Exercise 1

Begin the following exercises by looking up the cases cited. Then write a
casenote for each one--that is, a short case synopsis that follows a standard
form: (1) case name and citation; (2) brief facts; (3) question for decision; (4)
holding; (5) reasoning. Your finished product should fit on a five-by-seven-inch
index card (front and back). The exercises are increasingly challenging for either
or both of two reasons: first, the increasing complexity of the legal principles
involved; and second, the increasing difficulty of the language used in the
opinions. When you're finished, have a friend assess how easy it is to understand
what you've written.
Here's an example of a casenote:
Case: Henderson v. Ford Motor Co., 519 S.W.2d 87 (Tex. 1974).
Facts: While driving in city traffic, Henderson found that, despite repeated
attempts, she couldn't brake. To avoid injuring anyone, she ran into a pole. An
investigator later found that part of a rubber gasket from the air filter had gotten
into the carburetor. Henderson sued Ford on various theories, including defective
design. Her expert witness didn't criticize the design of the gasket, carburetor, or
air filter, but did say that the positioning of the parts might have been better. No
one testified that the air-filter housing was unreasonably dangerous from the
time of installation. Yet the jury determined that the air-filter housing was
defective and that this defect had caused Henderson's damage.
Question: The expert witness didn't testify that the design was
unreasonably dangerous--only that it could be improved on. Is this testimony
sufficient to support a jury finding that a product's design is unreasonably
dangerous?
Holding: Mere evidence that a design could be made better--without
evidence that the design itself was unreasonably dangerous--is insufficient to
impose liability on a manufacturer.
Reasoning: A person suing on a design defect must provide some evidence
that the design of the product made it unreasonably dangerous. Specifically, the
evidence must show that a prudent manufacturer who was knowledgeable about
the risks would not have placed the particular product in the stream of
commerce. Mere speculation that a product might be improved on does not
constitute evidence of a design defect. A manufacturer is not required to design
the best product scientifically possible.
Basic
Write a casenote for Serrano-Moran v. Grau-Gaztambide, 195 F.3d 68 (1st Cir.
1999). If you belong to a writing group or class, bring a copy of your casenote for
each colleague.
Intermediate
Write a casenote for Floudiotis v. State, 726 A.2d 1196 (Del. 1999). If you belong
to a writing group or class, bring a copy of your casenote for each colleague.
Advanced

Write a casenote for Atlas Food Systems & Services, Inc. v. Crane National
Vendors, Inc., 99 F.3d 587 (4th Cir. 1996). If you belong to a writing group or
class, bring a copy of your casenote for each colleague.