A vintner whose winery building burned down sued a supply co…

A vintner whose winery building burned down sued a supply company, alleging that  two large tanks that he had purchased from the supply company a month earlier had overheated and caused the fire. The supply company’s defense is that the fire was caused by the vintner’s failure to install modern electrical wiring in the rather old building. At trial, the vintner seeks to establish that the tanks overheated by testifying that, two weeks after the tanks were installed, a supply company employee came to inspect the installation, and the vintner said to him, “You know, sometimes these tanks get awful hot.” Should the vintner be permitted to so testify?

Seventeen years ago, a lumberjack purchased Lot 1, which is…

Seventeen years ago, a lumberjack purchased Lot 1, which is adjacent to Lot 2 and Lot 3. A public road runs along the far side of Lots 2 and 3. At the time of the purchase, he asked the owner of Lot 2 to grant him an easement to use the paved way across Lot 2 to haul logs to the public road. The owner of Lot 2 agreed. The lumberjack paid nothing for the easement, and the deed granting the easement was properly recorded. For six months, the lumberjack hauled logs across Lot 2. The lumberjack then negotiated with the owner of Lot 3, and she granted him a license to haul logs on the gravel road across Lot 3 to the public road, a shorter distance than the route across Lot 2. The lumberjack paid the owner of Lot 3 a modest annual fee for this privilege. Since that time, the lumberjack has never used the paved way across Lot 2 for any purpose. Six months ago, the owner of Lot 2 conveyed the lot to a buyer, and two weeks ago, the buyer had a chain-link fence built around the perimeter of Lot 2, which blocked the lumber- jack’s access to the paved way crossing Lot 2. One week ago, acting within her rights, the owner of Lot 3 revoked the lumberjack’s license to use the gravel road crossing Lot 3. The next day, the lumberjack demanded that the buyer of Lot 2 remove the chain-link fence because of the easement, but the buyer refused. The state has a 15-year prescription and adverse possession period. Which of the following best represents the lumberjack’s rights under the circumstances?

A mother brought her nine-year-old son to an indoor shopping…

A mother brought her nine-year-old son to an indoor shopping mall. She was not planning on making any purchases that day, just spending some time with her son. When her son needed to use the men’s restroom, his mother did some window shopping at the adjacent store. A criminal cornered the boy in the men’s room and assaulted him. The criminal then quickly left the mall and has not been apprehended. The mother filed suit against the mall’s owner on behalf of her son for the injuries he suffered. If the mall is found not liable, what is the likely reason?

A young boy was hospitalized after he accidentally swallowed…

A young boy was hospitalized after he accidentally swallowed a coin while playing. The boy recovered, but his mother began suffering feelings of anxiety, worrying that her child might be injured again. The mother went to a movie to relax and ordered some popcorn. While handling her change, the concession stand attendant carelessly dropped a quarter into the popcorn, which the mother did not notice until she bit the quarter. She did not swallow the quarter, nor did she bite on it hard enough to injure her teeth or gums, but the feel of the coin brought back all her anxieties about the boy’s injury. The mother sued the movie theater for her emotional distress. If the jury finds that a reasonable person would not have suffered similar distress under the circumstances, is the mother likely to prevail?