- Commonwealth v Feinberg- he sold industrial strength sterno knowing that people were inclined to drink it to get high. There was an extreme warning. He sold some cans and V drank them and died. ∆ held liable for manslaughter.
- V acted on their on volition and consented to drink the sterno.
- The fact that they bought and drank the sterno showed that they were addicts. Should that make a difference? How about the fact that they were poor?
- Would it matter if he had never sold sterno before? The addicts might have thought that they new sterno was the same as what he sold before….
- Russian roulette cases- does it matter who was in the room or who held the gun, and how does it contrast w/ drag racing cases where if your partner dies it is not homicide….
The best place for complete law school case briefs and law-related news. Want to advertise or post sponsored content? contact us at mrmetropolitan@gmail.com
Friday, September 14, 2012
Commonwealth v. Feinberg case brief
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Ins and Outs of Class Action Lawsuits: A Comprehensive Guide
Sometimes, you may buy a product only to find it defective. To make it worse, your search for the product reveals mass complaints. You can ...
-
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
-
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
-
Case Brief: Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. 489 U.S. 141 (1989) Facts: In this case, Bonito Boats, Inc. (Bonito) and Thunder...
No comments:
Post a Comment