exam 1; ch.

1,2,5 & 6
Objective Questions
1. Ideally, the law establishes rights, duties, and privileges that are
consistent with
the values of society.
True
2. How judges apply the law to specific disputes may depend in part on
their
personal philosophical views.
True
3. The award of damages is the normal remedy at law.
True
4. Equitable remedies include injunctions and decrees of specific
performance.
True
5. Stare decisis is a doctrine generally obligating judges to follow
precedents
established within their jurisdictions.
True
6. State courts are independent of federal courts.
True
7. Generally, a state court can exercise jurisdiction over anyone within
the
boundaries of the state.
True
8. The federal equivalent of a state trial court is a U.S. court of appeals.
False
9. No court ever requires arbitration before a case goes to trial.
False
10. Generally, mandatory arbitration provisions in a contract are valid.
True
11. Judicial review includes the power of the federal courts to declare a
statute or
governmental action void.

True
12. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides Robert, an
employee of a the
private company Mattax Paper Co., due process protection from being
fired
without a hearing by a neutral fact finder.
False
13. The Pines, a small motel in central Georgia, may be subject to
federal regulation
even though it is not close enough to the state borders to have many
guests from
other states.
True
14. The United States has taken a position that legal issues are best
resolved by
lawsuits involving parties with conflicting interests presenting their
strongest
possible case to a neutral fact finder. Because of this, the legal system
in the
United States is considered:
a. an adversary system.
b. a conflict system.
c. an alternative dispute resolution system.
d. a mediation system.
15. The Ohio state legislature passes a law to regulate local delivery
services. The
final authority regarding the constitutionality of this law is
a. the courts.
b. the president of the United States.
c. the governor of Ohio.
d. the U.S. Congress.
16. The case of Aaron v. Baker Co. is heard in a Minnesota district
court, which has
original jurisdiction. The case of NuCorp, Inc. v. Olson is heard in a
Minnesota
court of appeals, which has appellate jurisdiction. The difference
between original
and appellate jurisdiction lies in
a. the subject matter of the cases that a court can decide.
b. whether a case is brought by a citizen or by a business entity.
c. whether a case is being heard for the first time.

d. whether a court is exercising in personam or in rem jurisdiction.

17. Rhode Island has one federal district court. In each other state,
there
a. are at least two federal district courts.
b. is at least one federal district court.
c. is only one federal district court.
d. may not be any federal district court.
18. Mary files a suit against Albert. At the trial, each partys attorney
presents the
partys case before a state judge and jury who hears the dispute and
renders a
legally binding decision. This is
a. arbitration.
b. litigation.
c. mediation.
d. negotiation.
19. Sid files a suit against Tina. Before going to trial, the parties meet
to try to
resolve their dispute through compromise and agreement. A third party
helps
them to reach an agreement. This is
a. arbitration.
b. litigation.
c. mediation.
d. negotiation.
20. Mike files a suit against Kay. Before going to trial, the parties meet
to present
their dispute to a third party who is not a judge but who renders a
legally binding
decision. This is
a. arbitration.
b. litigation.
c. mediation.
d. negotiation.
21. Which type of lawsuit involves incidents in which someone commits
an act
against the peace and dignity public?
a. Criminal
b. Procedural
c. Civil

d. Natural
e. Positive
22. The defendant should respond to a complaint / petition with an
answer.
True
23. A defendant who believes that he or she has a claim against the
plaintiff would
include a counterclaim with the answer.
True
24. In most civil cases, a plaintiff must prove her case beyond a
reasonable doubt.
False
25. Which of the following do appellate courts primarily handle /
decide?
a. Questions of law
b. Questions of fact
c. Questions of law and fact
d. Cases when they initially enter the legal system
e. Questions of law and fact, and also cases when they initially enter
the
legal system
26. Courts are generally critical and unsupportive of ADR methods.
False
27. The U.S. Constitution allocates the power of the federal
government among
_____ branches of government.
a. Two
b. Three
c. Four
d. Five
e. Six and one/half
28. The doctrine of preemption is based on the Constitution's:
a. Commerce Clause.
b. Due Process Clause.
c. Equal Protection Clause.
d. Supremacy Clause.
29. Generally, constitutional protections do NOT apply to:

a. acts of the federal government.

b. acts of state government.
c. acts of administrative agencies.
d. acts of privately owned businesses.
30. The Massachusetts state legislature enacts a law that directly
conflicts with a federal law. The state law will be rendered invalid under
a. the commerce clause.
b. the equal protection clause.
c. the establishment clause.
d. the supremacy clause.
The following are answers to the end of chapter questions in the text:
Chapter 1
1. The United States Constitution is among the finest legal
accomplishments in the
history of the world. Which of the following influenced Franklin,
Jefferson, and the rest of the Founding Fathers?
(a) English common-law principles
(b) The Iroquois system of federalism
(c) Both A and B
(d) None of the above
Answer: C. Both English common law and the Iroquois system of
federalism shaped the Constitutional framers ideas.
2. Which of the following parts of the modern legal system are
borrowed from
medieval England?
(a) Jury trials
(b) Special rules for selling land
(c) Following precedent
(d) All of the above
Answer: D. Countless parts of our modern system originated in merry
olde England.
3. Union organizers at a hospital wanted to distribute leaflets to
potential union
members, but hospital rules prohibited leafleting in areas of patient
care, hallways,
cafeterias, and any areas open to the public. The National Labor
Relations Board
(NLRB), a government agency, ruled that these restrictions violated the
law and ordered the hospital to permit the activities in the cafeteria
and coffee shop. What kind of law was it creating?
(a) A statute

(b) Common law

(c) A constitutional amendment
(d) Administrative regulation
Answer: D.
Agencies create regulations
Congress creates statutes
judges shape the common law.
4. If the Congress creates a new statute with the Presidents support, it
must pass the idea by a ____________ majority vote in the House and
the Senate. If the President vetoes a proposed statute and the
Congress wishes to pass it without his support, the idea must pass by a
____________ majority vote in the House and Senate.
(a) simple; simple
(b) simple; 2/3
(c) simple; 3/4
(d) 2/3; 3/4
Answer: B.
51% to pass initially
2/3 if an override is necessary
5. What part of the Constitution addresses most basic liberties?
(a) Article I
(b) Article II
(c) Article III
(d) Amendments
Answer: D.
I is legislative powers
II executive
III judicial
Amendments contain the liberties, among other things.
Chapter 2
1. Milton Friedman was a strong believer in the _____________ model. He
_______________
argue that a corporate leader's sole obligation is to make money for
the company's owners.
(a) shareholder; did
(b) shareholder; did not
(c) stakeholder; did
(d) stakeholder; did not
Answer: A. Milton Friedman believed that if shareholder and
stakeholder interests conflict, the company should act in the best
interest of the shareholders.

2. Which of the following wrote the book Utilitarianism and believed

that ethical actions should generate the greatest good for the
greatest number?
(a) Milton Friedman
(b) John Stuart Mill
(c) Immanuel Kant
(d) John Rawls
3. Which of the following believed that the dignity of human beings
must be respected, and that the most ethical decisions are made out of
a sense of duty or obligation?
(a) Milton Friedman
(b) John Stuart Mill
(c) Immanuel Kant
(d) John Rawls
4. Kant believed that:
(a) it is ethical to tell a lie if necessary to protect an innocent person
from great harm.
(b) it is ethical to tell a lie if the benefit of the lie outweighs the cost.
(c) it is ethical to make a true, but misleading, statement.
(d) it is wrong to tell an outright lie or to mislead.
5. The following statement is true:
(a) Most people are honest most of the time.
(b) Even people who do not believe in God are more likely to behave
honestly after
reading the Ten Commandments.
(c) When confronted with wrongdoing, most people immediately
recognize what is
happening.
(d) People make their best ethical decisions when in a hurry
*****Chapter 5
1. Greenville College, a public community college, has a policy of
admitting only male students. If the policy is challenged under the 14th
Amendment, ___ scrutiny will be applied.
(a) strict: Race, ethnicity, and fundamental rights. Almost never
upheld.
(b) intermediate: Gender. Sometimes upheld.
(c) rational: No definitition
(d) Minimal: Economic and social relations. People or corporations,
almost always upheld.
2. You begin work at happy Corp. at the beginning of November. On
your second day at work, you wear a political button on your overcoat,

supporting your choice for governor in the upcoming election. Your

boss glances at it and says, Get that stupid thing out of this office or
youre history, chump. Your boss __________ violated your first
amendment rights. After work, you put the button back on and start
walking home. You pass a police officer who blocks your path and says,
Take off that stupid button or youre going to jail, chump. The officer
___________ violated your first amendment rights.
(a) has; has
(b) has; has not
(c) has not; has
(d) has not; has not
3. Which of the following statements accurately describes statutes that
Congress and the President may create?
(a) Statutes must be related to a power listed in Article I, section 8, of
the Constitution.
(b) Statutes must not infringe on the liberties in the Bill of Rights
(c) Both A and B
(d) None of the above
4. Which of the following is true of the origin of judicial review?
(a) It was created by Article II of the Constitution
(b) It was created by Article III of the Constitution
(c) It was created in the case Marbury v. Madison. Its a constitutional
power, but doesnt appear in the constitution. It is the power of federal
courts to declare a statute or governmental action unconstitutional and
void.
(d) It was created by the 5th Amendment
(e) It was created by the 14th Amendment
5. Consider the case Kelo v. City of New London, in which a city with a
revitalization plan squared off against property owners who did not
wish to sell their property. The key Constitutional provision was the
takings clause in the _______ Amendment. The Supreme Court decided
the city _______ use eminent domain and take the property from the
landowners.
** 5th Amendment No person shall be deprived of life (criminal law),
liberty (criminal law), or property (civil law) without due process of law.
** 14th Amendment Applies specifically to the states, NOT the federal
government. No state shall deny to any person the equal protection of
the laws. Equal protection clause (governments must treat people
equally).
** Taking clause when the government takes property for public use,
such as to build a new highway, it has to pay a fair price.
** Once the government has taken the opportunity for the
economically viable use of your land, they have taken your property.

(a) 5th; could

(b) 5th; could not
(c) 14th; could
(d) 14th; could not
*****Chapter 6
1. The burden of proof in a civil trial is to prove a case ___. The burden
of proof rests with the ________.
(a) beyond a reasonable doubt; plaintiff
(b) by a preponderance of the evidence; plaintiff
(c) beyond a reasonable doubt; defendant
(d) by a preponderance of the evidence; defendant
** Preponderance Greater weight
** Plaintiff The person suing
2. Alice is suing Betty. After the discovery process, Alice believes that
no relevant facts are in dispute, and that there is no need for a trial.
She should move for a ______.
(a) judgment on the pleadings
(b) directed verdict a ruling that the plaintiff has entirely failed to
prove some aspect of their case. the defendant may grant a direct
verdict after the plaintiff has presented their case.
(c) summary judgment a ruling by the court that no trial is necessary
because some essential facts are not in dispute.
(d) JNOV
3. Glen lives in Illinois. He applies for a job with a Missouri company,
and he is told, amazingly, that the job is only open to a white applicant.
He will now sue the Missouri company under the Civil Rights Act, a
federal statute. Can Glen sue in federal court?
(a) Yes, absolutely Discrimination laws are federal
(b) Yes, but only if he seeks damages of at least $75,000. Otherwise,
he must sue in a state court.
(c) Yes, but only if the Missouri company agrees. Otherwise, he must
sue in a state court.
(d) No, absolutely not. He must sue in a state court.
4. A default judgment can be entered if which of the following is true?
(a) A plaintiff presents her evidence at trial and clearly fails to meet
her burden of proof
(b) A defendant loses a lawsuit and does not pay a judgment within
180 days.
(c) A defendant fails to file an answer to a plaintiffs complaint on time
(d) A citizen fails to obey an order to appear for jury duty

5. Barry and Carl are next-door neighbors. Barrys dog digs under
Carls fence and does $500 damage to Carls garden. Barry refuses to
pay for the damage, claiming that Carls cats have been digging up
my yard for years. The two argue repeatedly, and the relationship
turns frosty. Of the following choices, which has no outside decision
maker and is most likely to allow the neighbors to peacefully coexist
after working out the dispute?
(a) Trial determine the facts of a particular dispute and apply to those
facts the law given by earlier appellate court decisions.
(b) Arbitration Third person decides what will happen. Hears evidence
and renders a binding reward or final resolution. There are no appeals,
and everyone is subject to this through agreements in their insurance
policies and such.
(c) Mediation (ADR, alternative dispute resolution) the fastest growing
method of dispute resolution in the united states. Neutral mediator
attempts to get the parties to reach voluntary settlement. Mediation
isnt required but can be ordered by a judge. Mediator does NOT render
a decision.
Factual examples: These provide examples of how circumstances arise.
The test will not have essay questions such as these.
1. Marya Callais, a citizen of Florida, was walking one day near a busy
street in
Tallahassee, Florida, when a large crate flew off a passing truck and hit
her, resulting in numerous injuries. She incurred a great deal of pain
and suffering, plus significant
medical expenses, and she could not work for six months. She wants to
sue the trucking firm for $300,000 in damages. The firm's
headquarters are in Georgia, although the company does business in
Florida. In what court might Callais bring suita Florida state court, a
Georgia state court, or a federal court? What factors might influence
her decision?
(Answer) Marya can bring suit in all three courts. The trucking firm did
business in
Florida, and the accident occurred there. Thus, the state of Florida
would have
jurisdiction over the defendant. Because the firm was headquartered in
Georgia and had its principal place of business in that state, Marya
could also sue in a Georgia court. Finally, because the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, the suit could be brought in federal
court on the basis of diversity of citizenship.
2. ARBITRATION. Alexander Little worked for Auto Stiegler, Inc., an
automobile

dealership in Los Angeles County, California, eventually becoming the

service manager. While employed, Little signed an arbitration
agreement that required the submission of all employment related
disputes to arbitration. The agreement also provided that any award
over $50,000 could be appealed to a second arbitrator. Little was later
demoted and terminated. Alleging that these actions were in retaliation
for investigating and reporting warranty fraud and thus were in
violation of public policy, Little filed suit in a California state court
against Auto Stiegler. The defendant filed a motion with the court to
compel arbitration. Little responded that the arbitration agreement
should not be enforced in part because the appeal provision was
unfairly one sided. Is this provision enforceable? Should the court grant
Auto Stieglers motion? Why or why not? Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc., 29
Cal.4th 1064, 63 P.3d 979, 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 892 (2003)
(Answer) The court denied Auto Stieglers motion. A state intermediate
appellate court reversed this ruling, and Little appealed to the
California Supreme Court, which held that the appeal provision was
unenforceable but which also held that the provision could be cut from
the agreement and the agreement could then be enforced. Auto
Stiegler argued in part that the provision applied evenhandedly to
both parties. The court stated, [I]f that is the case, [the defendant
fails] to explain adequately the reasons for the $50,000 award
threshold. From a plaintiffs perspective, the decision to resort to
arbitral appeal would be made not according to the amount of the
arbitration award but the potential value of the arbitration claim
compared to the costs of the appeal. If the plaintiff and his or her
attorney estimate that the potential value of the claim is substantial,
and the arbitrator rules that the plaintiff takes nothing because of its
erroneous understanding of a point of law, then it is rational for the
plaintiff to appeal. Thus, the $50,000 threshold inordinately benefits
defendants. Given the fact that Auto Stiegler was the party imposing
the arbitration agreement and the $50,000 threshold, it is reasonable
to conclude it imposed the threshold with the knowledge or belief that
it would generally be the defendant. The court acknowledged that
parties may justify an asymmetrical arbitration agreement when there
is a legitimate commercial need, but added that the need must be
other than the employers desire to maximize its advantage in the
arbitration process. There is no such justification for the $50,000
threshold. The explanation for the threshold . . . that an award in which
there is less than that amount in controversy would not be worth going
through the extra step of appellate arbitral review . . . makes sense
only from a defendants standpoint and cannot withstand scrutiny.
3. Advance Technology Consultants, Inc. (ATC), contracted with
RoadTrac, L.L.C., to

provide software and client software systems for the products of global
positioning
satellite (GPS) technology being developed by RoadTrac. RoadTrac
agreed to provide ATC with hardware with which ATC's software would
interface. Problems soon arose, however. ATC claimed that RoadTrac's
hardware was defective, making it difficult to develop the software.
RoadTrac contended that its hardware was fully functional and that ATC
simply failed to provide supporting software. ATC told RoadTrac that it
considered their contract terminated. RoadTrac filed a suit in a Georgia
state court against ATC, charging, among other things, breach of
contract. During discovery, RoadTrac requested ATC's customer lists
and marketing procedures. Before producing this material, ATC asked
the court to limit RoadTrac's use of the information. Meanwhile,
RoadTrac and ATC had become competitors in the GPS industry.
[Advance Technology Consultants, Inc. v. RoadTrac, L.L.C.,236 Ga.App.
582, 512 S.E.2d 27 (1999)] How should the court rule regarding
RoadTrac's discovery request?
(Answer) The court told ATC to respond to RoadTracs request for
information without issuing an order to limit RoadTracs use of it. ATC
appealed. The Court of Appeals of Georgia stated, [I]t is clear that,
without any protections in place, ATC could be irreparably harmed, as
ATC and RoadTrac are now in the position of being competitive bidders
for projects in the newly emerging field of GPS technology. As such,
RoadTrac should not have unlimited access to ATCs customer
information, marketing lists, pricing policies, and the like. Accordingly,
we find that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to formulate
appropriate protections for ATCs nontechnical trade secret,
proprietary, and confidential information, and we remand the case so
the trial court can do so.
4. Ms. Thompson filed a suit in a federal district court against her
employer, Altheimer & Gray, seeking damages for alleged racial
discrimination in violation of federal law. During voir dire, the judge
asked the prospective jurors whether "there is something about this
kind of lawsuit for money damages that would start any of you leaning
for or against a particular party?" Ms. Leiter, one of the prospective
jurors, raised her hand and explained that she had "been an owner of a
couple of businesses and am currently an owner of a business, and I
feel that as an employer and owner of a business that will definitely
sway my judgment in this case." She explained, "I am constantly faced
with people that want various benefits or different positions in the
company or better contacts or, you know, a myriad of issues that
employers face on a regular basis, and I have to decide whether or not
that person should get them." Asked by Thompson's lawyer whether
"you believe that people file lawsuits just because they don't get

something they want," Leiter answered, "I believe there are some
people that do." In answer to another question, she said, "I think I bring
a lot of background to this case, and I can't say that it's not going to
cloud my judgment. I can try to be as fair as I can, as I do every day."
[Thompson v. Altheimer& Gray, 248 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2001)]
Thompson filed a motion to strike Leiter for cause. Should the judge
grant the motion? Explain
(Answer) The judge refused to strike Leiter for cause, and then
collectively asked the jurors who were selected to hear the case,
including Leiter, whether they would follow his instructions on the law
even if they did not agree with them and whether they would be able
to suspend judgment until they had heard all the evidence. All of them
nodded their heads or said yes, and Leiter was allowed to remain.
When the judge entered a judgment on the jurys verdict in favor of
Altheimer & Gray, Thompson appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit. The appellate court reversed and remanded the
case for a new trial, holding that the trial judges failure to strike Leiter
for cause was an abuse of discretion and a violation of Thompsons
constitutional right to an impartial tribunal. The court explained that
the trial judge should have pressed Leiter for unwavering
affirmations of her ability to follow the law after she stated that her
business background might cloud her judgment in hearing the case.
This background, coupled with her belief that some people sue their
employers because they do not get what they want, might have
impeded her in giving due weight to the evidence and following the
judges instructions. This question was not adequately explored. In
other words, the trial judge should have asked her individually
whether she would follow his instructions on the law and suspend
judgment until she had heard all the evidence.
5. A Georgia state law requires the use of contoured rear-fender
mudguards on trucks and trailers operating within Georgia state lines.
The statute further makes it illegal for trucks and trailers to use
straight mudguards. In approximately thirty-five other states, straight
mudguards are legal. Moreover, in Florida, straight mudguards are
explicitly required by law. There is some evidence suggesting that
contoured mudguards might be a little safer than straight mudguards.
(Answer) A Georgia statute that requires the use of contoured rear
fender mudguards on trucks and trailers operating within its state
lines, when thirty-five other states make it legal to use straight
mudguards and Florida explicitly mandates the use of straight
mudguards, would violate the commerce clause. This hypothetical
question is based on Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. [359 U.S. 520,
79 S.Ct. 962, 3 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1959)], in which the United States

Supreme Court concluded that a similar statute placed an

unconstitutional burden upon interstate commerce. In Bibb, the Court
acknowledged the fact that a state that insists upon a particular
regulation may sometimes place a substantial burden of delay and
inconvenience on interstate commerce. As in Bibb, the burden placed
on interstate commerce by this Georgia statute would outweigh
Georgias interest in regulating its highways. According to the facts in
this hypothetical, the contoured mudguard is not clearly superior in
safety to the straight mudguard.
6. A business has a backlog of orders, and to meet its deadlines,
management decides to run the firm seven days a week, eight hours a
day. One of the employees, Abe Placer, refuses to work on Saturday on
religious grounds. His refusal to work means that the firm may not
meet its production deadlines and may therefore suffer a loss of future
business. The firm fires Placer and replaces him with an employee who
is willing to work seven days a week. Placer claims that by terminating
his employment, his employer has violated his constitutional right to
the free exercise of his religion. Do you agree? Why or why not?
(Answer) If an employees right to the free exercise of his or her
religion conflicts with the demands of an employer, the employer must
reasonably accommodate the employees religious needs. If the
employer fires Placer without first attempting a reasonable
accommodation of his religious needs, very likely a court would hold
that the firm violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What
constitutes reasonable accommodation usually varies depending on
the specific circumstances of each case. Here, the employer should
consider the reasonableness of its demands and consider alternative
efforts that might be undertaken to meet its deadlines. For example,
the employer might arrange for Placer to work longer than eight hours
a day during the rest of the week to compensate for his not working on
Saturday. Or perhaps it would be in the firms best interest to hire
additional, temporary employees until its backlog of orders is filled.
7. The City of Tacoma, Washington, enacted an ordinance that
prohibited the playing of car sound systems at a volume that would be
"audible" at a distance greater than fifty feet. Dwight Holland was
arrested and convicted for violating the ordinance. The conviction was
later dismissed, but Holland filed a civil suit in a Washington state court
against the city. He claimed in part that the ordinance violated his
freedom of speech under the First Amendment. (Hint: In playing a
sound system, was Holland actually expressing himself?) [Holland v.
City of Tacoma, 90 Wash.App. 533, 954 P.2d 290 (1998)]

(Answer) The court dismissed Hollands complaint, and he appealed.

The state
intermediate appellate court affirmed the lower courts decision. The
state intermediate appellate court initially determined that, in playing
a car sound system loud enough to violate the ordinance, Holland was
not actually expressing himself. (He was only listening.) This meant
that, as to Holland, the ordinance regulated only his conduct, not his
expression. The court held that the First Amendment protect[s] the
communication and expression of someone attempting to broadcast
music or another type of message, but that noise is subject to
regulation. The court concluded that Holland failed to show a real
and substantial threat to expression in relation to the ordinances
legitimate sweep. The court also pointed out that [t]his ordinance
has clear guidelines. A person of ordinary intelligence knows what it
means for sound to be audible at more than 50 feet away.
8. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Henry Mishkoff is a Web designer whose firm
does
business as Webfeats. When Taubman Co. began building a mall
called The
Shops at willow Bend near Mishkoff's home, Mishkoff registered the
domain name
shopsatwi1lowbend .com and created a Web site with that address.
The site featured information about the mall, a disclaimer indicating
that Mishkoff's site was unofficial, and a link to the malls official site.
Taubman discovered Mishkoffs site and filed a suit in a federal district
court against him. Mishkoff then registered various other names,
including taubmansucks.com, with Links to a site documenting his
battle with Taubman. (A Web name with a sucks.com moniker
attached to it is known as a complaint name," and the process of
registering and using suchnames is known as cybergriping.)
Taubman asked the court to order Mishkoff to stop using all of these
names. Should the court grant Taubman's request? On what basis
might the court protect Mishkoffs use of the names? Taubman Co. v.
Webfeats, 319 F.3d 770 (6th Cir. 2003)]
(Answer) The court issued an injunction against Mishkoffs use of the
names. He appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
which reversed the lower courts order, holding that
taubmansucks.com is purely an exhibition of Free Speech * * * And
although economic damage might be an intended effect of Mishkoffs
expression, the First Amendment protects critical commentary when
there is no confusion as to source, in which case it would be
misleading, even when it involves the criticism of a business.
Taubman conceded that Mishkoff is free to shout Taubman Sucks!
from the rooftops. The appellate court reasoned, Essentially, this is
what he has done in his domain name. The rooftops of our past have

evolved into the internet domain names of our present. We find that
the domain name is a type of public expression, no different in scope
than a billboard or a pulpit, and Mishkoff has a First Amendment right
to express his opinion about Taubman, and as long as his speech is not
commercially misleading, the [law] cannot be summoned to prevent
it.
9. John Bigan owned a strip- mining operation in which he dug trenches
to remove coal deposits. One of these trenches was nearly 20 feet
deep and contained water about 10 feet deep. Bigan installed a pump
in the trench to remove the water and asked Joseph Yania, the owner of
another strip- mining operation, to help him start the pump. Bigan
urged and taunted Yania, who could not swim, to jump from the edge
of the trench into the water, where Bigan was working on the pump.
Yania jumped and drowned. Yanias widow sued Bigan, alleging that he
failed to rescue her husband. Do you think Bigan should have rescued
Yania? Do you think the law should require that Bigan rescue Yania?
Why or why not? What values are you employing in your argument?
[ Yania v. Bigan, 397 Pa. 316 ( 1959).]
(Answer) The legal conclusion in the case was that Yania should have
known better than to put himself in peril, and that Bigan did not have a
duty to rescue him. The value of individual responsibility underlies this
decision.
10. Aileen Morris was an employee at a Kauszers convenience store.
Convenience
Management Services, Inc. ( CMSI), own Krauszers. While working at
the store, Aileen, a mother of nine children, was shot to death by a
robber. The store was located in a dangerous area and had a history of
robberies and criminal attacks. Despite the dangerous location, the
store did not have an alarm, a security camera, or an immediate
connection to the police. According to the plaintiffs, the absence of
these security precautions created a dangerous environment. CMSI
argued that it had no duty to protect Morris because the robbery and
shooting were unforeseeable. How far do you think a company should
go to protect employees? Do you think that CMSI was responsible for
the shooting? Why or why not? [ Morris v. Krauszers Food Stores, 693
A. 2d 510 ( 1997).]
(Answer) Although CMSI might not have been legally responsible,
following the letter of the law, for the protection of its employees, they
should have done as much possible to protect their employees. By
deciding to not protect their employees, CMSI acted unethically. A
company should not be asked to go to outrageous lengths to protect
their employees, but the company should be required to protect

employees from dangers that are real and can be reasonably expected.
Following this logic, the court ruled in favor of plaintiffs on their
wrongful death suit brought against CMSI, and the appellate court
affirmed this ruling. The court reasoned that, as an employee, Aileen
Morris was to be considered a business invitee, and accordingly was to
be classified as a person to whom CMSI owed a duty. This duty would
require that CMSI protect its employees from the criminal acts of
others, something the company completely failed to do. Also, the court
ruled that the criminal act, giving the neighborhood and its history was
definitely foreseeable. Therefore, because the act was foreseeable and
because CMSI owed a duty to protect to Morris, the court ruled in favor
of the plaintiffs.