Tort
Bethel v. New York Transit Authority
Conclusion
Parties
The Bethel vs. New York Transit Authority is one of the landmark cases that redefined the law of tort. In this case, Bethel was the plaintiff while the New York Transit Authority was the defendant.
Facts
In this case, the plaintiff had demanded compensation for the injuries that he sustained in one vehicle operated by the authority. The plaintiff used a seat lift installed to aid those on wheelchairs (Bethel vs. New York Transit Authority, 1998). As he used the lift, a seat collapsed, causing him injury. The plaintiff held that the authority should have known that the seat was defective and should therefore have exercised reasonable care by repairing it (Bethel vs. New York Transit Authority, 1998). The plaintiff argued further that the seat had been repaired eleven days earlier and this repair should have served as notice for the authority to inspect the seat to ensure its safety.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Appellate court ruling
The appellate court affirmed for the plaintiff (Bethel vs. New York Transit Authority, 1998). The court determined that the reasonable and not the highest standard of care applies to common carriers.
Issues
Issues and trial court holding
The main issue that the court was to issue a determination on was the level of care that should be exercised by common carriers (Bethel vs. New York Transit Authority, 1998). Are they supposed to demonstrate reasonable or the highest standard of care? The trial court ruled for the defendant. It argued that the common standard of care where a party needs to conduct themselves as an objective person would applies to the transit authority (Bethel vs. New York Transit Authority, 1998). The plaintiff appealed.
Issues on appeal
As mentioned above, the plaintiff appealed against the trial court ruling. He sought the appellate court’s position on the level of care that the authority should have exercised, the objective reasonable person or extraordinary standard of care? (Bethel vs. New York Transit Authority, 1998)
Rules of Law
There are a number of rules that related to the case. One of these rules is the standard of care that should be exercised by common carriers. The law stipulated that common carriers should uphold utmost care to guarantee the safety of passengers (Bethel vs. New York Transit Authority, 1998). The appeals court examined whether it would be appropriate to apply this rule to the case and demand that the defendant should have exercised extraordinary care. It was determined that the same standard of care that should be demonstrated by any other party should apply to common carriers (Bethel vs. New York Transit Authority, 1998).
Analysis
The main rationale that the appeal court used for its decision lies in the changes that the US transport industry had undergone. At the time when the standard of extraordinary care was imposed on common carriers, the nation’s transport facilities were in shambles. Providers of transport failed to offer adequate protections to ensure passenger safety and this necessitated the imposition of the extraordinary standard of care on the carriers (Bethel vs. New York Transit Authority, 1998). However, at the time the court was hearing this case, the transport system had greatly improved and it would therefore be inappropriate to demand that extraordinary care be exercised by common carriers. The court then ruled that the common objective person standard should apply to the carriers (Bethel vs. New York Transit Authority, 1998). The court also cited previous cases in which the common standard of care was applied to carriers. These cases included Miner v. Long Is. Light Co. Additionally, the court referred to an earlier ruling in which they dismissed the stratification of standards of care. Instead of having varying degrees of duty of care, the court embraced the reasonable person standard Bethel vs. New York Transit Authority, 1998). The other rationale for the ruling lay in the impacts of court instructions to the jury. The court held that when the jury is issued with certain instructions, they are likely to be biased and find fault in the conduct of the plaintiff (Bethel vs. New York Transit Authority, 1998). All these reasons led the court to affirm for the defendant and dismiss the extraordinary standard of care applied to common carriers.
Opinion
I support the position held by the appeal court. I think that common carriers should be held to the same level of responsibility to ensure passenger safety as other establishments. The safety standards have improved immensely and it would be unfair to impose the extraordinary level of care on the carriers. I think that this case holds much significance as it defines the standard of care to be demonstrated by common carriers.
Product liability
Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc.
Conclusion
Parties
The Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc. is a case that concerns product liability. Antonio Cipollone was the plaintiff and Liggett Group Inc. the defendant.
Facts
In this case, Cipollone was suing Liggett Group on behalf of his wife who had succumbed to lung cancer that Cipollone argued had developed as a result of smoking the cigarettes made by Liggett Group (Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc. , 1992). Cipollone held that the cigarettes were defective and accused Liggett Group of failing to issue adequate warnings regarding the risks posed by smoking.
Appellate court ruling
The appellate court reversed for the defendant (Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc., 1992).
Issues
Issues and trial court holding
The chief issue that the court had to rule on was whether the plaintiff failed to provide adequate warnings and was therefore responsible for the death of the defendant’s wife (Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc., 1992). The jury in the trial court found that Liggett Group had failed to issue adequate warnings and issued an award of $400,000 to Mrs. Cipollone. However, the jury determined that Mrs. Cipollone was to blame for 80% of the harm that she suffered and that she used a product whose dangers she clearly understood. For this reason, the jury did not issue any awards to her estate. Liggett appealed against the ruling.
Issues on appeal
The main issue that the defendant raised on appeal was whether the claims raised by the plaintiff had been preempted by the Federal Cigarette and Labeling Act of 1965 (Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc., 1992). Essentially, the defendant appealed against the damage awarded to the plaintiff.
Rules of Law
A number of rules relate to this case. The first is a rule requiring tobacco companies to include a warning label on all cigarette packets (Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc., 1992). The other rule regards whether tobacco companies can be held responsible for harm suffered when individuals consume cigarettes. The third law concerns the level of responsibility that should be assigned to individuals who consume cigarettes while being fully aware of the hazards (Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc., 1992). The provisions of the Federal Cigarette and Labeling Act (1965) are the other rules that defined the case.
Analysis
To arrive at its decision, the appeal court examined a number of issues and developed several arguments. One, the court examined the Federal Cigarette and Labeling Act in relation to common state law that stipulates the procedure and judgments for product liability claims (Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc., 1992). Following this examination, the court determined that the claims raised by the plaintiff that the defendant had failed to comply with the requirements on labeling and warning contained in the Act were in violation of the Act. The court also cited a number of related cases such as Murphy v. Heppenstall Co. and Rice v. Norman Williams Co. (Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc., 1992). The court held that its ruling was in line with the judgments issued in these cases. In arriving at the decision, the court also sought to balance the health of the public and the economy of the nation. The court determined that ruling for the plaintiff would upset this balance and therefore reversed the trial court ruling for the defendant.
Opinion
Personally, I think that the appellate court blundered in its ruling. I think that it was too technical in its interpretation of the law and failed to examine the devastating impacts of tobacco smoking. I think that the court should have upheld the trial court ruling and awarded damages to the plaintiff. This case remains significant as it sheds light on the obligations of tobacco companies to safeguard public health and the need for the public to exercise care when consuming products that are known to be hazardous.
Intellectual property
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
Conclusion
Parties
Apple and Samsung have been involved in legal battles over intellectual property rights violations. In this case, Apple was the plaintiff while Samsung was the defendant.
Facts
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated a total of five patents (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2016). The plaintiff asked the court to issue orders demanding that the defendant should cease all sales of smartphones that use technologies that it had obtained patents for. The technologies included a feature that allowed users to unlock their phones by swiping across the screen and another that facilitated synchronization, among others (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2016).
Appellate court ruling
The appellate court reversed for the defendant (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2016). Basically, the court set aside the damages that the trial court had imposed on the defendant.
Issues
Issues and trial court holding
The key issue that the appellate court had to deliver a judgment on is whether the defendant had indeed violated the intellectual property rights held by the plaintiff (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2016). The jury in the trial court found that the defendant had violated the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights and awarded damages amounting to $119,625,000 and the court issued instructions to the effect that the defendant should pay royalties to the plaintiff for the use of the patented technologies (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2016). Both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.
Issues on appeal
The same issues raised in the trial court were brought up in the appellate court. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had infringed on its intellectual property rights through the continued use of certain features in its smartphones (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2016).
Rules of Law
Intellectual property law was the main focus of this case (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2016). This law prohibits the use of property that enjoys copyright protection without authorization from the holder of the copyright.
Analysis
As mentioned above, the appellate court ruled for the defendant, reversing an earlier decision made by the jury in the trial court. In arriving at its ruling, the appellate court developed a rationale. The rules of evidence formed the backbone of the court’s ruling. The court determined that the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2016). For example, one of the arguments that the plaintiff raised is that its users had expressed excitement at the time that the sliding method for unlocking its phones was unveiled. The court dismissed this as insufficient to support the defendant’s claim (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2016). The court also found that the expert witnesses brought in by the plaintiff failed to offer testimony that constituted sufficient evidence. The court essentially found that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the technologies used by the defendant bore similarities to the technologies that it had patented. The court also referenced previous cases such as Gurley, 27 F.3d (553) (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 2016). In this case, it was established that a party cannot be accused of violating intellectual property protection when they adopt a mechanism that has been shown to present benefits to users. The court took this to mean that the defendant had simply offered its users a method that the plaintiff had developed and one that offered immense benefits to the users.
Opinion
I do not agree with the appellate court ruling. A look at the interface implemented by the defendant in the phones in question reveals striking similarities with the interface on the plaintiff’s phones. I think that the court’s rationale does not warrant the dismissal of the appeal brought by the plaintiff as I find the evidence provided by the plaintiff to be sufficient. Despite my disagreement with the court’s opinion, I think that the case is important. It offers guidelines that can be used to settle disputes over copyright infringement. The case is particularly important in cases where it is difficult to determine if any infringement took place.
Property law
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City.
Conclusion
Parties
The parties in this case are Penn Central Transportation (plaintiff) and New York City (defendant).
Facts
This case pitted the plaintiff against the defendant over the use of property that had been identified as a landmark. The plaintiff held ownership of Grand Central Terminal. This terminal had been designated as a landmark (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 1978). The plaintiff entered into an agreement with a British company in which the company would be allowed to use the land on which the terminal sat for 50 years. The British company wished to construct a structure on the land and applied for a permit. The permit application was denied. The plaintiff turned to the courts holding that the defendant had temporarily ‘taken’ its property (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 1978). The plaintiff sought damages for the ‘taking’ and injunctive relief. The plaintiff also sought declaratory relief.
Appellate court ruling
The appellate court affirmed for the defendant (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 1978).
Issues
Issues and trial court holding
The court had to rule on whether the defendant had ‘taken’ the plaintiff’s property. This was the primary issue before the court. A grant of the declaratory and the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff was issued by the trial court (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 1978). However, the main issue that the court had to examine was whether ‘taking’ had occurred. The court held that taking had not occurred and dismissed the petition by the plaintiff for damages (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 1978).
Issues on appeal
The question of whether ‘taking’ had occurred remained the key issue on appeal (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 1978).
Rules of Law
The law that stipulates that individuals should be compensated when their property is taken was the main rule in this case. The Landmark Preservation Act is another law that was applied to the case (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 1978). This law was used to determine if the decision by the defendant to deny the application for the construction of a building on the site of the landmark amounted to a ‘taking’.
Analysis
The appellate court’s decision was based on sound principles. The key element of the rationale used by the court is the economic impacts of the denial of building permit on the plaintiff. The court determined that the permit denial would not deny the plaintiff a return on their investment (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 1978). The court also found that the investment expectations that the plaintiff held were not adversely impacted by the denial of permit. Another issue that the court examined is the impact of the building of a structure on the landmark site on the public. It was determined that public interest would be adversely affected if the construction was given the green light (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 1978). The court also based its decision on previous cases. These cases include Miller v. Schoene, Goldblatt v. Hempstead and Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon. The appellate court also argued that the mere fact that the plaintiff suffered harm does not mean that the actions of the defendant amounted to ‘taking’. Another argument used by the court was that the defendant could still build on the landmark site after making some adjustments to its building plans (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 1978). All these reasons led the court to conclude that the actions of the defendant could not be considered to be ‘taking’.
Opinion
I agree with the ruling of the appellate court. I think that the need to preserve precious landmarks outweighs the interests of individual parties. This case is important as it presents implications for other cases involving property law. It can be used to ensure that there is balance between the interests of the public and those of organizations keen on making money.
References
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (February 26, 2016, United States Court of Appeals for The Federal Circuit).
Bethel v. New York Transit Authority. (October 15, 1998, New York Court of Appeals).
Cipollone v. Liggett Group Inc. (June 24, 1992, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit).
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City. (1978, Supreme Court of the United States).
