Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 04:53:21 -0400

From: David Cheifetz

Subject: Childs v Desormeaux, again - addendum

As proof I'm equally qualified and unqualified to create exam questions (thanks to Ben Zipursky for pointing out the omission) -

Apart from numbering issues in # 4.e (of the first #4 - it's a good real number, the first which isn't a prime - what more can I say? ) of the post below, I forgot to mention that Courrier sued BOTH his co-host Zimmerman and Desormeaux. That was supposed to be the kicker. So, the first line becomes: e. In the claim against Zimmerman, what are the odds a trial judge would have found for Courrier but against Childs on the basis ...

Whether Courrier will allege that it was entirely at Zimmerman's insistence that he chose to let Desormeaux drive away rather than insisting that Desormeaux sleep over is your choice.

David Cheifetz

-----Original Message-----
From: David Cheifetz
Sent: June 3, 2006 1:16 PM
Subject: ODG: Childs v Desormeaux, again

....

4. Consider these questions

....

e. what are the odds a trial judge would have found for Courrier but against Childs on the basis that a duty was owed to Courrier but not to Childs? The only difference between the two would be that Desormeaux had been at the party, but not Childs. However, on what basis could a judge find that Desormaux did not owe at least a prima facie duty of care to Courrier? I suggest there'd certainly be a duty if an accident occurred while Desormeaux was still on the Courrier property. Does it make sense to say the duty to Courrier ends as soon as Desormeaux leaves the property, at least for the case where Courrier isn't a passenger or Desormeaux hasn't been told that Courrier plans to drive in D's direction because C is going to the store?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>