Law 315

Madeline Hardy
1206131754

Week 2 - Chapter Summary

Farnsworth The Legal Analyst Chapter 1-2,5
Chapter 1 Ex Ante and Ex Post
Example 1 Bank Theft
Facts: A thief walks into a bank and demands $5000 from the teller. If
the teller does not hand over the money the thief threatens to shoot
him. The teller refuses to hand over the money and is shot by the
thief. The thief then runs
away and is never caught.
Issue:

Is it the tellers fault for not handing the money over and putting
himself in danger?
Would it be fair for the bank to pay the tellers estate the money
the bank saved from the robbery?

Rule: The court could not agree with the plaintiff because if they did
they would have to agree all events like this one. For example when
plane hijackers take over a plane, governments made the decision not
to give in money, because saving a few lives by paying off terrorists
would not save lives in the future.
Analysis: One important thing to realize with court is that the even
has already happened and it cannot be undone. Therefore can any
amount of money help the grieving family for their lost family
member? When courts come to a ruling about a case they use their
knowledge learned from the case and apply it to changing rules to
avoid future robberies and murders that happen.
Conclusion:
The bank cannot pay off the estate because it does not help future
cases.
What we learned from this case:

Courts are used as a last resort to deal with disputes. One always
comes out a winner and one a loser.
Ex-ante: Before the event
Ex-Post: based on actual results rather than forecasts
Every time a judge and court decide a rule they have to realize
the effect they have on future issues and problems. Most courts
uses present cases to adapt laws to avoid future disputes.

Law 315
Madeline Hardy
1206131754
Example 2 Building a House
Facts: a house is built and the builder mistook the measurements.
Therefore the house infringed on the neighbors property by 18 inches.
The correction of this problem is costly and would involve a huge
reconstruction fix.
Issue: How can we resolve this case?
Rule: The ex-post style would accept the situation and ask how best it
would be resolved. The ex-ante style doesn't ask how the mess
will be resolved but rather how it will affect our future behavior.
Analysis: Usually the complaining neighbor has a right to demand the
house encroaching on his property gets removed.
Conclusion: The house must be removed
What we learned from this case:

When an attorney has information the court should know, the

court often wants to hear about it. Unfortunately if the attorney
tells the court, her client will not talk to her in the future.
Statements made during a negotiation are not allowed to be
brought to court
Ex-post and ex-ante have completely different ways of solving
cases in court.

Chapter 2 The Idea of Efficiency

Incentives: Decisions a court makes frequently affect what

peoples incentives are afterwards.
Often when trying to make decisions on how to deal with issues
in courts, judges and jurys cannot look only at the current case.
That means they have to look into the future and understand
that how they lay the law down for this individual case will affect
future cases.
Mistakes happen in court. When a mistake happens affecting
one side of the court, that side must point out the mistake in
court. As shown with the dog bite example, even though the
attorney did not think a judge could make a mistake, it ended up
being his mistake for not pointing it out at the time.
Having multiple claims and multiple court date drags on a case.
If one case happens and then the plaintiff calls for another court
date then the new judge, jury, witnesses all need to learn what
happened in the last case and come back to court for the next
case.

Law 315
Madeline Hardy
1206131754
The theme of the chapter is how a legal system discourages and
deals with waste.
o Examples of waste include:
Lost time
Wasted money
Undeveloped sources
o We should be discouraging waste within the legal system
o Minimizing waste is also considered maximizing wealth
o Efficiency is a well known way to minimize waste
It is valuable

Chapter 5 The Least Cost Avoider

Law systems should be punishing people when they do not case

about the same interests disturbed by the decisions they make.
In law cases people often throw money at whoever they believe
will pay for it. They do not try and be conservative with their
spending habits.
o Strict liability is the term for people who act this way.
o Ex. Sending bills off to someone else without taking into
account the large cost.
o When a liability is strict the defendant is often the best
person the reduce the risk of a liability
One way to save money during a dispute is to deal with the case
outside of court.
o If the two groups in a dispute are able to talk with one
another with or without lawyers they immediately save
hundreds of dollars in an unnecessary court date.
Often times the absolute best way to avoid legal costs is to
completely avoid the event entirely
o For example if you know an event is going to occur that
could leave to legal disputes, try and prevent it before it
happens
The least Cost avoider method often sheds light on cases where
we want to show that more than one party has to be careful

Law 315
Madeline Hardy
1206131754

Case Study Baltimore & O.R, Co. v. Goodman

Facts:
A train going 60mph headed southwest killed Goodman. He
was driving a truck across the railroad tracks headed east.
He crossed the railroads straight across but his view was
blocked by a section of houses that covered a section of the
tracks. Houses blocked the intersection 243 feet north of the
crossing. Goodman was unable to see the train while he
drove across the tracks because of the obstructed view and
therefore was killed by a train. His wife brought a case
against the train company because of the obstructed tracks.
Issue:
Is it the driver's negligence that led to his death?
Should he have stopped at the tracks and excited his
car in order to fully see around the houses?
Should he have taken another route if he felt the
obstruction made the crossing unsafe?
Should the railroad company had lights alerting the
driver of the obstruction or when a train was coming?
Rule:
The widow brought the suit about the railroad company. The
question of due care was brought to the court from the
defendant and left for the judge and jury to decide.
Analysis:

Law 315
Madeline Hardy
1206131754

If the driver was unsure of the safety of the crossing due to

the obstruction should he have crossed? It is up to the driver
to scope out potential dangers by physically getting out of
their car. If the driver does not meet the standard of conduct
required of an alert driver he is responsibility of his injuries.
Conclusion:
The court found the plaintiff responsible for his lack of
awareness of the train coming at him. They also agreed he
assumed the risk and danger of crossing the track when he
decided to drive over it. In addition since he did not come to
a complete stop and exit his car to check for potential
dangers it is his fault for the accident.

Pokora v. Wabash Ry. Co

Facts:
The plaintiff was killed while attempting to cross Wabash Ry.
Cos four way railroad tracks. The defendants company had
four railroad tracks next to one another. The plaintiff was
attempting to cross the four tracks but his view was blocked
by an obstruction due to a box car in the first tracks. The
plaintiff came to a complete stop and listened for a train
approaching. He did not fully leave his car to check the
safety. Having seen or heard nothing he crossed the tracks
and was killed by a train.
Issue:
Is it the drivers duty to fully exit the car to confirm it is
safe to cross the train tracks?
Should there be lights or warning signs alerting drivers
of potential issues?
Should boxcars be able to stop and obstruct train track
crossings?
Rule:

Law 315
Madeline Hardy
1206131754

The courts came to the conclusion that expecting someone

to exit their car to check for safety is extremely uncommon
among drivers. A train is able to cover a quarter of a mile
traveling 30 mph in under thirty seconds.
Analysis:

Therefore asking someone to leave their car and walk back

to their car is useless. By the time the plaintiff walks back to
their car there could be a new, different train approaching. In
addition if there were multiple cars behind the plaintiffs
parked car it would be unsafe to exit the car for many
reasons. First for the treat of being hit by a car and second
because drivers become angered when they are stuck
behind parked cars. If drivers are angry they may try and
pass the car and therefore might potentially be hit by a train.
Conclusion:
The court came to the conclusion that it was not the
responsibility of the plaintiff to exit the vehicle and check for
an oncoming train. Since the driver came to a complete stop
and visually looked and listened it was not his fault. The
plaintiff properly preformed his duty as a driver. Therefore
the plaintiff won the case.