theme: Colin autoscale: true slidenumbers: true header: #373737, alignment(left), line-height(150%), text-scale(1.0), ITC Galliard Pro Bold Footer:

Midterm Exam Review

Question 1

You are an appellate court judge in the state of Loyola. The defendant, Oopsie Pies Bakery, is appealing from a judgment for the plaintiff, Ashley Giles, following a jury trial. The only issue on appeal is whether the punitive damages award violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to U.S. Constitution.

An employee of Oopsie Pies bakery was carrying a tub of frosting through the bakery from the front door to the kitchen where the baking is done. The employee mishandled the tub of frosting, accidentally letting the frosting spill out over the floor in an area where customers line up to place their orders. Having noticed the spill but needing to get pies in the oven, the employee waited to clean up the mess until she was done with her baking tasks.

In the meantime, Ashley Giles, an elderly customer, entered the store, slipped on the spilled frosting, fell, and fractured her skull. According to expert witness testimony from Giles’s doctor, Giles lost consciousness immediately upon impact and was left in a permanent comatose condition from which she will never recover.

At trial, it was revealed that Giles is not the first customer who has been harmed by Oopsie Pies. After a snowstorm two years ago, Oopsie Pies did not shovel the sidewalk in front of the store. A customer slipped on the icy sidewalk and broke her hip. Last year, Oopsie Pies underbaked a dozen cheesecakes, resulting in nine people having to go to the hospital for food poisoning. None of these injured patrons have sued the bakery. Oopsie Pies has been fined by the board of health on three separate occasions in amounts totaling $1,500 for improper food storage, cross-contamination, and poor personal hygiene. If a health inspector had inspected the restaurant at the time of the accident, Oopsie Pies could have been fined another $1,000 for the offense of having food on the floor.

A jury found Oopsie Pies Bakery negligent and awarded Giles $2,000,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000,000 in punitive damages. The defendant now appeals the punitive damages award.

Write the opinion of the appellate court.

Question 2

You are a junior attorney at a law firm representing YumYum Donuts, a donut franchise that is being sued for negligence by Brendan Patterson, a customer who suffered serious physical injuries during an armed robbery at a YumYum Donuts location.

Patterson was the only customer at YumYum Donuts when a masked robber brandishing a handgun entered the store and demanded that Patterson and the two store employees put their hands in the air. The robber put the gun to Patterson’s head and told him to hand over his wallet. Patterson complied. The robber then demanded that the cashier open the cash register and give him all of the money. The cashier did not do so. Instead, she said, “Oh, I don’t know how this cash register works. I need to call my manager and ask her how to open it. Just let me call her on my cellphone and let her know there’s a robbery, and then she can tell me how to open the register for you.” The robber became extremely agitated, struck Patterson in the face with the butt of the handgun, breaking Patterson’s nose, and told the cashier that he would shoot Patterson if the cashier did not “quit playing games” and open the cash register immediately. Patterson, who believed that he was going to die because of the cashier’s actions, screamed at the cashier to open the drawer and give the money to the robber, at which point the cashier complied and opened the cash register drawer. The robber took the money and fled. YumYum Donuts was unaware at that time of any prior similar crimes or any crimes at this donut shop.

The plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the cashier breached a duty to the plaintiff because she did not comply promptly with the robber’s demands.

A partner at your firm has asked you to develop a legal argument for your client.

From: Process, Drew Drew.Process@deweycheatemhowe.com Sent: Monday, March 4, 2025 10:49 PM To: You Subject: Need your big brain on that donut case

Hey,

YumYum Donuts wants this case gone yesterday. Very bad publicity if this drags on, no time for arguments in front of a jury on this one. Can we get this case dismissed ASAP because YumYum didn’t owe the plaintiff a duty of care? What have you got?

Because we have other attorneys analyzing issues of contributory and comparative negligence, assumption of risk, factual causation, and proximate cause, don’t address those issues. Also, I know you studied vicarious liability in law school, but in case you forgot, YumYum Donuts can be held liable for the tortious conduct of its employees. So if the cashier was negligent, YumYum is liable. Donut screw this up!

Best,

Drew

Question 3

You are a trial court judge in the State of Loyola overseeing a negligence lawsuit. Your job is to issue a ruling on a defendant’s motion for summary judgment and a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Known for its beautiful sunset views, Mount Cardozo is a popular tourist destination within the state of Loyola. Located at the base of the mountain, the Overlook Hotel promises its guests unbeatable sightseeing and photo opportunities, guaranteeing every guest a room with a balcony and a view. One night at sunset, a hotel guest, Sofia Hernandez, stepped out onto her hotel room’s fourth-floor balcony to take a photograph of the sunset over Mount Cardozo. Leaning over the balcony to get a better angle for her photograph, Hernandez fell over the edge of the balcony, landed on the sidewalk below, and suffered serious personal injuries.

Hernandez sued the Overlook Hotel for negligence. The discovery process has revealed the following information.

The local building code requires hotel balcony railings that are at least 30 inches above the ground to be at least 36 inches high and to be able to withstand a force of 200 pounds in any direction. The hotel’s railing design meets these code specifications exactly. The railings are 36 inches high and have been tested to be able to withstand a force of 200 pounds in any direction. The building code also requires gaps between railing balusters (upright vertical supports) to be small enough to prevent a 4-inch sphere from passing through. The hotel’s railing design does not meet these code specifications. The balusters are far enough apart that a 5inch sphere can pass through. There was no warning sign on the railing cautioning guests about the risk of falling over the edge.

The plaintiff’s expert witness, an experienced architect familiar with hotels across the state, testified that some hotels in high-rise or scenic areas install railings at least 42 inches high and use sturdier materials, due to the increased likelihood of guests piling onto the balcony and leaning out to get better views or to take photos. The expert witness estimated that 25% of the hotels in scenic areas took these precautions and that 25% of hotels with balconies included warning stickers on the railings that said, “Do not leave children unattended near balcony. Do not climb on balcony. Severe risk of bodily injury.”

Both parties agree that the hotel had the legal duty to exercise reasonable care to protect Hernandez against both known dangers and those that would be revealed by inspection. The only legal issue in dispute is whether the defendant breached their duty of care to the plaintiff.

The defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the hotel is not negligent as a matter of law. The plaintiff has also filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the hotel is negligent as a matter of law.

How do you rule on these motions? Be sure to explain the legal reasoning behind your rulings. Because both motions address the same legal issue, you should feel free to write one ruling that addresses the merits of both motions rather than write two separate rulings that include duplicative analysis of the same issues.