1

Larceny and Burglary

Larceny is a crime involving the unauthorized taking and carrying away of someone else's tangible property, with intent to permanently deprive that person of their interest in the property. Burglary consists of a breaking and entry of a dwelling of another at nighttime with the intent to commit a felony in the structure.

Here, Deborah broke into the garage (breaking and entry) of a dwelling that wasn't hers, at nighttime, with the intent to take wood without authorization. By using the wood to build a fire, Deborah effectively destroyed the wood, thereby permanently depriving the owner of its use. This action satisfies the definition of larceny. Moreover, her actions of breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony (larceny) in the structure meet the definition of burglary as well. Therefore, she could be reasonably charged with both larceny and burglary.

Defense - No specific intent

Larceny and burglary are crimes of specific intent, encompassing the specific intent in larceny to permanently deprive someone of their property, and in burglary, the belief that the entry is into a dwelling and the intent to commit a crime within that dwelling. Deborah may argue that she believed the house and the wood within were unowned, thus lacking the specific intent of larceny. Without the specific intent of larceny, the charge of burglary may not stand. Furthermore, Deborah could argue that she did not consider the garage a dwelling as she believed no one was sleeping inside, and a dwelling is defined by its occupation for sleeping.

The known circumstances include the house being "run-down" and "Deborah thought the house was unoccupied." However, more information is needed to determine whether Deborah believed the house was abandoned. Considering the house was locked and contained usable wood, if Deborah thought the house was owned but the owner was merely absent, it doesn't affect her specific intent to infringe on someone's property, and to commit larceny therein, nor would it change the definition of a dwelling.

Defense - Necessity

The defense of necessity could be invoked if a defendent reasonably believe that commiting a crime is necessary to prevent an imminent and more severe injury to people than the crime itself. Deborah can argue that breaking into the garage and taking wood were actions taken out of necessity to avoid freezing to death. If it can be established that there were no other legal alternatives available to her and that any reasonable person in the same situation would have acted similarly, the necessity defense might be accepted to clear her from the charges of larceny and burglary.

Arson and Murder

Arson and murder are categorized as malice crimes, requiring either intent or a reckless disregard for an obvious risk. Additionally, murder encompasses felony murder, which will be discussed infra.

Defense - No malice

It is apparent that Deborah did not intentionally start a fire or commit murder, so the only question is whether she recklessly disregarded a significant risk that could result in arson and death. From the current circumstances, Deborah likely lacked malice; she merely ignited a "small fire outside the garage to keep herself warm," a common act that generally does not lead to a fire outbreak. She could not have foreseen the sparks, nor could she have anticipated the presence of oil on the floor that could ignite the house. Perhaps, upon waking, had there been time to extinguish the fire, she had a duty to put it out promptly, but her waking to "flames and smoke" suggests that it was already too late for fire containment.

Felony Murder

Felony murder is a distinct concept under common law murder apart from intention and recklessness. Simply put, if a death occurs during the commission of a forcible felony, it can be considered murder. Forcible felonies typically include burglary, arson, among others. In this scenario, if it's established that burglary or arson was being committed by Deborah when Stuart's death occurred, she could potentially be charged with felony murder, despite the lack of intent nor reckless.

Defense - No felony

As mentioned earlier, it is plausible that the burglary charge could be acquitted due to necessity, and the arson charge may not hold due to the lack of intent or malice. Thus, if no felony was committed, there can be no crime of felony murder.

Additionally, it can be argued that even if the act constituted burglary, the burglary concluded once Deborah moved the wood outside the dwelling. Her action of igniting the wood outside and re-entering the dwelling might constitute trespass, but not burglary, as she did not intend to commit a felony inside the dwelling during this re-entry. Since the burglary had ended by the time of the death, even without the defense of necessity, the charge of felony murder would not stand.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter occurs if a killing is committed 1. with criminal negligence (or by "recklessness" under the Model Penal Code) or 2. during the commission of an unlawful act not included in the felony murder rule. Given that any potential crime, even trespass, might be excused due to necessity, the only remaining question is whether there was criminal negligence on Deborah's part for Stuart's death.

This is a close call, and it would be up to a jury to decide based on the circumstances at the time, examining what a reasonable person would do, whether they would foresee the occurrence of a fire, whether they would anticipate someone being inside the dwelling, and whether there was a duty to inspect the scene and render aid after the fire broke out.

In conclusion, Deborah might escape most of the charges levied against her, with involuntary manslaughter being the only possible conviction.

2

The Constitution prohibits any individual from being compelled to make self-incriminating statements. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court further stipulated that before any custodial interrogation, individuals must be informed of their right to remain silent among other rights. The Supreme Court defines "custodial interrogation" based on whether an individual feels they are free to leave soon, hence general questioning by police to pedestrians does not constitute custodial interrogation. Even brief stops, like halting a car to inquire if the driver has been drinking, do not necessitate the exclusion of obtained statements.

Here, the police merely questioned Deborah without taking any actions that would make her feel she was not free to leave. Therefore, Deborah's statement need not be excluded as the interaction does not meet the criteria for a custodial interrogation as defined by the Supreme Court.

Alternatively, if there was an unreasonable seizure (or arrest) under the Fourth Amendment, then any statement obtained as a result of this seizure might be excluded. As discussed supra, Deborah was only stopped for questioning and did not feel she was detained or not free to leave, this interaction might not be considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Amy

Amy's liability in this case can be analyzed under the four elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.

1. Duty: Amy, as a driver, had a duty to operate her vehicle safely and adhere to traffic laws to prevent harm to others on the road.

2. Breach: Amy breached this duty by allowing herself to be distracted by her work email while driving, especially in heavy traffic conditions.

3. Causation: Amy's distraction was the actual and proximate cause of the accident. "Actual cause" means that but for Amy's negligence, the accident would not have occurred. "Proximate cause" relates to whether the harm was a foreseeable result of the negligence.

4. Damages: Priya, the other driver, suffered serious injuries as a result of the accident, thus establishing damages.

The discussion regarding whether Amy was acting within the scope of her employment, and whether ABC will be held vicariously liable, will be discused infra. However, this does not absolve her of personal liability for the negligence that caused the accident. Hence, Amy is the primary defendant in this case and bears responsibility for the damages incurred by Priya.

ABC Law firm

The potential liability of ABC Law Firm primarily hinges on the legal principle of vicarious liability, particularly the theory of respondeat superior. According to this theory, an employer may be held liable for the negligent actions of an employee if those actions were performed within the scope of employment.

1. Scope of Employment:

ABC may argue that at the time of the accident, Amy was off-duty and not acting within the scope of her employment, which generally could exempt the firm from liability. However, in this particular case, given the firm's strict policy requiring attorneys to respond to client communications immediately, even while off-duty, it is likely that ABC's argument may fail.

Amy was adhering to the firm's policy of promptly responding to client emails when the accident occurred. This policy, aimed at facilitating prompt attorney-client communication, clearly aligns with the firm's business interests and operations. Thus, it can be argued that Amy was acting within the scope of her employment when the accident happened.

2. Employment Relationship:

Although Amy is a partner in the firm, the nature of the partnership in a general partnership agreement implies a form of employer-employee relationship rather than an independent contractor relationship. This is due to the shared liability and decision-making authority within the firm. The employer-employee relationship is a requisite for applying the doctrine of respondeat superior.

3. Respondeat Superior:

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, ABC Law Firm could be held vicariously liable for Amy's negligence since her actions, aimed at adhering to the firm's policy, were within the scope of her employment. The firm's requirement for attorneys to carry their work-provided cell phones and respond to client emails immediately represents a form of control over how and when the attorneys perform their duties, which is a key element in establishing vicarious liability.

Given these factors, there is a substantial argument to be made for ABC Law Firm's vicarious liability in this scenario. The firm's policy and the nature of the partnership agreement could potentially extend liability to ABC Law Firm for the negligent actions of its partner, Amy, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Bob and Carl

Under the doctrine of joint and several liability associated with general partnerships, each partner is held to have unlimited joint and several liability for the tortious actions of other partners performed in the course of the partnership's business. Therefore, Bob and Carl could also be held liable for Amy's negligence.

Sam

A general partnership is formed whenever two or more persons associate for the purpose of carrying on a business for profit. Becoming a general partnership does not require the submission of any documents to the Secretary of State, nor the formation of any written or oral partnership agreements.

Individuals may become general partners unknowingly or even unwillingly based on their actions and representations to others. In this scenario, the actions and arrangements suggest that Sam may have become a de facto general partner in ABC Law Firm.

1. Shared Office Space and Resources:

Sam leases an office within ABC's suite and utilizes the ABC receptionist for greeting his clients. This physical integration and shared use of resources may suggest a deeper affiliation with the partnership.

2. Use of ABC's Firm Name and Telephone Number:

Sam's use of ABC's firm name and telephone number on his letterhead can be viewed as a representation to the public and clients that he is part of ABC, which could be indicative of a partnership relationship.

3. Profit Sharing:

Sam receives 10% of the annual profits of ABC in recognition of his value to the firm. Profit sharing is a characteristic feature of a partnership relationship, indicating a shared interest in the success of the firm.

4. Billing Arrangement:

Although Sam bills his clients directly, his close working relationship and financial arrangements with ABC might blur the lines between an independent contractor and a partner.

5. Enhanced Profile and Prestige:

ABC acknowledges that Sam's presence raises the profile and prestige of the firm, indicating a mutual benefit and possibly a shared business objective.

Given these factors, there is a plausible argument that Sam has become a de facto general partner, despite the absence of an agreement. Should this be the case, under the doctrine of joint and several liability associated with general partnerships, as discussed supra, Sam would share in the liabilities of the partnership, including tortious actions of other partners carried out in the course of the partnership's business, and would also be held liable for Amy's negligent actions.

It should be emphasized that Laura serves as the general counsel for MoreHome Mortgage Company, with her primary allegiance being to the corporation itself, not to any of its executives or employees. While her role necessitates communication with company personnel, including Eric, the Chief Executive Officer, such interactions must strictly adhere to professional legal ethics. A challenge arises when the interest of the company is inconsistent with the interests of individuals within the company.

Duty of loyalty

As discussed above, the lawyer's client is MoreHome, which means she needs to maintain loyalty solely to the company, and to avoid conflicts of interest. When Eric approached Laura, if there had been an inconsistency between Eric's interests and those of the company, it would have been appropriate for Laura to advise Eric to seek independent counsel. However, since Eric was not personally implicated in the document falsification, her interests appeared to be aligned with the company's. Under these circumstances, Laura could represent both the company and Eric concurrently. Hence, even if Laura had offered legal advice to Eric, which she did not, it would not have been a breach of professional ethics.

A conflict of interest arises when Eric instructs Laura not to disclose information to others. At this point, Laura can no longer act according to Eric's instructions. The more appropriate course of action would have been for Laura to inform Eric that he is not her client and that her actions will be guided by the best interests of the company, not Eric's personal preferences. This clarification could have helped to set the right expectations and uphold the professional boundaries between Laura and Eric while ensuring that the company's interests remained the primary focus of Laura's actions.

The conflict of interest extends to the confidentiality obligations Laura may have towards Eric, if any. It should have been made clear at the beginning that any communication between Laura and Eric would not be kept confidential from the company, given that Eric is not her client, or at best, is a joint client with the company. Therefore, when Eric instructed Laura not to disclose information to the company, Laura should have promptly declined.

Duty of honesty

An attorney's appearance should reflect honesty, not only towards their client but also towards the public. Regardless of whether Eric was her client, Laura should have candidly informed him that any communication between them would not be confidential, instead of saying she would "think about it" and then immediately disclosing the information shared by him to the CEO. Laura might argue that she did not agree to confidentiality and stating "think about it" was a way to avoid an awkward refusal, thereby leaving some room for contemplation. However, considering the above discussion regarding the notification of conflict of interest, the State Bar might find it more appropriate if Laura had informed Eric at the beginning that their communication would not be confidential.

Duty to report internally

Laura bears an absolute duty to report the discovered misconduct within the company to its highest levels. Disclosing such matters to the CEO does not violate any professional ethics; on the contrary, professional ethics explicitly mandate Laura to take such action, even in the face of opposition from Eric. However, when the CEO showed indifference towards the disclosed misconduct, it was necessary for Laura to take the matter to higher authorities within the company. Typically, a corporation would have a board of directors representing its highest governing authority. Hence, Laura's failure to disclose the misconduct to the board of directors might constitute a violation of professional ethics.

Duty of confidentiality

An attorney is obligated to maintain confidentiality regarding client information, which means, generally, Laura should not disclose MoreHome's alleged misconduct to external parties. However, an exception to this rule exists when an attorney seeks advice on how to comply with professional ethics, permitting limited disclosure to outside counsel. Therefore, Laura's action of sharing some confidential information while consulting with an external attorney did not violate the duty of confidentiality. This step was taken in an effort to ascertain the correct ethical path forward, demonstrating a prudent approach towards adhering to professional ethics while navigating a complex situation.

Duty to report externally

An attorney typically does not have a duty to report externally. If Laura chose not to report outside the company, she would not be violating any professional ethics. However, her decision to report externally could potentially cross ethical lines. As previously mentioned, Laura should have first reported to the Board of Directors, and only considered external reporting if the Board remained indifferent.

Assuming that the CEO is the highest governing authority within the company, or that the CEO has control over the Board making reporting to them futile, whether Laura's external reporting breaches professional ethics may depend on whether the ABA or California's professional ethics standards are applied. Under the ABA guidelines, an attorney may report externally if the company is involved in 1. clear violation of law and 2. actions detrimental to the company's interest. California, on the other hand, only permits external reporting if the actions could result in death or serious bodily harm. Here, the company employees' actions of falsifying financial records clearly violate the law and are detrimental to the company's interests, but do not rise to the level of causing bodily harm or death. Therefore, under the ABA guidelines, Laura's action of reporting externally may not violate professional ethics, contrasting with California's more restrictive rules which might view Laura's actions as a breach of professional ethics.

In conclusion, Laura violated professional ethics when she failed to immediately inform Eric about the existence of a conflict of interest and the absence of confidentiality obligations between them. Furthermore, Laura might have breached professional ethics by not reporting to a higher authority within the company, if any. Lastly, the act of reporting externally could potentially contravene professional ethics if California rules are applied. But since her decision was made post consultation with external counsel, even if found in violation, the State Bar might consider Laura's honest belief that she was adhering to professional ethics, which could mitigate any disciplinary actions.

Battery

The claim of battery typically requires the proof of intent. Intent in a battery claim is often defined as having a substantial certainty that the action will cause harm to the plaintiff. In this case, there is not evidence presented to suggest that DishWay had the substantial certainty that their product would cause harm, especially since they were unaware of the residue issue with aluminum. Therefore, a claim of battery may not be supported in this scenario.

Negligence

To establish a product negligence case against DishWay, the following four elements must be closely examined: duty, breach, causation, and damage.

Duty

The initial step is to ascertain whether DishWay owed a duty of care to Paul. It is a general principle that manufacturers have a duty to ensure the safety of their products for consumers. However, the extent of this duty may be contingent on what a reasonable business would do under similar circumstances. Whether a reasonable business would test for residue on aluminum in this situation might require more information and would likely be a matter for a jury to decide.

Breach

If a jury determines that a reasonable business would test a dishwasher agent for residue on various surfaces, especially given the knowledge that residue can vary across different materials, then DishWay's duty to ensure the safety of UltraKlean would extends to such testing to identify and mitigate potential risks associated with residue left on common materials. If that is the case, DishWay may have breached its duty by failing to test UltraKlean on aluminum cookware, a common material.

On the other hand, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could be particularly relevant in this case. This legal principle allows an inference of negligence to be drawn from the very nature of an accident or injury, under the assumption that certain events ordinarily do not occur in the absence of negligence. Here, the mere fact of UltraKlean leaving a potentially dangerous residue on aluminum cookware could, in itself, be indicative of negligence. This could shift the burden of proof to DishWay, compelling them to demonstrate that there was no negligence in their testing or manufacturing process.

Causation

Causation requires showing that "but for" the defendant's breach of duty, the plaintiff would not have been harmed. In this scenario, there seems to be a clear causal link between DishWay's failure to test UltraKlean on aluminum and Paul's injuries. The laboratory test results confirmed that the cleaning agent in UltraKlean caused Paul's stomach pain.

In addition to the factual causation linking DishWay's breach to Paul's injuries, the foreseeability of the harm is also a crucial aspect of causation. DishWay could argue that while it is known that the agent in UltraKlean could cause severe stomach pain if ingested, this is a common characteristic of all detergent products, and thus they had no reason to foresee that their product would behave differently on aluminum. They might also contend that they could not have foreseen that the residue on aluminum would exceed safe levels, as there was no indication that UltraKlean would react differently with aluminum compared to other materials. However, this argument is likely to fail given that it is not unusual for dishwasher powders to leave a harmless amount of residue on different surfaces. The commonality of residue left by dishwasher powders could establish a basis for foreseeability, implying that DishWay should have anticipated and tested for varying levels of residue on different materials including aluminum, to ensure the safety of UltraKlean for all users.

Damage

Finally, the damage element requires showing that the plaintiff suffered actual harm or loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's breach or the product's defect. It is important to note that pure economic loss is generally not recoverable in product liability claims. Here, Paul encountered severe stomach pain necessitating hospitalization due to the UltraKlean residue on his aluminum cookware, thereby substantiating the element of damage.

Based on these elements, there could be a strong argument for negligence on DishWay's part. The potential success of DishWay in defending against a negligence claim might hinge on convincing the jury that they fulfilled the duty of a reasonable business, and that the unique residue issue with aluminum was unforeseeable.

Strict Liablity

In a strict product liability claim, the plaintiff needs to establish four key elements: 1) that the defendant is a merchant, 2) that the product sold or produced by the defendant was defective, 3) causation and 4) damages.

DishWay is clearly a merchant specifically involved in the creation and/or distribution of dishwasher products like UltraKlean.

The focus is on whether the product was defective, and a defect is often assessed based on whether the product meets the reasonable expectations of the consumer. In this scenario, Paul used UltraKlean on a very common material, aluminum, and suffered severe health consequences as a result, which clearly falls short of the reasonable expectations for the product's performance and safety. Therefore, it could be strongly argued that UltraKlean was defective.

A common defense against a claim of defectiveness is the argument that a product could not have been made safer, given the existing level of technology and practical constraints at the time of manufacture. However, in this case, that argument appears to be weak. Other similar products do not have this issue, and a simple, low-cost test on aluminum by DishWay could have potentially identified and resolved the residue problem, indicating that there was room for improvement to make UltraKlean safer.

Upon establishing a defect in strict liability claims, it is also essential to establish causation and damage. As discussed in the negligence part, these two elements may be relatively easier to prove.

Breach of Warranty

Express warranties are affirmations of fact or promises made by the seller to the buyer which relate to the goods and become part of the basis of the bargain. Here, DishWay's advertisement of UltraKlean as a "safe product" can indeed simplifies matters because regardless of whether there was negligence on the part of DishWay or if UltraKlean was defective, DishWay clearly contradicted their advertisement promise by labeling UltraKlean as a "safe product." This contradiction constitutes a breach of express warranty, which is a straightforward claim

Furthermore, even in the absence of an express warranty, there could still be a case for breach of implied warranty. Implied warranties are unspoken, unwritten promises created by law, which assure that the product will function as expected, including a basic level of safety which is a fundamental expectation for a dishwasher detergent.

To conclude, battery claims seem less likely, while negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty claims present stronger avenues for pursuing liability against DishWay, regardless of their advertising assertions on safety.