Liability analysis in the Terrible Tiger and Jumpstarter cases

¶ … Terrible Tiger Case Below and Answer the Following

Does Joy have a case against the casino? What claims can she make? What defenses does the casino have?

Not really. Presumably, the tigers were trained and controlled by the two handlers. Unless it could be proven that the casino led to the conditions that led to the tiger doing what he did, Joy would have no case against the casino. It would seem the tiger simply did the behavior on his own due to lack of training or being \"spooked.\" As such, there would really be no case against the casino.

What if an audience member had been injured by the tiger? How would that change the case against the casino?

This would be a different story. If the tiger was able to enter the audience and injure a member of the audience, that would absolutely be on the casino, at least in part, as they presumably control the venue and where the tigers can go. It would come down to what is in the contract between the tiger handlers and the venue...but the casino would indeed be in a bit of trouble of an audience member was inured.

c. Plaintiffs: Develop a case for Hartley. On what theory can he recover from Jumpstarter, Inc.? What should his damages be? Be sure to support your arguments with facts from the case and legal theories from the references below

There are two reasons that Jumpstarter is in a bit of trouble. First, they know there is a defect that stems from what happens when a person\'s temperature gets a bit too high. As such, they had a duty to get the units replaced and taken care of as soon as possible. However, they seemed to dawdle when it came to the plaintiff as they were bogged down in settlement talks. If Hartley was being unreasonable, that is one thing...however, the heart needed to be replaced and everyone knew it. Beyond that, it was already known that Hartley was having issues specific to him. As such, every day that passes with that heart still being in there was entirely preventable.

Read the Jumpstarter case below and answer the following:

a. Plaintiffs: Develop a case for Hartley. On what theory can he recover from Jumpstarter, Inc.? What should his damages be?

At the very least, Hartley should be made \"whole\" in terms of having an artificial heart that works properly and so forth. The problems with the existing heart do not mean that Jumpstarter necessarily did anything wrong. Indeed, things can come up even with the best of intentions and testing. However, what will hurt Jumpstarter is why settlement talks stretched out. It has to be ascertained why there was foot-dragging on the part of Jumpstarter. It also has to be ascertained what Jumpstarter knew about the hearts, how well they were tested and how quickly they acted once they knew there were issues. Indeed, a defective product is not a lawsuit lottery ticket for Hartley. At the same time, Jumpstarter has a duty to act quick. Regardless, Jumpstarter cannot remove the heart by force and does need Hartley\'s cooperation.

b. Defendants: What defenses can you assert for Jumpstarter Inc.? Is it ethical to recall a product and fight a lawsuit at the same time?

Much of this was answered above. To add a bit, it is indeed ethical to fight a lawsuit if the request for damages is not reasonable and/or at odds with known and proven facts.

c. Who should win? Why? Is it ethical to recall a product and fight a lawsuit at the same time?

As noted above, Hartley should win reasonable damages to get a functional heart in his body...but not more than that. Unless it is proven that Jumpstarter hid bad test results or something like that and/or they do not have a reasonable case to not settle with Hartley, it would be hard to justify a huge settlement. Barring illegal or unethical actions, Hartley should be made whole (be given a heart that works) and that\'s it.