Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
This week, I would like to introduce the concept of a fact pattern. A fact pattern is a fictitious story that illustrates legal concepts. In law school, law professors create fact patterns to illustrate legal concepts.
In this class, you will apply the concepts from your readings (and outside legal research) to analyze a series of fact patterns in the discussion boards. These fact patterns may omit key facts, and I will never provide you with the law needed to analyze the fact pattern. I do this purposefully because I want each of you to understand how: (a) liability analysis (the process of determining who should be held responsible for certain actions) is fact sensitive, and (b) legal professionals must engage in legal research daily.
You can conduct legal research by using Nexis Uni, a product of Lexis Nexis. Nexis Uni will provide you with access to cases, statutes, and other legal resources that will help you succeed in this class. You can access Nexis Uni via the school’s library. To access Nexis Uni, you must be logged into this classroom and click on the library tab. Once you have clicked on the “Library tab,” a pop-up will appear. Then, you need to click on research and then click on Articles and Databases. Then, click on the letter “N,” and you will locate Nexis Uni.
Now, let’s explore the first fact pattern in this class.
Jimmy Varney is an online professor who teaches law and history courses. He also loves sports and tries to attend as many sporting events as possible to see his fellow human beings in person. On May 3, 2022, Professor Varney, a fan of free giveaways, attended a home game of the Birmingham Barons, a local minor league baseball team in your home state, to get a free t-shirt and one-dollar hot dogs. Professor Varney never drinks beer or other alcoholic beverages at games. Instead of beer, Professor Varney drinks large amounts of Diet Coke. (As a child, Professor Varney’s grandfather was in a major car accident with a drunk driver, and this tragic event shaped his views on drinking and driving.)
While Professor Varney is a teetotaler, Drunk David, a twenty-one-year college student, has no reservations about drinking beer at games. Drunk David downs a six-pack at every home game in the company of his Alpha Beta fraternity brothers. Drunk David downed a six-pack of beer on the day in question and had a Purple Nipple shot. (A Purple Nipple shot is a combination of Jagermeister, Midori Melon Liqueur, and cranberry and orange juices.)
Coincidentally, Professor Varney and Drunk David attended the same ball game and left simultaneously. After eating half a dozen dirty water dollar hot dogs, Professor Varney realized that he needed to go home to grade a stack of dreaded case brief assignments in his Torts Law class.
Professor Varney and Drunk David, who were driving in separate vehicles, attempted to exit the parking lot when Professor Varney’s wife calls to tell him to buy some food for their dog Fido. At the same time, Drunk David got a text from a romantic liaison who demanded that he retrieve the dirty clothes and other belongings left in the liaison’s apartment because he was breaking up with Drunk David. Professor Varney stopped suddenly to pick up his cellphone; Drunk David, who was not paying attention and was driving over fifty miles an hour in the parking lot, struck Professor Varney’s Chevy Spark in the rear, totaling his car’s rear end. Professor Varney was wearing his seatbelt, which prevented major injuries. However, when the airbag deployed in Professor Varney’s car, he was hit in the face, and the airbag’s impact knocked out his two front teeth and gave him a black eye.
In contrast, Drunk David wasn’t so fortunate because Drunk David was driving a motorcycle without a helmet. When Drunk David hit the back of Professor Varney’s car, Drunk David got thrown into the air, and his head hit the pavement upon landing. The head injury resulted in Drunk David’s hospitalization. While at the hospital, Drunk David, who did not get vaccinated for COVID-19, contracted the virus. Within days of contracting COVID, Drunk David was placed on a ventilator and died due to a staph infection. Drunk David’s body lay unrecovered for several weeks as it was difficult to locate his parents.
After Drunk David died, his estranged mother, Greedy Sally, emerged to collect her Drunk David remains a few weeks later. Before burying her son, Greedy Sally visited a local attorney in Birmingham, Alabama, to see whether she can sue anyone for her son’s death.
Assume that you were the attorney whom Greedy Sally visited.
Who could Greedy Sally sue?
What is the likelihood of success of each of her claims? For each such potential claim, note what:
the value might be to Greedy Sally’s case to assess the points of view of the other potential parties;
additional information is needed to assess each party’s liability; and
the cases, statutes, and/or other supporting resources that you used to evaluate each party’s respective perspective.
How did your act of conducting legal research while you analyzed this fact pattern help (or hinder) you in evaluating the case?
As you critically thought about each party’s perspective during your analysis, did you come to any new realizations about possible new solutions (other than applying the law) to any underlying problems within this fact pattern, such as whether the law ought to change in some way or new safety protections might be needed, etc.?
How can your suggestions be implemented, other than through litigation? Can technology be harnessed in some way to facilitate implementation?
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.