You are on page 1of 7

Closing Outline – Plaintiff/Neg Per Se

10/19/2010 11:13:00 AM

Tuchmont – Joey began seizing, vomited, princess beads, discovers 1,4 but, Joey Dies, Level of GHB idicitave of Poisining, nothing on his medical records show pre-exist, 1-4 explains level of GHB in Joey’s blood, effects available to public, Died of RA  RA caused by GHB  GHB from 1,4, beads came from happyland Zimmer - GHB has many dangers, made it a Schedule 1, 1,4 is schedule 1 substance so it raised flags when he heard it was used, they update every year but it has been banned since 2001, 1,4 well known precursor to GHB, more than enough 1,4 in the box to kill someone, Brown – got commission based on toys selling,

Miller – Andy was great parent, ANDY protected joey from beads, warning labels small/not noticeable, he was happy that morning  BEADS never left that place  only beads in his mouth  beads by his mouth  not choking/weezing but looked worse barfed up beads in hospital and died Cross Oxman Lexington Brown Gardner Frost Davis

Once at the hospital. He put the beads in his mouth. A few minutes later he was lying on the ground in pain. After running blood tests. in his vomit.4 on the princess beads explained the level of GHB in his body. It all started to make sense now. Chase Tuchmont. And if you remember from the testimony of his babysitter. that this 1. the level of GHB in Joey’s blood was indicative of poisoning. he was treated by Dr. this is when he was taken to the hospital. After running tests on the vomit. 2009 Joey Davis (show picture) was a happy boy. We have laws against fraud to protect our identities We have laws against putting harmful chemicals into childrens toy’s to protect our children . with beads laying outside of his mouth. this child sadly passed away. A few minutes later he vomited. Tuchmont then identified 1. Joey began to seize for an unusually long amount of time. and they were the only thing he put in his mouth the whole morning. Brett Miller. That same morning he began playing with his sister’s Princess beads made by Happyland toy company. Tuchmont identified the presence of Princess Beads. Plaintiff had burden of proving that Happyland Toy Company was negligent based on a violated law On the morning of August 8. made by Happyland toy company. a precursor to GHB. Joey DIES . 25 minutes later. Soon after he began treatment.4 butandiol. on the beads.Outline 10/19/2010 11:13:00 AM Formalities There is a reason we have laws We have laws against theft to protect our possessions.

things that would normally be admissible based on Neg/Reck/SL are inadmissible o Evidence about a defendant’s subjective awareness of the risks posed by a particular product or course of actions. its reasons (or lack thereof) for proceeding the way it did. Sarah’s Patients.  Forseeable 10/19/2010 11:13:00 AM Negligance per se  Mamma Plassaras v Howard’s Supply of Batah (1995) o Where a defendant violars a statute that is designed to protect a person such as the plaintiff from harm such as the plaintiff suffered. and its consideration (or failure to consider) alternatives. needed to go fast Email forwarded to quinn from Lexington. or o If the defendants violation of the statute was due to the confusing way in which the requirements of the statutes were presented to the pubic o IGNORANCE NOT A DEFENSE!!!!!! Hamilton v.01    Affirmative defense  Kramer v. Puro (1984) . o Reversible error if not recognized James v. Dr.exhibits/case law If we have brown Email that quinn was CC’d on Pressure. Inc. IPX. Fu’s Home Gym (1999) o In cases of negligence per se. (2007) o If a defendant knowingly manufactures/dist/odisp but does not know that it is a Schedule 1 substance and does not know that it contains a “significant quantity” of such substance is a violation of Criminal Code 80. the defendant is presumed negligent Sheridan v. Inc (1998) o If the defendant demonstrates that it neither knew/should have known of the factual circumstances that rendered the statute applicable.

Heikkila (2002) o If the dangers are reasonably foreseeable the defendant cannot escape liability o Authentication  Both  One-note erin swift  Two-emails Experts  Richards v Miss BBQ o Gardener ---repeating all of Tuchmont’s stuff o jk . the defendant is laible but any damages recovered shall be reduced to the plaintiff’s relative fault Ramsden v. the def is not liable. o Relative culpability o If defendant establishes that plaintiff’s resp equals or exceeds that of the def. o If The plaintiff’s responsibility is less than that of the defendant.

brown direct plaintiff 10/19/2010 11:13:00 AM Commission He knew of having to go fast 1.4 saved a lot of money = more money for him knew that it should not be placed on anything forseeably eaten  obvious that it was foreseeable eaten because they put warning labels on the box and used denatonium .

1) Standards No current medical use in treatment Generally unfit for human consumption High potential for abuse Lack of accepted safety for use of the substance under med. Form of a substance also constitutes a schedule one substance    .Legal Stuff 10/19/2010 11:13:00 AM 319 Statues – Neg per Se  violated statute/reg  suffered harm (Tuchmont/Miller)  harm was direct and proximate result of violation  statute was designed to protect against type of harm to JD  plaintiff is within the class of persons it was designed to protect Title XII (12)  Unlawful to have requisite intent to man/dist/otherwise dispense any product that has a significant quantity of any Schedule 1 Substance… Defenitions o Person can be HL Requiste intent – with knowledge/purpose/recklessness Significant quantity – any quantity capable of causing injury to person –substiantial risk of death (construed against the person who man/disp/od this product containing Sched. or other o o o o chem. precursor. Use Schedule 1 Substances o K – GHB Related substances o Contains any quanity of any analogue.

10/19/2010 11:13:00 AM .