notes exam 2 - Wal-Mart v. Gonzalez- Gonzales slipped on...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Wal-Mart v. Gonzalez - Gonzales slipped on the floor on macaroni salad and filed suit against Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart was negligent because it did not clean up the salad. Is this injury foreseeable? The issue was whether Wal-Mart behaved in a reasonable way? Did Wal- mart’s employees act in a reasonable way? This would be a case where the lawyer would want to do contingency fee. Wal-mart won. Timberwalk case - Timberwalk Apartments v. Cain , 972 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. 1998) Owen joined a majority opinion assessing landlord liability for a rape committed on the premises. After Tammy Rene Cain was raped in her apartment, she filed suit, alleging that the apartment company failed to invest in adequate security. The trial court ruled for the defendants after a jury failed to find the landlord negligent. The court of appeals remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the negligence definition given to the jury was too strict. Owen joined Hecht’s majority opinion that ruled that, as a matter of law, the apartment company owed Cain no duty to provide additional security. Specifically, the court ruled that the risk of assault was not foreseeable because there had been no reports of criminal activity at the apartment complex. The court of appeals, however, concluded that evidence of eleven sexual assaults within a one mile radius of the Timberwalk apartment complex could trigger foreseeability. Justice Spector’s concurring opinion criticized the majority for ignoring case law that recognizes other foreseeability evidence, including the nature, condition and location of the defendants premises. The Texas Apartment Association gave Owen $7,500. Tenet that entered a screen door of another tenets apt. and it raped the other tenet. And one tenet went against to apt complex. The victim wants to be compensated for the rape. Because of deep pockets, but is there a legal basis for her to go against the apt complex. She said they were negligent in security. Was this assault reasonably foreseeable? Apt. Complex won. If there is no duty there can be no liability. Pennzoil v. Texaco (covered in class)- JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL joins, concurring in the judgment. In my opinion Texaco's claim that the Texas judgment lien and supersedeas bond provisions violate the Fourteenth Amendment is plainly without merit. The injunction against [481 U.S. 1, 30] enforcement of those provisions must therefore be dissolved. I rest my analysis on this ground because I cannot agree with the grounds upon which the Court disposes of the case. In my view the District Court and the Court of Appeals were correct to hold that a creditor's invocation of a State's postjudgment collection procedures constitutes action "under color of" state law within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1 and that there is no basis for abstention in this case. 2 [481 U.S. 1, 31] The Court of Appeals upheld the injunction based on its conclusion that Texaco has a substantial chance of success on the merits of its federal constitutional challenge to the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/14/2008 for the course BLAW 2361 taught by Professor Bible during the Spring '08 term at Texas State.

Page1 / 6

notes exam 2 - Wal-Mart v. Gonzalez- Gonzales slipped on...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online