Gretzky Family Lawsuit Against Michelin: Jurisdiction and Seat Belt Evidence, Exams of Civil Law

Download Gretzky Family Lawsuit Against Michelin: Jurisdiction and Seat Belt Evidence and more Exams Civil Law in PDF only on Docsity! UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF LAW INTRODUCTION TO CIVIL PROCEDURE Section A (Two Hours) Day Division Friday, December 22, 2006 Professor Robert J. Condlin 9:10 A.M. - 11:10 A.M. No._______ Signature:_________________ Print Name:____________________ Submitted Electronically ____ Yes ____ No INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Honor Code. Student conduct, during examinations and at all other times, is governed by the Student Honor Code. 2. Your Name, Examination Number and Submission. Sign and print your name in the blanks above. Put the examination number, course title and instructor name on the examination envelope. Indicate whether you are submitting the examination electronically. Submit the examination questions at the conclusion of the examination. Do not put the questions in the examination envelope. 3. Time. Submit your examination answers within the announced time for the examination. If you submit your answers late you will be subject to a penalty. 4. Computer Exams. You may take the examination by computer. This is an Option 2 – Open Mode – access to Exam4 and student computer-based notes – no Internet Access examination. If you use a computer you must use the Exam4 examination-taking software provided by the Law School. You must provide your own computer and must download a copy of the Fall 2006 version of the Exam4 software to your computer, test the software, and have the computer in working order before the date of this examination. Links to the software will not be available for download at examination time. At the end of the examination, choose the "Submit Electronically" function on the Exam4 software. The software will request your Exam ID (Examination Number). Put 2 the course name on your answer as instructed in the handout, but do not put your own name anywhere on your answer. Submit your answer within the time limits for the examination. After submitting your answer electronically turn in (but do not seal) the examination envelope, with a notation on the envelope stating "Submitted Electronically." Technological Problems: If you experience a technological problem during the examination consider the amount of time remaining and decide whether you should continue (or restart) the examination in Blue Books. No additional time will be provided for technological problems. Responsibility for submitting your answers on time electronically lies entirely with you. The Information Technology (IT) Department will assist in retrieving examination files from your computer, and the Office of Registration & Enrollment will accept an IT-certified copy of an examination file retrieved from your computer as a timely submission, as long as there is no evidence of tampering with either your computer, or the examination file. 5. Handwritten Exams. If you submit handwritten answers to the examination, put the number found above on each of your Blue Book answers to the examination. Both the envelope and your answers should contain your examination number, the course name, and the instructor's name. Do not put your own name anywhere on the envelope, or on the Blue Book answers. Upon completion of the examination, put your answers in the envelope, fasten the flap, and hand in the envelope to the examination proctor. Be sure to enclose all of your answers in the envelope — you will be graded on only what is inside the envelope. Do not put the examination questions in the envelope. Hand in the questions separately to the examination proctor. You are responsible for ensuring that all of your completed answers and questions are handed in to the examination proctor. 6. Special Instructions. There are two questions and each counts for a different percentage of the overall grade. Allocate your time accordingly. Often, the questions will suggest or hint at issues more than develop them, so do not hesitate to be imaginative in discussing as many contingencies as you reasonably can foresee. Analyze the issues presented by the fact patterns, do not tell me what you know generally about the topic in question, or the applicable law. If you would need more information to resolve an issue, say what else you would need to know. You may bring any materials you like into the examination with you, but you may not use electronic communication devices of any kind, except for the authorized use of Exam4 software. 5 How should the district court rule on the Gretzkys’ motion to remand and the Defendants’ motion to dismiss? Explain your answer fully and discuss all possible bases for decision on each ground. Question Number Two (33%) Clara A. Sims, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Great American Life Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant. United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit On September 3, 2001, Lawrence and Clara Sims attended a golf tournament at their local country club. Lawrence drank throughout the day and was intoxicated when he arrived home. Seemingly distraught over an unkempt kitchen, he stormed out of the house, jumped in his car, and sped away. When he failed to return the next morning Clara phoned family, friends, and local hospitals to look for him, but to no avail. She then filed a missing persons report with her local police department. Two days later the police recovered Lawrence's body. Based on evidence at the scene, they surmise that his car careened off a main road onto a private right-of-way, clipped a fence, hit a bump and sailed 115 feet over a creek bed, landing on top of an International Harvester Combine parked in a pasture. No skid marks were visible at the scene, nor was there any other evidence suggesting that Lawrence had tried to swerve before clipping the fence. His seat belt was not fastened and his blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.19% was well over the legal limit. Prior to the accident Lawrence had purchased a life insurance policy from Great American Life Insurance Company (Great American) in the amount of $300,000, and named Clara as the beneficiary. The policy expressly excluded recovery for non- accidental death. After Lawrence died, Clara made a claim on the policy but Great American denied it. It concluded that Lawrence had committed suicide. Clara then sued Great American in Oklahoma federal district court for breach of contract. During the trial, Great American argued that Lawrence’s failure to wear his seat belt, contrary to his ordinary practice, was evidence that he intended to commit suicide. Clara objected to the introduction of the seat belt evidence, arguing that it was prohibited by the Oklahoma Mandatory Seat Belt Law. The Oklahoma statute bars evidence of the use or non-use of a seat belt in any civil lawsuit. It codifies the public policy of encouraging seat belt use by requiring drivers to fasten belts while riding in an 6 automobile, but it punishes a violation of the law with only a fine and does not permit the fact of a violation to be used as evidence of fault in a civil proceeding. This limitation on the use of seat belt evidence is based on the Oklahoma legislature’s judgment, in the words of one state court decision interpreting the statute, “that jurors in civil cases attach too much weight to the failure to wear a seat belt.” Great American argued that evidence of Lawrence’s failure to use his seat belt was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Rule 401 permits the introduction of any “evidence having a tendency to make the existence of any fact of consequence to the determination of an action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” In effect, Rule 401 requires a court to determine whether evidence offered by a party is factually relevant to the claim asserted and, if so, whether the proposition for which the evidence is offered is a material element of the claim. In a diversity action, these judgments of relevance and materiality are made by reference to the state law on which the plaintiff’s claim is based. The Federal Rules of Evidence have an unusual history. Prior to 1972, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43 governed evidentiary issues in federal courts and under Rule 43, federal courts applied state evidence rules to questions of admissibility. In 1972, however, the Supreme Court began to draft an independent set of rules of evidence for the federal court system. Before it could complete the task, Congress passed a statute requiring congressional approval of any such evidence rules. It did this, in large part, to insure that the Court did not intrude into protected areas of state regulation. According to Congress, the purpose of rules of evidence should be “to achieve accuracy, and fair play in litigation, without regard to the substantive interests of the parties.” Any attempt to do more than this would go beyond the authority conferred by the Judiciary Article and Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States’ Constitution. Subsequently, the Rules of Evidence were enacted by Congress. The Oklahoma federal district court determined that it was required to apply the Oklahoma evidence rule on admissibility and refused to permit the seat belt evidence to be submitted to the jury. The jury then found that Lawrence’s death was accidental and awarded Clara $1.4 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Great American has appealed, arguing that the district court’s determination that it was required to apply Oklahoma law was erroneous and has asked this court to reverse the judgment of the district court. How should the appeals court rule? Explain your decision fully.