Paul ordered merchandise from Store.  When the merchandise w…

Paul ordered merchandise from Store.  When the merchandise was delivered, Paul decided that it was not what he had ordered and returned it for credit.  Store refused to credit Paul’s account, continued to bill him, and after 90 days turned the account over to Rocko, a bill collector, for collection.  Rocko called at Paul’s house at 7:00 pm on a summer evening while many of Paul’s neighbors were seated on their porches.  When Paul opened the door, Rocko, who was standing just outside the door, raised an electrically amplified bullhorn to his mouth.  In a voice that could be heard a block away, Rocko called Paul a “deadbeat” and asked him when he intended to pay his bill to Store.  Paul, greatly angered, slammed the door shut.  The door struck the bullhorn and jammed it into Rocko’s mouth.  As a result, Rocko lost some of his front teeth.  If Paul asserts a claim based on defamation against Rocko, will Paul prevail?

Carco manufactures motor vehicles.  A federal regulation req…

Carco manufactures motor vehicles.  A federal regulation requires that all motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the U.S. be equipped with seat belts for each passenger and prescribes the specifications for those seat belts.  Carco equipped all its cars with seat belts.  It purchased all the bolts used in its seat belt assemblies from Metalco.  Carco also tested samples of the bolts from each shipment received from Metalco.  Tony purchased a motor vehicle manufactured by Carco.  While operating the car with Tammy as a passenger in the front seat, Tony collided with another vehicle.  The collision was solely due to Tony’s negligence.  Tammy had her seat belt fastened, but one of the bolts which anchored the belt to the frame broke.  Tammy was thrown through the windshield of the car sustaining serious injuries.  Tony, whose seat belt was fastened, and which held at the time of the collision, was killed when, following the collision, the car went off the road, down an embankment, and overturned.  Subsequent to the accident, tests of the bolt that broke showed metallurgical defects in the bolt.  Carco’s records showed that tests of samples from the shipment in which the defective bolt was received revealed no defective bolts.  If there is guest statute in the state where the accident occurred, then in any action by Tammy against Carco, the guest statute has what effect?