writing homework

NOTE: there are two assignments in this word document, the first one need to be completed in two pages, the second assignment only half page.

This is the first assignments (two pages)

Instructions:

Read and follow the Submission Instructions and answer the three Writing Assignment & Legal Analysis (WALA) problems listed below.

Submission Instructions:

The answers to the WALA problems should be combined into one document.

Further, the document must be saved either in Word or PDF format.  This document would then be submitted in the link provided below and by the due date.

Failure to comply with these submission instructions could cause you not to receive any credit for this homework.

(
Note: If you use quotations in your answer, you may use either APA or MLA citation methods.)

WALA # 1

This type of assignment will provide you with an opportunity to act like a judge.  You will be given a factual scenario that forms a basis for a legal dispute between two or more people.  This will be followed by two questions you will need to answer.  The first will always ask you to summarize the law that underlies the dispute, and the second will ask you to analyze the facts and reach conclusion on the dispute.  I will always provide you with the page number in the e-textbook where the law can be located.

Factual Scenario: 

Steve was driving down the street approaching an intersection.  At the intersection, Steve failed to see that the light had turned red and entered it.  Carl, who was just entering the intersection on a green light, swerved to miss Steve’s car.  As a result of the swerve Carl hit a telephone pole, and it fell over hitting a car driven by Julie.  Julie’s car was a convertible and the pole hit the convertible’s top, cut through it, and hit Julie in the head knocking her out.  Julie’s car had limited damage, but she suffered substantial injury to her head and neck.  Carl is personally uninjured, but his car is totaled.

Questions:

1. Fully summarize the law related to 
negligence (a review of 
negligence is located on pages 230 to 234 of the e-textbook).

2. Analyze the facts in the factual scenario and decide under the tort of 
negligence if (a) Steve is liable for the injuries to Carl and Julie, and (b) if Carl is liable for the injuries to Julie.  
In your answer to this question, it is not enough to simply say whether they have been met or not.  You must provide specific reasons based on the facts for your ruling. 

WALA # 2

Factual Scenario

On March 8, 2018, a passenger airline owned and operated by Malaysian Airlines took off from Malaysia heading directly north to Beijing in China.  There were 227 passengers on board.  The last communication with the aircraft was at 1:19, Malaysian time, while they were over the South China Sea.  In that communication, the flight crew did not indicate there were any problems.  Then at 1:22, and for unknown reasons, the plane turned east heading out into the Indian Ocean.  Attempts were made to contact the aircraft, but the crew could not be reached.  Further, the plane was tracked by radar on a straight course for another hour until it moved beyond all radar tracking facilities.  No wreckage of the plane was ever found, but it is presumed to have crashed in the Indian Ocean with all passengers and crew killed. 

You are a research assistant for a U.S. newspaper, and you have been tasked with doing background information on the legal issues the families of the passengers would face if they sued.  First, you discover that Malaysia’s tort law is based on 
English Common law and so it is identical to the tort law in the U.S. and that this would be a case that falls within the tort of negligence.  Second, you recall from your business law class at Fresno City College, that there was a special doctrine in negligence called 
Res Ipsa Loquitur, that might apply if the families of the passengers were to sue.  

Questions:

1. Fully summarize the law related to the negligence doctrine called 
Res Ipsa Loquitur (a discussion of this doctrine can be found on pages 236-239 of the e-textbook).

2. Analyze the facts in the factual scenario and decide if Res Ipsa Loquitur applies to this situation, and if it does, how it might benefit the families of the passengers if they sued.  
In your answer to this question, it is not enough to simply say whether they have been met or not.  You must provide specific reasons based on the facts for your ruling. 

WALA # 3

Factual Scenario

Tom is a bank teller at Savings Bank, and as a bank teller, his sole responsibility is to handle the money in his cash drawer.  Also, Tom is a bit of a gambler, and things have not been going his way for the last few months.  As a result, he has incurred over $50,000 in gambling debts, and he doesn’t have the money to pay it back.  In desperation, he hatches a plan to steal money from the bank to pay off the debts.  While at work, he starts a fire in the break room and pulls the fire alarm.  The fire quickly spreads and the staff immediately starts an evacuation of the customers.  In the confusion, Tom goes down the line of cash drawers and empties the cash into a briefcase he is carrying, but his drawer is at the end, and he is not able to reach it or take any money out of it before the fire becomes too dangerous and he needs to escape as well.  No one is ultimately hurt in the fire, but the bank building has been substantially damaged.  Further, some employees saw Tom taking the money, and he was immediately arrested. 

Questions:

1. Fully summarize the law related to the crimes of 
robbery, larceny, embezzlement, and arson (a discussion of these crimes can be found on pages 161 and 170 of the e-textbook).

2. Analyze the facts in the factual scenario and decide which, if any, of the crimes listed above have been committed by Tom.  
In your answer to this question, it is not enough to simply say whether they have been met or not.  You must provide specific reasons based on the facts for your ruling. 

This is the second assignment (half page)

The Drunken Maid

Instructions

Read the Factual Scenario & Discussion Question below

Factual Scenario & Discussion Question

David hires Annabel as a housekeeper. Her main duties are to remain in the house and clean, prepare meals, and do the laundry. One afternoon, Annabelle receives a call from One-Day Drycleaners.  David’s suit is ready to be picked up.  Annabel decides to go and get the suit in her car.  On the way back to David’s home, she runs a red light and hits Julie’s car.  The police officer at the scene says that Annabel was intoxicated and that this was the main cause of the accident.  Annabel had a few drinks with her lunch.  David knew that Annabel had a drinking problem when he hired her and that she is trying to stop drinking.  

Julie has filed a lawsuit against Annabel and David based on tort.  With regard to Annabel, it is a lawsuit for negligence, and as for David, there are two possible legal theories.   The first is that Annabel is an employee of David, and therefore, David might be strictly liable.  The second is that Annabel was not an employee but an independent contractor, but David might still be liable under certain situations for the acts of an independent contractor that he hired. 

In your initial post: (1) Summarize the law of negligence and analyze the facts to determine if Annabel is liable for Julie’s injuries under that legal theory (see pages 230-236 of the e-textbook for a discussion of negligence); (2) Summarize the law that determines if Annabel is an employee or independent contractor of David (see pages 780-784 of the e-textbook for the tests); (3) summarize the law related to the possible liability of principals (i.e., David) for the acts of an employee and/or independent contractor (see pages 802-808 for a review of that law); and (4) based on that law, pick one of those possibilities for Annabel’s status, either that she was an employee or independent contractor, and then argue that David would be liable for Julie’s injuries under that status. 

Example of Answer: Homework # 1

WALA # 1

WALA # 1

1. Diversity jurisdiction falls under the category of concurrent jurisdiction in federal court, and that

is where both the federal and a state court have subject matter and personal jurisdiction in a case. The

specific requirements for diversity are (1) the underlying legal action is based on state law, (2) the

parties are from different states, and (3) the amount in controversy, that is, the amount being sued for,

is in excess of $75,000.

2. In this matter an action was filed by Bill in state court for breach of contract. Ron, by motion, is

attempting to remove the case to federal court, and the basis for the motion is diversity jurisdiction.

Therefore, for it to be successful, the elements listed above must be met.

First, the underlying action is for breach of contract, and therefore, solely based on state law.

Second, Bill lives in California and Ron lives in Nevada; therefore they are from different states. Third,

Bill is seeking damages in the amount of $100,000. This is clearly in excess of $75,000. Given that the

requirements for diversity have been met, the motion should be granted and the case transferred from

state court to federal Court.

WALA # 2

1. A forum selection clause is a provision in a contract that requires all parties to resolve any

dispute in a court in a specific location, such as a specific state and/or a specific county/city within that

state. They are enforceable if (1) the parties have voluntarily agreed to it in the contract, and (2) there is

not some extraordinary circumstance unrelated to the convenience of the parties that would prevent

the transfer of the case.

2. David and Carol Smith entered into a contract with Happy-People Cruises for a cruise to Mexico.

The Smiths live in Arizona and Happy-People’s main offices are in Florida, and the cruise left from Los

Angeles. Contained in the contract was a forum selection clause that required all disputes related to the

contract to be litigated in Florida. Carol Smith sustained an injury on the cruise, and she filed a law suit

against Happy-People in the Federal District Court in Arizona. Happy-People has brought a motion to

change venue to Florida. The basis for the motion was the forum selection clause.

In analyzing these facts, there is nothing that would indicate the Smiths’ execution of the

contract was anything but voluntary. Additionally, there are no facts that would suggest there are any

extraordinary circumstances that would prevent its transfer. Given that, the forum selection clause is

enforceable, and the case should be transferred to Florida.