B < PL?
B = lowering temperature P = probability of injury L = the burns
B < PL?
B = lowering temperature P = probability of injury L = the burns
“untaken precaution”
lowering the temperature of the coffee
Can Ford look to Allied forindemnification?
would depend on whether the foreman pulling up to the Ford factory is sufficient to claim that the contractual performance had commenced
s there federal jurisdiction in a case with the party structure P Japan + P Californiav. D Ghana + D Nebraska + D California ?
No diversity jurisdiction because CA on both sides so a state court could not be biased per neutral forum test
both parties are domiciled in the same state. There is no need to worry about bias(so the argument goes), and thus no need for federal jurisdiction in such a case. So, in the lastportion of § 1332(a)(2), Congress excluded federal jurisdiction in this situation.
so if this case were to go to state court, no need to worry about neutrality/an out-of-stater being the target of bias by the court
minor
if Garcia did not pay an entrance fee, it would have been very difficult to hold Manosa liable. But then you could also argue that the entrance fee was not necessarily only for consumption of the alcohol
sells
the fact that she was charging only people who she didn't know weakens any argument that she was trying to sell. her friends were able to access the same stuff without having to pay
obviously
she did not come across Garcia so she could not have known that he was obviously intoxicated
Civil Code section 171
issue: whether she qualifies for the immunity that a social host gets or whether she gave it up by selling to a minor"
in essence a pop-up nightclub
has that commercial sound to it