Critical Legal Thinking Cases

Prepare answers to the following chapter-end Critical Legal Thinking Cases from this week's reading.

• Case 4.2: Supremacy Clause on page 79
• Case 4.7: Equal Protection Clause on page 80
• Case 5.2: Negligence on page 101
• Case 6.1: Strict Liability on page 117

Your responses should be well-rounded and analytical, and should not just provide a conclusion or an opinion without explaining the reason for the choice.

For full credit, you need to use the material from this week's lectures, text, and/or discussions when responding to the questions. It is important that you incorporate the question into your response (i.e., restate the question in your introduction) and explain the legal principle(s) or concept(s) from the text that underlies your judgment.

For each question, you should provide at least one reference in APA format (in-text citations and references as described in detail in the Syllabus). Each answer should be double-spaced in 12-point font, and your response to each question should be between 300 and 350 words in length.

Submit this assignment as a single Word document covering both cases.

4.2 Supremacy Clause The Clean Air Act, a federal statute, establishes
national air pollution standards for fleet vehicles such as buses, taxicabs,
and trucks. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (South
Coast) is a political entity of the state of California. South Coast
establishes air pollution standards for the Los Angeles, California,
metropolitan area. South Coast enacted fleet rules that prohibited the
purchase or lease by public and private fleet operators of vehicles that do
not meet stringent air pollution standards set by South Coast. South
Coasts fleet emission standards are more stringent than those set by the
federal Clean Air Act. The Engine Manufacturers Association (Association),
a trade association that represents manufacturers and sellers of vehicles,
sued South Coast, claiming that South Coasts fleet rules are preempted
by the federal Clean Air Act. The U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of
Appeals upheld South Coasts fleet rules. The Association appealed to the
U.S. Supreme Court. Are South Coasts fleet rules preempted by the
federal Clean Air Act? Engine Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air
Quality Management District, 541 U.S. 246, 124 S.Ct. 1756, 158 L.Ed.2d
529, Web 2004 U.S. Lexis 3232 (Supreme Court of the United States)
(Cheeseman 79)
Cheeseman, Henry R. Business Law, VitalSource for DeVry University, 8th
Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions, 02/2013. VitalBook file.

4.7 Equal Protection Clause The state of Alabama enacted a statute
that imposed a tax on premiums earned by insurance companies. The
statute imposed a 1 percent tax on domestic insurance companies (i.e.,
insurance companies that were incorporated in Alabama and had their
principal office in the state). The statute imposed a 4 percent tax on the
premiums earned by out-of-state insurance companies that sold insurance
in Alabama. Out-of-state insurance companies could reduce the premium
tax by 1 percent by investing at least 10 percent of their assets in
Alabama. Domestic insurance companies did not have to invest any of
their assets in Alabama. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, an out-ofstate insurance company, sued the state of Alabama, alleging that the
Alabama statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. Who wins and why? Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Ward,
Commissioner of Insurance of Alabama, 470 U.S. 869, 105 S.Ct. 1676, 84
L.Ed.2d 751, Web 1985 U.S. Lexis 80 (Supreme Court of the United
States)
(Cheeseman 80)
Cheeseman, Henry R. Business Law, VitalSource for DeVry University, 8th
Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions, 02/2013. VitalBook file.

5.2 Negligence Curtis R. Wilhelm owned beehives and kept the hives on
property he owned. John Black, who operated a honeybee business,
contracted to purchase some beehives from Wilhelm. Black employed
Santos Flores, Sr. to help him pick up the beehives from Wilhelm. Black
provided Flores with a protective suit to wear while picking up the
beehives. Neither Wilhelm nor Black informed Flores of the danger of
working with bees. After picking up beehives from Wilhelms home, Black
and Flores drove to remote property owned by Wilhelm to pick up other
beehives. Flores opened the veil on his protective suit. After loading one
beehive onto the truck, Flores started staggering and yelling for help.
Flores sustained several bee stings, suffered anaphylactic shock reaction,
and died before an ambulance could reach him. Floress wife and children
sued Wilhelm and Black for negligence for failing to warn Flores of the
dangers of working with beehives and the possibility of dying of
anaphylactic shock if stung by a bee. Did Wilhelm act negligently by
failing to warn Flores of the dangers of working with beehives? Wilhelm v.
Flores, 133 S.W.3d 726, Web 2003 Tex. App. Lexis 9335 (Court of Appeals
of Texas)
(Cheeseman 101-102)
Cheeseman, Henry R. Business Law, VitalSource for DeVry University, 8th
Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions, 02/2013. VitalBook file.
6.1 Strict Liability Senco Products, Inc. (Senco), manufactures and
markets a variety of pneumatic nail guns, including the SN325 nail gun,
which discharges 3.25-inch nails. The SN325 uses special nails designed
and sold by Senco. The SN325 will discharge a nail only if two trigger
mechanisms are activated; that is, the user must both squeeze the nail
guns finger trigger and press the nail guns muzzle against a surface,
activating the bottom trigger, or safety. The SN325 can fire up to nine
nails per second if the trigger is continuously depressed and the gun is
bounced along the work surface, constantly reactivating the muzzle
safety/trigger.
The evidence disclosed that the SN325 double-fired once in every 15
firings. Senco rushed the SN325s production in order to maintain its
position in the market, modifying an existing nail gun model so that the
SN325 could shoot longer nails, without engaging in additional testing to
determine whether the use of longer nails in that model would increase
the prevalence of double-fire.
John Lakin was using a Senco SN325 nail gun to help build a new home.
When attempting to nail two-by-fours under the eaves of his garage, Lakin
stood on tiptoe and raised a two-by-four over his head. As he held the
board in position with his left hand and the nail gun in his right hand, he
pressed the nose of the SN325 up against the board, depressed the

safety, and pulled the finger trigger to fire the nail into the board. The gun
fired the first nail and then double-fired, immediately discharging an
unintended second nail that struck the first nail. The gun recoiled violently
backward toward Lakin and, with Lakins finger still on the trigger, came
into contact with his cheek. That contact activated the safety/trigger,
causing the nail gun to fire a third nail. This third nail went through Lakins
cheekbone and into his brain.
The nail penetrated the frontal lobe of the right hemisphere of Lakins
brain, blocked a major artery, and caused extensive tissue damage. Lakin
was unconscious for several days and ultimately underwent multiple
surgeries. He suffers permanent brain damage and is unable to perceive
information from the left hemisphere of the brain. He also suffers partial
paralysis of the left side of his body. Lakin has undergone a radical
personality change and is prone to violent outbursts. He is unable to
obtain employment. Lakins previously warm and loving relationship with
his wife and four children has been permanently altered. He can no longer
live with his family and instead resides in a supervised group home for
brain-injured persons. Lakin and his wife sued Senco for strict liability
based on design defect. Is Senco liable to Lakin for strict liability based on
a design defect in the SN325 that allowed it to double-fire? Lakin v. Senco
Products, Inc., 144 Ore.App. 52, 925 P.2d 107, Web 1996 Ore. App. Lexis
1466 (Court of Appeals of Oregon)
(Cheeseman 117)
Cheeseman, Henry R. Business Law, VitalSource for DeVry University, 8th
Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions, 02/2013. VitalBook file.
The citation provided is a guideline. Please check each citation for accuracy
before use.