You are on page 1of 3

Richard Granados

Essay Questions
Law 2306/ Professor Lisa Osorio Bradley
Spring 2019

This scenario requires a certain suspension of belief, since the theoretical questions involving

Mary, John, Elvis, and MJ cannot reasonably be resolved at the same time, since it’s doubtful if

MJ would bother suing the hotel when he’s being implicated in a pretty severe criminal court

case in a clash with the kings of pop and rock and roll (respectively) and since, in his prime, he

was known to buy overpriced six-figure antiques as if they were gallons of milk. That being said,

from a theoretical standpoint, every party in this scenario has a case to plead (in and or against

their favor) to make since there occurred rather egregious crimes and negligence.

Question 1: Mary and John. The relationship between them must be ascertained but since the

scenario doesn’t make clear if they’re married to each other with big families or married

separately with big families and are simply business partners, I’ll assume the ladder since their

last names differ. If they are tired of the drama with the hotel and are considering selling the

property, then it must be said they concern themselves with real estate law. That is, law dealing

with real property; property that is permanently affixed to the land. They own the hotel as

tenants in common, and as such are free to sell their shares of the hotel to whoever is

interested in buying it or they could easily pass it to their heirs and divide and distribute their

shares to the more responsible members of their family. All things considered, they have a very

flexible way of passing on their business with plenty of room for negotiation. It’s a very Wall

Street mergers and acquisitions type of peanut where the shares can be stripped, cut, or

amplified. They don’t have joint tenancy, so it’s not as restrictive and since they’re not married,
they don’t have to deal with a tenancy by the entirety. From a legal standpoint, they should

consult with their family members and each other for a plan to pass on the business. The most

vicious of wars throughout history have often been started with disputes over succession of

property and titles, so a sober and neutral pow-wow is needed.

Question 2: Young and alive Elvis has a criminal case on his hand. This is a rather cut-and-dry

affair that deals with a criminal case of assault and battery. In this there is no question, MJ

attacked and disfigured Elvis with a knife. While the crime is somewhat weakened by the fact

that there was a verbal dispute, and MJ’s attack was seemingly not pre-meditated and more

akin to a spur of the moment assault, the fact remains that Elvis can and should press charges.

For a number of reasons. For now, I’ll avoid discussing the details of criminal court since MJ is

going to have to go to court (again) against the government. Besides the criminal court case,

Elvis should sue MJ in civil court as well. Since both men are from different states and the

punitive damages that will be dished out on MJ will be no doubt high given that they are both

public figures, the civil court case should be a federal question due to diversity jurisdiction. The

amount in controversy will exceed $75,000.00 since Elvis can argue, as a popular (and still alive)

musician whose livelihood depends on his looks and voice, that the money lost due to his

scarred face should be compensated by the one who egregiously attacked him. To be honest,

what Elvis should do in the civil court case is rubbing a finger on an open wound and it’s doing

what a criminal case cannot fully inflict. In summary, Elvis should sue in federal court due to

diversity jurisdiction.
Question 3:

This is a question of bailment since Michael legally and temporarily gave his property to the

establishment. The legal duty of care, of course, is on a scale that is reduced when the more

distant the responsibility is to the establishment. A car stolen in a free parking lot owned by a

mall is a weaker case because it’s almost like a curbside parking spot and as such it by and large

excuses them. However, when you have a valet that promises to take good care of your car

(more so an expensive one), and it gets stolen on your watch and the car is happened to be

owned by a mega celebrity, then you’re in trouble. Michael should argue these points and sue

the hotel. If he’s feeling merciful, he could make the case symbolic and demand one dollar to

both shame and save the hotel owners.

Question 4:

She can sue the hotel since the sidewalk is the property of the hotel and they, as hotel/facility

owners serving the public, have an obligation to provide a duty of care to others. The owners

are required to operate in a manner so that any risk of harms to others is contemplated and

lessened if possible. They must act in a way to reduce the risk of harm to the public associated

with the built environment. It must be said that the case is weaker with residential owners and

industrial owners than commercial ones. Local and state laws vary. Still, ice should not be

present in a sidewalk owned by owners that serve the public and have a duty of care to ensure

they don’t kill themselves needlessly. The hotel is liable for damages since they should have

taken precautions to salt the sidewalk to prevent ice.