Download Sued for Negligence - Conflicts of Laws - Past Paper and more Exams Law in PDF only on Docsity! Παγε 1 οφ 5 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COURSE EXAMINATION SCHOOL OF LAW Fall 2003 LAW 244: CONFLICT OF LAWS INSTRUCTOR: HERMA HILL KAY TIME ALLOWED: 3½ HOURS CLOSED BOOK EXAMINATION NUMBERS: Please be sure to put your correct Fall exam number on each page of the exam (if typed) or on each blue book. COMPLETION: DO NOT CONTINUE WRITING AFTER TIME HAS BEEN CALLED. Please do NOT leave your bluebook or typed answers on the desk. Exams MUST be turned in to the person in charge. If you finish early, you must turn your exam in to the Registrar’s Office in Room 270 Simon Hall. There are no space limits. I. 50 % CREDIT The legislature of state X recently passed a statute banning tort actions alleging that restaurants are liable in negligence to obese patrons. The legislature of state Y defeated a similar bill but enacted a statute providing that restaurants sued for negligence by obese patrons may defend by showing that they provide information on their menus setting forth the fat, cholesterol, and calorie content of their food. The legislature of state Z passed a statute holding restaurants absolutely liable in tort actions by obese patrons unless they provide menu information about the fat, cholesterol, and calorie content of their food. Assume the following facts: Παγε 2 οφ 5 A. State X is the state of incorporation and principal place of business of a nationwide hamburger chain [“the chain”.] It has outlets in every state, including X, Y, and Z. The chain has instructed its franchise outlets to refuse to provide menu information, warning them that to do so would result in termination of their franchise contracts. B. Franchisees operate an outlet of the chain in state Z. In defiance of the chain’s instructions, they provide patrons with a “supplementary menu” that sets out the information regarding the fat, cholesterol, and calorie content of their food. Answer the following questions and discuss fully: 1. Plaintiffs are five obese teenagers who attend the same school and who live in state Y. Their daily diet is largely made up of hamburgers, fries, and sodas sold by an outlet of the chain, which is located one block away from their school. Plaintiffs file a suit in state Y against the chain’s outlet, alleging that its negligent failure to warn them of the fat, cholesterol, and calorie content of its food has caused them to become obese. The outlet defends by asking the court to apply the law of state X, alleging that it is contractually bound not to disclose menu information. How and why should the case be decided by a court following the approach to choice of law suggested by: a. Professor Currie’s governmental interest analysis; b. The First Restatement of conflict of laws; c. The Second Restatement of conflict of laws. Assume the state Y court refuses to apply the law of state X, and enters judgment against the outlet. The judgment is affirmed by the Supreme Court of state Y. The outlet seeks a hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court, alleging that state Y was bound to give Full Faith and Credit to the law of state X. Assume that the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case. How and why should the case be decided? 2. Plaintiff is an elderly obese patron who lives in state Z. She eats a large meal daily at the chain’s state Z outlet near her retirement home. She files suit against the chain’s state Z outlet in state Z. The franchisee who operates the outlet files a third party indemnity claim against the chain, serving its President and CEO, personally at the chain’s office in state X. · Does state Z have in personam jurisdiction over the chain? · How and why should the plaintiff’s case and the franchisee’s third party claim be decided, assuming the court follows Professor Leflar’s better law approach to choice of law? 3. Assume the chain files a suit in state X against all of its franchisees to compel them not to provide menu information, serving them personally in the states where their outlets are
