300 words analysis -- 6 hrs

BUL3130

Legal Environment

Professor Hightower

Week 3 Dropbox Assignment

1. Aleo v SLB Toys USA, Inc. Ethics Questions

What is gross negligence?

A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, and can affect the amount of damages.

What distinguishes it from ordinary negligence?

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary. Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury. This distinction is important, since contributory negligence is a lack of care by the plaintiff that combines with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury and completely bar his or her action is not a defense to willful and wanton conduct but is a defense to gross negligence.

Was the award of $18 million in punitive damages warranted in this case?

Yes, the court concluded that the ratio of punitive damages awarded to the actual harm was within the single-digit range that generally accords with due process and a comparison of punitive damages to possible civil penalties for violation of a federal safety standard suggested that the award was no so excessive as to exceed constitutional bounds. Although the court acknowledged that the award in this case might have been higher than other similar awards, it could not be categorized as grossly excessive in relation to Massachusetts’ legitimate interests in condemnation and deterrence.

2. Was riding the mechanical bull an open and obvious danger for which Lilya had voluntarily assumed the risk?

Yes, he had signed a release assuming all risks and acknowledging their existence even after watching it throw someone off. Riding a mechanical bull and being thrown and injured by the bull is an open and obvious danger and that Lilya had voluntarily assumed the risk when he rode the bull and was thrown and injured.

3. Are the utility companies negligent?

In my opinion, the utilities were not liable. They had not breached their duty of care. The utilities did have a duty in placing the poles. This was a straight lane road. The utilities could not have reasonably foreseen the dangerous actions and high speed of Mitchell. Mitchell's negligence relieves the utilities of liability.

4. Has Clancy been negligent? If so what damages should be awarded to Dianna?

Clancy was definitely negligent. If he was not aware enough to operate his vehicle, he shouldn’t have been behind the wheel. Diana should be awarded the cost of her medical expenses, including the cost of her prosthetic leg. In addition, Diana should receive compensation for the mental stress the event must have cost. She should receive at least the $368,000 for her medical bills.

5. Questions 1 and 3

Is there a design defect?

Yes, there is design defect, as the underwater pool drain covers designed becomes loose after certain use. The gravity of danger is very high if anyone is stuck at the loosed covers. 

Should Sta-Rite be assessed punitive damages because it knew there were more than 20 prior suction-entrapment accidents?

The pump was unsafe and Sta-Rite made no effort to modify the design to make it less dangerous or to warn distributors about risks it caused for swimmers. The company breached its duty of reasonable care by designing and manufacturing an unsafe product. The Petersons also claim the company was aware of previous similar accidents and knew that safety devices were available to prevent the accidents.

6. Should Barrington have entered into a plea deal before trial?

In my opinion, Barrington knows that he is guilty and was aware that his friends accepted the plea deal. If he would have accepted the plea deal, he will get minimum sentence. He was caught for his guilt, thus he should be brave enough to accept the guilt. He would’ve got a minimum sentence rather than 7 years of life.

Did Jacquette act ethically by being a witness against Barrington?

According to Barrington, Jacquette acted ethically. The person who done the guilt should be sentenced. It will panic the people who are planning to do the guilt. If Jacquette was not a witness, there is no proof against Barrington to prove he was guilty. He would have escaped from the case, which shouldn’t happen. Jacquette acted ethically in this case as a witness. However, he betrayed his friend as a friend, which could be considered unethical.

Was the 7-year prison sentence warranted?

In my opinion, the seven-year prison sentence is warranted for Jacquette. He was found guilty and he should be sentenced is a rule. In addition to that, he tried to hide the guilt by the denied plea deal.

7. Searches and Seizure. Is this an unreasonable search?

Well, the use of a device by the government, which is not generally used by the public, to obtain evidence from inside a home is a presumably unreasonable search without a warrant under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, but they deemed this was enough information to obtain a warrant. Kyllo had shown no subjective expectation of privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the heat escaping from his home. Even if he had, ruled the court, there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because the thermal imager did not expose any intimate details of Kyllo's life, only hot spots on his home's exterior.

8. Case 8.5 Faulkner Literary Rights, LLC v. Sony Pictures Classics, Inc

Why did Aereo use thousands of tiny dime-size antennas rather than using one big antenna to recover petitioners’ over-the-air broadcasts?

Aereo's service allows subscribers to watch and record live TV over the internet for a monthly fee. It maintains a bank of tiny antennas in each city that it operates in that pull down local TV signals broadcast over the air, much like old rabbit ears. Every time a subscriber wants to watch or record a show, Aereo assigns an antenna to them. Aereo actually takes separate recordings for every single person watching and doesn't allow them to be shared. That means that even if you forgot to record last week's Crossbones, you won't be able to watch a recording that someone else made, even though it's in Aereo's system. You'll just have to wait for a rerun.

Did Aereo act ethically in adopting this business model?

Aereo's service violates the Copyright Act by playing back recordings of broadcasters' TV shows even though it legally captures those shows over the air and obtains individual copies for each viewer. Aereo had argued that it was merely providing technology that its subscribers were renting in order to watch TV, positing that the viewers were responsible for playing back those recordings.

9. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, Inc

Do you think the Moseleys were trading off the famous Victoria’s Secret name? Do you think that the Moseleys had a legitimate claim to their business names because the husband’s name was Victor?

No, the Moseleys were not trading off of Victoria’s Secret famous name. There was no evidence in the case that the Moseley’s business “Victoria’s Little Secret” was or going to confuse any consumers. In the first ruling of the case, the Supreme Court’s decision was originally in favor of the Moseley’s because Victoria’s Secret had to provide proof that “Victoria’s Little Secret” had hurt their business by lessening the capacity of their trademark to identify and distinguish the goods or services. It was not enough for Victoria’s Secret to merely assert that dilution is going to take place if “Victor’s Little Secret” remains open.

10. Was Dodger’s use of the 7 second clip from the Ed Sullivan Show fair use? Why or why not?

SOFA failed to show Dodger used the clip to “capitalize” on Sullivan’s distinctive style of introducing rock acts, which SOFA considers the most beloved part of the show. Dodger’s use of the clip did not harm SOFA’s copyright in ‘The Ed Sullivan Show,’ and society’s enjoyment of Dodger’s creative endeavor is enhanced with its inclusion. This case is a good example of why the ‘fair use’ doctrine exists in my opinion.