Blog

Please state the 5 components of fitness

This theory states that self-regulation through setting goals and monitoring progress is important in changing exercise behavior

One method of problem solving with your client is to

Name a leader of a nonviolent political movement.

Walt is the owner of Walt Security, a sole proprietorship. Walt advertised in the local newspaper that the first 5 local callers who mention the advertisement would receive a free estimate for the installation of a new residential security system. The reasonable value of the estimate is $200. Jesse was the 3rd caller to mention the advertisement and said that he would like an estimate for a new security system. It was a Monday.   On Tuesday, Walt visited Jesse’s property and told him that he could install a six-camera security system for $3,000, with installation to be complete within the week and payment upfront. The cost to Walt for the cameras and system equipment was $500. Jesse said that he was in agreement but that he needed at least an eight-camera system and that the cost must be less than $2,500.    On Wednesday, Walt called Jesse and told him that he agreed to Jesse’s terms and would install the security system the next day, Thursday.  On Thursday, Walt showed up with the security system ready to install and Jesse asked him, “Just to clarify, you are going to install an eight-camera system for $2,400, today, payment to be received 30 days from installation, correct?” Walt replied, “Yes.”  Later that day, after the system was installed, Jesse inquired of Walt, “Money’s a little tight right now, will you take $2,000, with payment still due 30 days after installation?” Walt replied, “Sure.” It has been several months and Walt has not been paid. Walt sent Jesse a letter threatening to sue him for $2,400 plus a fee of $200 for the original estimate. The value of Jesse’s home has appreciated by $2,000 due to the new security system. What are the rights, remedies, and defenses (if any) in the matter of: Walt v. Jesse?  [Do not consider any modern contractor statutes]

Paul, driving his car, collided with a travel tour bus driven by Faustino. Ron owned the travel tour bus. Faustino was the lead driver and trained other drivers. Ron immediately fired Faustino after the accident. Paul suffered a broken arm. Paul sued both Faustino and Ron’s company for personal injuries and negligence.  At trial the following happened: Paul testified, “After the crash, I, within seconds, ran over and looked at Faustino closely. Faustino was bleeding from his ears and nose. He was moving his arms wildly. He seemed to be really hurt and very agitated. Faustino screamed, ‘Oh my God! This never would have happened if I was not late and rushing to pick up my scheduled senior citizen tour! Why? Why? Why?’” Defense counsel called an Emergency room doctor to testify. As she was treating Paul in a private room, she asked Paul how he broke his arm. Paul said, “Please don’t tell. As I was driving, I dropped my cell phone. I was looking down for it when the crash happened. My arm hit the door hard.” Assume all objections were timely made. Were each of these statements properly admitted? Answer using CEC and FRE where applicable.

Wendy sued her friend for injuries she received as a passenger in the friend’s car. On direct examination, Wendy testified that the friend had been speeding and ran a red light. On cross-examination, Wendy was asked whether she was under the influence of drugs at the time of the accident. Wendy invoked the privilege against self-incrimination.  How should the court treat Wendy’s claim of privilege?

A plaintiff sued a ladder manufacturer for injuries he suffered to his neck and back when a rung of the ladder on which he was standing gave way. When the plaintiff’s back and neck continued to be very sore after more than two weeks, his treating physician sent him to an orthopedist for an evaluation. Though the orthopedist did not treat the plaintiff, he diagnosed an acute cervical strain. At trial, the plaintiff called the orthopedist to testify that in response to the orthopedist’s inquiry about how the plaintiff had injured his back, the plaintiff told him, “I was standing near the top of a 15-foot ladder when I abruptly fell, landing hard on my back, after which the ladder toppled onto my neck.” Should the statement be admitted?

Dave is charged with robbing a bank. During Dave’s trial in California Superior Court, the prosecution calls Dave’s wife, Wilma, to the stand. Wilma testified, over Dave’s objection, (1) that she saw Dave commit the robbery. The prosecution then asks Wilma, over Dave’s objection, (2) whether Dave told her: “I committed the bank robbery.”  How should the court rule on Dave’s two objections?

U.S. Spy #1 was waiting on the sidewalk in front of the entrance to a 10-story hotel. As Soviet Spy passed him, U.S. Spy #1 opened up his umbrella to indicate that Soviet Spy had just passed him; the opening of the umbrella was intended for U.S. Spy #2, who was located on the 10th floor of the hotel.  The prosecutor seeks to introduce U.S. Spy #1’s action of opening up the umbrella through the testimony of U.S. Spy #2, currently on the witness stand. The defense objects, “Hearsay!”   Under the California Evidence Code, the judge should: