1. For Week1 1, you will analyze cases based on the first letter of your last name. * A - M: Chapter 2 (4-7) and Chapter 3 (8-10) in the Dynamic Business Law text * N - Z: Chapter 2 (8-10) and Chapter 3 (5-7) in the Dynamic Business Law text 2. For each assigned case, analyze the issue based on the following criteria: * Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant). * Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns. * Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties). * Provide a judgment on who should win the case - be clear. * Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law. * Be prepared to defend your decision and to objectively evaluate the other points of view.
Chapter 2 Case 8 Galindo v. Town of Clarkstown: 1) Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant). The plaintiff in this case is Jacqueline Galindo, wife of Javier Galindo. The defendant was Jacqueline Galindo’s employer, Richard Clark. 2) Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns.
On June 2, 2000, there was a severe thunderstorm causing a 8o foot tree located in a adjacent property to Mr. Richard Clark’s property. Javier Galindo was park outside the home of Richard Clark while waiting on his wife, Jacqueline Galindo, when that adjacent tree fell on his car killing him. 3) Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties).
The appropriate legal issue in this case is does Mr. Clark have the legal responsibility to have warned Mr. Galindo of the potential danger of the adjacent tree. The law states that a property owner has the legal obligation to warn of such danger that exists within the limits of their own proper. Because the tree was in an adjacent property, Mr. Clark is not responsible for Mr. Galindo’s death because he has an obligation to warn of known hazards posed by what’s on his property. 4) Provide a judgment on who should win the case - be clear.
The judgment should be for the plaintiff. After reading the facts about Mr. Clark inspecting the uprooting tree, informing the townsman of the falling tree, having called the town to inform of possible danger clearly states he was aware of the possible danger of this tree, therefore having the ethical responsibility of reasonable care to warn against potential injury to his property, family, or any property or persons visiting his home. 5) Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law.
While Mr. Clark could have determined when this tree would fall, or where it would land, he knew it posed an imminent danger to the public, his property, family and any one or object with the vicinity of the 80 foot unstable tree. This is called negligence to use reasonable care that resulted in the death of Mr. Galindo.
Chapter 2 Case 9: Guilbeault v. R, J. Reynolds Tobacco Co: 1) Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant). The plaintiff in this case is Leo Guilbeault. The defendant was the manufactures of the Camel cigarette, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 2) Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns.
Mr. Guilbeault was diagnosed with lung cancer. He had been smoking Camel cigarettes since 1951. In 1966 there was a labeling law for putting warning labels on cigarette packages. The Reynolds Tobacco company came into compliance four years later in 1970. Mr. Guilbeault argues they were aware of the dangers of smoking the Camel but failed to warn consumers of the consequences. 3) Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties).
Mr. Guilbeault’s argument is the Reynolds Tobacco C. failed to warn consumers of the dangers of smoking their cigarettes, by failing to place warning labels until four years after mandated date of 1966. Plaintiff also claims the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product 4) Provide a judgment on who should win the case - be clear.
The judgment should be for the plaintiff.

5) Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law.
The Reynolds Tobacco Co. failed to exercise all possible care in the preparation and sale of their Camel cigarette packages. They had a legal obligation to keep their consumers informed of the dangers of cigarettes when it was mandated by the Labeling Act of 1966. A products-liability law supports Mr. Guilbeault’s argument because the manufactures are responsible at every stage of the production of the cigarette, from the tobacco, to the labeling, and distribution to consumers. The non-labeling years proves negligence on behave of the