Miami
John Stuart Mill and First Amendment
Can legally hurt someone for hurting you
Cannot legally hurt someone hurting someone else
Can legally compel someone to join the military
Thought and speech inseperable
Cannot prosecute someone for what they say withouth prosecuting
them for what they think
Marketplace of ideas
Free speech is crucial for government
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version